|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:l f | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| NUREG-1555 Environmental Standard Review Plan Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants
| |
| _ Draft Report for Comment U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation y> <euq, Wg) l 98jl12 970831 1555 R PDR t '0 ggeses I 1
| |
| | |
| ! )
| |
| ( ,/ AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publicetions will be available from one of the following sources:
| |
| : 1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001
| |
| : 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P. O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328
| |
| : 3. The National Technical information Service, Springflold, VA 22161-0002 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it h not Intended to be exhaustive.
| |
| Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the f*'RC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda: NRC bulletins, circulars, Information notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee docu-ments and correspondence.
| |
| The following documents in the NUREG series are evallatslo for purchase from the Government Printing Office: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference pro-coedings, intomational agreement reports, graMee reports, and NRC booklets and bro-
| |
| /] chures. Also evallable are regulatory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regula-Q} tions, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.
| |
| Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG-series reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Comrnission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional reporta can usually be obtained from these libraries.
| |
| Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC con-f orence proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publica-tion cited, Single copies of NRC draft repoJL are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office of Administration Distribution and Mall Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiscion, Washington DC 20555-0001.
| |
| Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rock-ville, MD 20852-2738, for use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018-3308.
| |
| (3 t
| |
| Y w/
| |
| | |
| L l f
| |
| NUREG-1555 l
| |
| u Environmental Standard Review Plan Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for' Nuclear Power Plants Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: August 1997 Date Published: August 1997 Division of Resctor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
| |
| / k
| |
| %,.....)
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the h3C staff. l Please sexify the report number, draft NUREG 1555, in your comments, and send them by the due 6te published in the Federal Register notice to:
| |
| Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Office of Administra'Jon Mail Stop T6-DS9 Washington, DC 20555-0001 )
| |
| O O
| |
| | |
| - . . . .- .- _ . - - . - -.- . - . . . - ..-.. .- - .- ... -. . . ~ _ - . . - . . . . . . .
| |
| g ABSTRACT L
| |
| This document, for public review and comment, provides guidance to the. staffin implementing .
| |
| provisions of 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domes'ic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," related to new site / plant applications and license rene vals. It supersedes
| |
| " Environmental Standard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construction Permit
| |
| ' Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0555, issued in 1978. Slece then, new technical issues--such as environmentaljustice and severe accident mitigation design alternatives-and new licensing structures-such as early site permits, combined licenses, and license renewal-have raised the need for new regulatory guidance, ,
| |
| 1 4
| |
| P l
| |
| ?
| |
| Y August 1997 iii NUREG-1555 (Draft) e.
| |
| c m 3- -
| |
| -w,.,y -.-. - , -n,..,, -w
| |
| | |
| .n . , , - . - . . . .
| |
| i j ,
| |
| i
| |
| =
| |
| y
| |
| * 1 s t
| |
| A Cobm
| |
| "' h - ,
| |
| INTRODUC110N ~ -
| |
| g
| |
| * ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLANS : -
| |
| l
| |
| .- . 8 e= t 1; Introduction to the EnvironmentalImpact Statement .- 1 1.1 The Proposed Project :
| |
| 1.2 - Status of Reviews, Approvals, and Consultations .
| |
| 21: Environmental Descriptioni
| |
| , 2.1 1 Station Location i2.2 . Land : ,
| |
| - 2.2,1 The Site'and Vicinity 2.2.2.. Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas -
| |
| 2.23; The Regloir 231 Water - +
| |
| , L 2.3.11 Hydrology -
| |
| 23.2 Water Use -
| |
| 23J 1 Water _ Quality'_
| |
| - 2.47 Ecology _
| |
| * 2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology
| |
| ;( 2.4.2__ Aquatic Ecology E 2.5 Socioeconomics -
| |
| 2.5.lD Demography :
| |
| [ ~ 2.5.2 4. Community Characteristics .
| |
| i 2.53 l Historic Properties -
| |
| 2.5.4 - Environmental Justice 2.6 J Geology-
| |
| ' 2.7 Meteorology and Air Quality-T2.8 : Related Federal Project Activities
| |
| ; 3- Plant Description . .
| |
| 3,1 : External Appearance and Plant Layout -
| |
| 3.2 Reactor Steam-Electric System
| |
| -33 Plant Water Use i _33.1 2 Water Consumption'-
| |
| 33.2 c. Water Treatment
| |
| : 3,41: Cooling System :
| |
| 3.4.1 H Description and Operational Modes -.
| |
| L . 13,4.2) Component Descriptions-l 3.St : Radioactive-Waste Management System i- - .
| |
| : f. l. ,
| |
| LV 9 August 1997- -- v NUREG-1555 (Draft)
| |
| !~. <
| |
| , , 4 y 4. , m j
| |
| | |
| 3.6 Nonradioactive Waste Systems ,
| |
| 3.6.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides 3.6.2 Sanitary System Effluents 3.6.3 Other Efiluents 3.7 Power Transmission Systems 3.8 Transportation of Radioactive Materials 4 Environmental Impacts of Construction or Refurbishment 4.1 Land Use Impacts 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.1.2 Transmission. Corridors and Offsite Areas 4.1.3 Historic Properties 4.2 Water Reined Impacts 4.2.1 liydrologic Alterations 4.2.2 Water Use impacts 4.3 EcologicalImpacts 4.3.1 Terr ~ m.1 Ecosystems 4.3.2 Aquaw Lcosystems 4.4 Socioeconomic impacts 4.4.1 PhysicalImpacts 4.4.2 Social and Economic Impacts 4.4.3 EnvironmentalJusticeImpacts 4.5 Rad!ation Exposure to Construction Workers 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction or Refurbishments 5 Environmental Impacts of Station Operation 5.1 Land-Use impacts 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 5.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas 5.1.3 IIistoric Properties 5.2 Water-Related Impacts 5.2.1 Ilydrologic Alterations and Plant Water Supply 5.2.2 Water Use impacts 5.3 Cooling System Impacts 5.3.1 Intake System 5.3.1.1 Hydrodynamic Description and Physical Impacts 5.3.1.2 Aquatic Ecosystems 5.3.2 Discharge System 5.3.2.1 Thermal Description and Physical Impacts 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Ecosystems 5.3.3 Heat Discharge System 5.3.3.1 Heat Dissipation to the Atmosphere 5.3.3.2 Terrestrial Ecosystems NUREG-1555 (Draft) vi August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| m +
| |
| .- 5.3.4 ' Impacts to Man .- ,
| |
| i- 5.4 : Radiological' impacts of Normal Operatibn ;
| |
| SJ 5.4.1I Exposure Pathways '; .
| |
| 5.4.2 -' Radiation Doses to Members of the Public <
| |
| J 5.43 Impacts to Man -
| |
| 5.4.4 Impacts to Biota Other than Man . ,
| |
| 5.5: EnvironmentalImpacts of Waste 5.5.1 ' Nonradivactive-Waste-System Impacts 5.5.2; : Mixed Waste Impacts 5.6' L Transmission System impacts 5.6.1: Terrestrial Ecenystems
| |
| ~ 5.6.2 : Aquatic Ecosystems 5.6.3 -Impacts to Man-5.7 ' Uranium Fuel-Cycle Impacts 5.8 ' Socioeconomic Impacts -
| |
| g5.8.1:1 Physicalimpacts 5.8.2 : Social and Economic impacts 5.8.3 - Environmental Justice impacts -
| |
| 5.9 ' : Decommissioning 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs
| |
| ' 6.1 Thermal Monitoring g - 6.2 _ Radiological Monitoring
| |
| -63 Hydrological Monitoring 6.4 Meteorological Monitoring -
| |
| 6.5 -- Ecological Monitoring 6.5.1L Terrestrial Ecology and Land Use 6.5.2 Aquatic Ecology
| |
| . 6.6 - Chemical Monitoring 6.7 - Summary of Monitoring Programs
| |
| .7 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents involving Radioactive Materials
| |
| . 7.1 Plant Accidents
| |
| ' 7.2_ Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives 7.3 : Transportation Accidents ,
| |
| 8' Need for Power 8,1 Description of the Power System '
| |
| 8.2 - Power Demand 8.2.1 Power and Energy Requirements
| |
| . 8.2.2 ' Factors Affecting Growtit of Demand 8.3 ? ' Power Supply <
| |
| 18.4 ? Assessment of Need for Power ?
| |
| q3 t A)
| |
| ^ ~ AugustJ997 : ,vil NUREG-1555 (Draft) i 1 , .. .- -. - . .- - . .. -. .
| |
| | |
| 9 Altematives to the Proposed Action 9.1 No-Action Alternative 9.2 Energy Alternatives 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 9.2.7 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity 9.2.3 Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources and Systems 9.3 Alternative Sites 9.4 Alternative Plant and Transmission Systems 9.4.1 Heat Dissipation Systems 9.4.2 Circulating Water Systems 9.4.3 Transmission Systems 10 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action 10.1 Unavoidable..Jverse EnvironmentalImpacts 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 10.3 Relationship Between Short Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Human Environment 10.4 Benefit Cost Balance 10.4.1 Benefits 10.4.2 Costs 10.4.3 Summary Appendix A - Guide to Relevant Environmental Standard Review Plans Appendix B - Guide to Environmental Standard Review Plans for License Renewal NUREG-1555 (Draft) viii August 1997
| |
| | |
| ;g w . y ,_ .. , m -- . - - -- - -- -, - - -
| |
| 7 ~ -- -
| |
| , 4 5
| |
| /
| |
| a
| |
| ;/ ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSt 4
| |
| .\ .i N J1DEP-~ $ Assistant D_irector for Environmental Projects; c. -
| |
| n.
| |
| 'AEAi { Atomic Energy Act--
| |
| l
| |
| - :- = -
| |
| JAEP - TArchaeo ogy'and Ethnography Program- $
| |
| 1 LALARA ; as low as is reasonably achievable -
| |
| " ALli - annual limit on intake F
| |
| 'ANS - American Nuclear Society q V
| |
| ANSI American National Standards Institute (AWWAL - American Water Works Association
| |
| . BEIR Biological Effects ofIonizing Radiation i
| |
| BMP best management practice L
| |
| g BOD biological oxygen demand r
| |
| ilWR . boiling water reactor
| |
| " .t CDC Centers for Disease Control i >
| |
| L- CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
| |
| -CFC -chlorinated fluorocarbons L
| |
| ;- 'CFR- Code of Federal Regulations i -- ,
| |
| E CG&E' Community _ Gas & Electric Corporation CH . Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation -
| |
| COD: - chemical oxygen demand . ,
| |
| a :n COL' - combined license h
| |
| U :;
| |
| w n> .b_ -:
| |
| -- g
| |
| ,.{ .
| |
| ;: ; August 19971 ix . NUREG-1555 (Draft)-
| |
| <r J, j[ [f)-. l 4 fi x ;~ ,.
| |
| u l:
| |
| i__ $, + e,,, .'L,, _,,,,,O, , , ,, , ,, , , , , _ ., ,,_,
| |
| | |
| CP construction permit CWA Clean Water Act DAC derived air concentration DBA design basis accident DBF design basis flood DEIS Drafi Environmental Impact Statement D/Q relative deposition EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPM Environmental Project Manager EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ER er vironmental report ES environmental standard ESP carly site permit ESRP environmental standard review plan FAA Federal Aviation Administration FDA Food and Drug Administration FFIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FER final environmentai report FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FES Final Environmental Statement NUREG 1555 (Draft) x August 1997
| |
| | |
| . . . ,_ . . . ~ - - - - - -. . - . . -
| |
| 4 . ..
| |
| -, FGD~ flue-gas-desulfurization :
| |
| FSAR: Final Safety Analysis Report - -
| |
| FWCA- Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act -
| |
| FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Contrei Act GASPAR- computer code-GEIS ~ Generic Environmentallmpact Statement s gen & SIS Geographical. Environmental & Siting Information System GIS Geographic Information System-HASL- Health and Safety Laboratory -
| |
| HTGR high-temperature gas cooled reactor IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
| |
| , IASD Interagency Archeological Service Division - 1:
| |
| INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory IPE Individual Plant Examination IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events kWh kilowatt hour -
| |
| E LADTAP computer code
| |
| :LR license renewal LWR- 1;ght-water-cooled reactor 1 MWe-: - megawatts elec.rical ;
| |
| l
| |
| : 1. MWt - megawatts thermal
| |
| ' NAGPRA'- Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations -
| |
| _ August 1997 - - xi NUREG-1555 (Draft) m-
| |
| . U.. ,-, ,,.,_ _-.-
| |
| | |
| 1 NCDC National Climat.c Data Center NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements G1' NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NESC National Electrical Safety Code NIPA National Historical Preservation Act NM Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NWS National Weather Service -
| |
| OAHP OfTice of Archaeology and Historic Preservation O&R Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
| |
| OL operating license OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAM primary amoebic meningoencephalitis PER preliminary environmental report PERB Emergency Preparedness and Emergency Protection Branch, NRR/DPJM PPC Public Power Corporation PPP Public Power Plant ,
| |
| NUREG 1555 (Draft) xii Apgust 1997 O
| |
| | |
| f
| |
| .; PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment
| |
| ~
| |
| PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report
| |
| - PSDAR post shutdown decommissioning activities report -
| |
| PUD ~ Public Utility District PWR- pressurized-water reactor LRAI request for additionalinformation RCRA- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
| |
| :RG&E Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation
| |
| . ROI region ofinterest RRY reference reactor year SAMDA severe accident mitigation design attematives SAR safety analysis report SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement SER Safety Evaluation Report -
| |
| .SHPO State Historic Preservation OfUcer SPLB Plant Systems Branch, NRR/DSSA SPP Sterling Power Plant SRP Standard Review Plan SSER Supplemental Site Safety Evaluation Report STORET Storage and Retrieval System for Water and Biological Data
| |
| 'TEDE total effective dose equivalent L
| |
| j' TVA Tennessee Valley Authority M
| |
| 4 August 1997 xiii NUREG 1555 (Draft) e
| |
| - , ,- . -.m. - , . _ - -,
| |
| | |
| USGS U.S. Geological Survey UTM Universal Transverse Mercator x/Q normalized concentration i
| |
| i l
| |
| I i l l
| |
| O ,
| |
| NUREG-1555 (Draft) Xiv August 1997
| |
| | |
| . , . . . - - ~ . , - - . ~
| |
| ,w ,
| |
| 1 - <
| |
| INTRODUCTIOND
| |
| . .7 }.
| |
| a nis document contains environmental standard review plans (ESRPs), which constitute a series of L
| |
| ^
| |
| instruutions developed for Nuclear Regulatory.Commiss% (NRC) staff to ur.) when bonductingi _ ;
| |
| : environmental reviews of applications related to r.uclear , . wer plants. De ESRPs are companions to 0 regulatory guides that address siting and environmental issues, for example: - j e : Ragulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation ofEnvironmentalReportsfer Nwlear Power Stati ms =
| |
| e Regulatory Guide 4.7, GeneralSite Suitability Crsterlafor Nuclear Powr Stations -
| |
| =
| |
| * DG-4005, Preparation ofS MppismentalEnvironmentalReportsfor Applications to RenewNuclear
| |
| .Powr Plant Ooeroting Licenses, ESRPs were initially developed bv NRC staff and NRC contractors who were intimately involved in the ' i i
| |
| preparation of environmental impact statements (EISs) in the early and mid 1970s.' Following an i extensive review process and public comment pericd, those ESRPs were published in 197g as
| |
| ? NUREG-0555, Environmental Standard Review Plansfor the Environmental Review ofConstruction ;
| |
| Permit Applications /pr Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1978). The present ESRPs supersede the ESRPm .
| |
| : published in 1978 and expand the scope of guidance beyond the construction permit licensing stage.
| |
| ' Many chan;;es in t;.e ESRPs are associated with changes i i envitonmental legislation and regulations, :
| |
| executive orders, and judicial or administrative hearing board decisions. Other changes reflect open access to power transmission lines and changes in State regulation of utilities.
| |
| ( .: Any questions regarding the content of any plan in this document may be directed to the responsible organization within NRC, at the following address: ,
| |
| Generic issues and Enviror. mental Projects Branch (0 10H -5) -
| |
| - Atta: NUREG-1555 Comments Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
| |
| Washington. DC 20555-0001 Additional copies of these plans may be obtained as indicated on the inside front cover of this document.
| |
| NRC's implementation of the NEPA Process L
| |
| l 1The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, directs that all agencies of the g ' Federal Government comply with the procedures in Section 102(2) of NE"A except where compliance ,
| |
| would be inconsistent with other statutcry requirements. ; In the Code offederal Regulations (CFR),-
| |
| ' 10 CFR 51, Subpart A. " National Environmental Policy Act- Regulations Implementing L Section 102(2)," implements NEPA Section' 102(2) in a manner that is consistent with NRC's domestic ,
| |
| licensing and related regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Enargy Reorganization A::t of 1074, as' amended, and that reflects the Commission's policy to <
| |
| x h : August 1997 1 NUREG-1555 (Draft) s lh'
| |
| ... .. . . __ ..._--~,u._.-
| |
| - -.m
| |
| | |
| voluntarily take account of tha regulations of the Council on Envimnmental Quality (CEQ), subject tc' certain conditions. The Commission recognizes a continuing obligation to conduct its domestic licensing and related regulatory functions in a manner that is both receptive to environmental concerns and 4 consistent with the Commission's responsibi'ity as an independen regulatory agency for protecting the radiol .gical health and safety of the public.
| |
| Accordinb ly, the Commission has presented in 10 CFR Sl.20(b) the types of actions that require an EIS or a supplement to an EIS. Similarly, the Commission has presentud in 10 CFR S t.22(c) and (d) lists of licensing and regulatory actions that have beer given categorical exclusions from the requirement for an EIS or environmental assessment (EA). All other licensing and regulatory actions subject to 10 CFR 51 I Subpan A, require an EA (10 CFR 51.2!).
| |
| The level of environmental review associated with proposed actions is determined by the appropriate NRC staff director. If the proposed action is not of the type listed in 10 CFR S t.22(c) as a categorical l exclusion, the NRC staff director determines whether an EIS or EA should be prepared. Whenever the l appropriate NRC ,.taff director determines that an EIS should be prepared by the NRC in connection with l a proposed action, a n#ce of intent should in published in the FederclRegister and an appropriate !
| |
| scoping process should be conducted. !
| |
| The contents of the notice ofintent and the participants in and covered by the scoping process are outlined in 10 CFR 51.27,10 CFR 51.28, and 10 CFR 51.29, respectively. In general, the scoping process is open to anyone who requests an opportunity to participate. However, participation in the scoping process for un EIS does not entitle the participant to become a pasty to the proceeding to which j the EIS relates (10 CFR S t.28[c]). Areas covered in the scoping process include (10 CFR S t.29[a])
| |
| . definition of the proposed action determination of the scope of the EIS and identification of significant issues a identification, and climination from detailed study, of issues that are peripheral, not significant, or that have been covered by prior environments! reviews
| |
| = identifics. tion of other EAs or EISs related to but not part of the scope of the EIS under consideration
| |
| * identification of other environmental reviews and consultations that are required
| |
| . indication of the relationship of the timing of the preparation of the EIS ar.J the Commission's plarming and decisionmaking schedule
| |
| * identification of cooperating agencies
| |
| * description of the rneans by which the EIS will be prepared.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (Draft) 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| d
| |
| - At the conclusion of the scoping process, the appropriate NRC staff director prepares a concise summaryJ J
| |
| s of the determinations and conclusions reached, including the significant issues identified, and sends a
| |
| ' copy of the summary to each participant in the scoping process.
| |
| Responsibility ior environmental reviews and preparation of EISs rests with the Environmental Project ' ,
| |
| ' Manager _(EPM). The EPM interacts with the applicant's 'or licensee's top-level technical and super.
| |
| - visory personnel as well as with NRC management. In addition, the EPM coordinates the efforts of 1 numerous staff personnel in many complex disciplines within both formal requirements and manage.
| |
| c ment approved guidance.' With assistance from review personnel and consultants, the EPM develys the l E 1 overall recommendations for action to be taken by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor -
| |
| - Regulation (NRR) with respect to the many aspects of siting and nuclear facility design and operation.-
| |
| ;The details 'of EPM responsibilities related to environmental reviews are laid out in NUREG/BR 0073,-
| |
| Project Manager's Handbook (NRC 1989). They include managing the acceptance review of the . -
| |
| applicant's erwironmental report (ER) and managing the environmental reviews performed by the staff and consultants. The acceptance review determines whether the information included is sufficient to satisfy Commission requirements for a detailed review. If the application is not sufficiently complete,
| |
| : thc staff specifically requests addit _lonal information through the EPM. When the application is reasonabiy complete, it is docketed and the detailed review procen may begin. >
| |
| - The applicant's ER is reviewed technically by the functional review branches in the NRR divisions and ' ,
| |
| by the EPM. Details of the responsibility of each branch in carrying out review functions, including criteria far acceptability, are contained in tue ESRPs. During the course of the staff's review, it is usually necesssry to rr. quest additional information about a number ofissues. Reviewers formulate j questions to elicit this additional information from the applicant.- Requests for additional information (RAls) are transmitted to the applicant by the EPM. RAls also serve as a public record of the staff's concerns about the application at the review stage.
| |
| When the review and evaluation of the applicant's ER have progressed to the point at which the EPM and reviewers have completed their review and evaluation, sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are prepared; depending on the licensing application, the DEIS may be, a supplement to an existing EIS or Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). Comments from Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies on the applicant's ER should be noted and
| |
| . considered when the DEIS sections are written. Material for the DEIS is provided to the EPM, who is responsible for critically reviewing each submittal from the reviewers and ensuring that the conclusions .
| |
| of the DEIS are representative of the review team and reflects NRC policy. When an acceptable DEIS ,
| |
| : has been ase.embled, the DEIS is submitted for review and comment to the project director, the Offhh ol r : the General Counsel, and the division directors of the participating review groups. Final approval is -
| |
| obtained from the EPM's division director prior to publication of the DEIS.
| |
| ~
| |
| HThe DEIS is issued to the public primarily as a summary of the staff's initial conclusions regarding an Lapplication. The DEIS is not a draft in the sense of being incomplete. Rather, it is a draft discussion of
| |
| ~
| |
| tb posed action and the staff's assessment ofits potential benefits and environmental costs presented Q - August 1997 3 NUREG-1555 (Draft) 7 .
| |
| - w, -
| |
| | |
| to the public to provide the public with an opportunity to comment, request clarification, recommend changes, or provide additional information to the staff consideration in assessing the benefit-cost balance.
| |
| If no comments are received, the DEIS can be published as a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), if comments are receis ed, they are considered by the staff and staff responses are located in one section of the FEIS so that reader. can determine the staffs response to coruments. Responses to -
| |
| comments may take one or more of several forms: a portion of the DEIS may be changed, new material may be added to the appropriate section identified in the discussion of comments, or no change may ensue.
| |
| De FEIS is a summary of the evaluation of the environmental portion of the application relative to tne anticipated impact of the proposed action on the environment it is provided to the public and is used as the main body of environmental evidence at the public hearing to support the Commission's conclusion that the proposed action should be approved or rejectcJ.
| |
| Scope of the Environmental Standard Review Plans The original ESRPs were prepared specifically for the environmental review of applications for constructioa permitt (cps) for nuclear power plants under 10 CFR 50 and for the initial operating license (OL). Since the initial set of ESRPs was published, the range of applicadons for whichnyhonmeatal reviews are conducted has t.ai expanded with the addition of 10 CFR 52 and 54.
| |
| He updated and revised ESRPs will guide the staffs environmental reviews for the range of applications including " green field" reviews of CP and OL applications in 10 CFR 50, revie vs of applications for early site permits (ESPs) in 10 CFR 52, Subpart A, and reviews of applications for combined licenses (COLs) in 10 CFR 52, Subpart C, when the application does not reference an ESP. These ESRPs am also appropriate for use in environmental reviews of applications for COLs in 10 CFR 52, Subpart C, when the applications reference an ESP. Reviews of ESP applications are limited in the sense that (1) the reviews focus on the environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, that have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters and (2) the reviews need not include an assessment of benefits (for example, need for power). The environmental reviews of COL applications that reference an ESP are limited to consideration of(l) information to demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP and (2) any significant environmentst issue not considered in any previous proceeding on the site or design. Appendix A provides guidance on the ESRPs that are appropriate for each of these types of applications.
| |
| He NRC has prepared a GEIS that covers applications for license renewal (LR) under 10 CFR 54.
| |
| When an LR application is received the NRC staff prepares a site-specific supplement to the GEIS. He supplement addresses a set of environmental issues presented in 10 CFR 51, Appendix B. The updated and revised ESRPs provide guidance to C.e staffin reviewing the environmental issues associated with an application. An LR application does not require a " green field" review; many of the environmental issues related to LRs were resolved with the GEIS. Apnendix B of this document contains guidance and NUREG-1555 (Draft) 4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| y g a cross-reference table that directs staff to the specific ESRPs related to the appropriate environmental- j q
| |
| * lesues to be addressed in detail in reviewing LR applications. - ,
| |
| a A number of other NRC actions require environmental reviews, including issuance of limited work
| |
| _ suthorizations (10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) to (e)(3),10 CFR 52.25, and 10 CFR 52.91), early partial decisions ' i (10 CFR 2, Subpart F; 10 CFR 100.10; smi 10 CFR 100.20), and pre-application early reviews of site ;
| |
| - suitability issues (10 CFR 50, Appendin Q; 10 CFR 52, Appendix Q; and 10_ CFR 100,10). De staff l may refer to the appropriate ESRPs in thl document for insight in performing these reviews NRR -
| |
| Office Letter 906, Revision 1," Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and -
| |
| Considering Environmental Issues"(NRC/NRR 1996), gulbs staffin performing environmental reviews j for operating resctors, including reviews associated with license amendments. ,
| |
| The ESRPs (1) provide specific instructions to the NRC staff responsible for conducting environmental reviews, (2) provide detailed descriptions of the manner in which the NRC reachesjudgments on the kinds of environmental impacts caused by constmetion and operation of nuclear power plants, and
| |
| - (3) specify the means for determining the significance of these impacts. Use of ESRPs by the NRC staff
| |
| - in the environmental review process will ensure tl.c following:
| |
| * Data essential to a specific environmental review and subsequent declaionmaking process are provided in the applicant's submittal and reviewed
| |
| * - Appropriate consideration, including coordinetion and consaltation, is given to other Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native Araerican tribal requiiemene applicable to a particular i environmental review.' s
| |
| . ne analysis and evaluation procedures for review of a given techrilcal area are standardized, thus achieving uniformity of approach.
| |
| * Each impact assessment concentrates on review of the potential environmental impacts of significance, and analysis ofirrelevant data or ofinsignificant impacts is minimizeJ.
| |
| = ne methods to be used for analysis and staffjudgments are objective and bawd on sound analytical procedures.
| |
| De ESRPs have been prepared for an EIS outline that embraces the range of environmental factors and
| |
| : site specific environmental conditions expected for the majority of nucleer p2wer plant applications.' It
| |
| - is recognized that conditions will occur from time to time that do not fall within the ESRP outline, he --
| |
| plans have been prepared to permit the inclusion of such conditions in the environmental review.
| |
| Organisatio of the Environmental Standaril Review Plass The ESRPs are numbered as sections of 10 chapters. Dese chapters form a general outline for an EIS or supplement.- ne chapters are c August 1997 5 NUREG-1555 (Draft) li
| |
| - . _ * +-r a- -e u r -.-4*- e * --
| |
| 1r -*
| |
| F pi-y -4 -sW
| |
| | |
| l'?
| |
| 1.0 Introduction 2.0 EnvironmentalDescription j J
| |
| 3.0 Plant Description 4.0 Plant Construction or Refurbishment Impacts 5.0 Plant Operation impacts 6.0 EnvironmentalMonitoring 7.0 Impacts of Postulated Accidents 8.0 Need for Power 9.0 Alternatives l
| |
| 10.0 EnvironmentalConsequences i nese chapters may be logically considered in three groups. Chapters 1.0 th' rough 3.0 are descriptive in nature. Hey guide the staff's review of the regional setting for the proposed action, the detailed description of the site and its environment, and the plant cad the detailed description of those features of the plant that are most likely to affect the environment. Chapters 4.0 through 7.0 are related to the technical analyas. Dey guide the staff's review of potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the plant. Finally, Chapters 8.0 through 10.0 are related to the overall evaluation of the proposed action. They guide the staffs review of the need for powe., comparison of the proposed action with alternatives, and summarization of the conclusions related to the proposed action.
| |
| In-text references to ESRPs, such as "ESRP Chapter 3.0," refer to the entire chapter (all ser"ans), while "ESRP 3.0," for example, refers only to the specific ESRP Section 3.0.
| |
| He format of the ESRPs in this document conforms to the format of NUREG-0800, the NRC's Standard Review Planfor the Review ofSqfety Analysis Reportsfor Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1987). he ESRP format consists of the following six sections:
| |
| : 1. Areas of Review
| |
| : 11. Acceptance Criteria
| |
| !!!. Review Procedures IV. Evaluatien Findings NUREO-1555 (Draft) 6 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| Jj. Ii l
| |
| q a
| |
| % V. . e implem'entation i
| |
| +
| |
| d VI.L References !
| |
| ~
| |
| - Areas of Review describes the purpose and scope of the review for which ine ESRP provides guidance. ;
| |
| - It includes a list of review interfacesf These interfaces define the expected flow ofinformation in the - !
| |
| review process.; Acceptsace Criteria provides guidance on determ!ning the acceptability of the .
| |
| applicant's submission with respcet to the topk under review.~ Review Procedures describes the l methods that the staff should use in conducting the review. The level of detail in is description of ;
| |
| ! methods varies from ESRP to ESRPi Evaluation Fladings provides guidance on how'to summarize the - j '
| |
| conclusions of the review.- This guidance frequently includes samples of the types of statements that should be included in an EIS. ' Implementation contains a standard statement that describes how the .
| |
| ESRT is expected to be used.- Finally, the References section contains the bibliographic information related to material cited in'the ESRPJ J Information that is general to all ESRPs is included in this introduction and is regarded as though it were E in each ESRP. Although the intent of the ESRPs is that they be used collectively in reviewing ERs -
| |
| : submitted with applications, they may also be used individually. The information in this introduction must be considered when an ESRP is used individually.
| |
| - 1 Changes la the Environmental Standard Review Plass Each ESRP has been prepared with regard for the NRC's obligations under NEPA and applicable inter-g pretations of the Act, including, for example, the Calvert Cliffs decision regarding consideration of nonradiological environmental impacts and the CEQ guidelines regarding environmentaljustice. The contents of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportspr Nuclear Pour Stations; Regulatory Guide 4.1, GeneralSite Suitability Criterlapr Nuclear Powr Stations; and DG-4005,
| |
| ~ Preparation ofSapplemental Environmental Reportspr Applications to Renew Nuclear Powr Plant Opera'ing Licenses were considered in the preparation of each ESRP, but were not a constraint in
| |
| ~
| |
| developing the data or information requirements. Thus, the overall scope of data and information corddered in these ESRPs is generally consistent with the guidelines of Regulatory Guides 4.2 and 4.7, aad DG 4005 forlicense renewal.
| |
| Since 1978 there have been many changes to the regulatory environment in which the NRC and its 4
| |
| .N. licensees operate. New environmental laws and regulations have been established, there have been
| |
| . chanks.in policies and procedures resulting from decisions of courts and administrative hearing boards,
| |
| :and there have been changes in the types of authorizations, permits, and licenses issued by the NRC.-
| |
| j
| |
| _ Some of thase changes and their impa-ts on the ESRPs are highlighted in the paragraphs that follow.
| |
| * CEarly Site Persalts, Standard Design Certineations,'nad Combloed Licenses n
| |
| l The original ESRPs were prepared to guide staffin their review of ERs prepared by applicants for
| |
| . cps for nuclear power plants and in preparation of the NRC EISs related to the proposed utions. At
| |
| : August 1997E '7 NUREG-1555 (Draft) i k' jk"
| |
| .- .a -. -
| |
| . , ,. . w .- -
| |
| | |
| that time, cps and OLs for nuclear power plants were issued under 10 CFR 50. Although cps and OLs may still be issued under 10 CFR 50, other licensing options have been made available through 10 CFR 52. These options include 1
| |
| (1) Subpart A, Early Site Permits, which provides for approval of a site for one or more nuclear l
| |
| power facilities separate from an application for a standard design certification or COL for such I a facility i
| |
| (2) Subpart D, Standard Design Certifications, which provides for certification of a standard reactor design for nuclear power facilities separate from an application for an ESP or COL for such a facility (3) Subpart C, Combined Licenses, which provides for issuance of a COL for construction and operation of a nuclear power facility at a specific site.
| |
| Environmental reviews of ESP and COL applications are covered by the procedures contained in the revised ESRPs. A benefits assessment is required for a COL but not for an ESP. An applicant who is submitting a benefits assessment in the ESP application only needs to reference the ESP assess-ment rather than resubmitting a benefits assessment when preparing a COL application. Appendix A provides guidance related to the scope environmental reviews for these types of applications.
| |
| . License Renewal Reactor, built in the 1960s and 1970s are approaching the end of their OLs.10 CFR 54 provides for renewal of OLs for periods up to 20 years. The original ESRPs were based on the experience gained in preparation of EISs written followin8 enactment of NEPA and the Calvert Cliffs decision (Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission,449 F.2d 1109 [D.C. Cir.
| |
| 1971]). At that time, actual operational experience with power reactors and their environmental impacts was !imited, in anticipation of applications for LR, the staff prepared NURuG 1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statementfor License RenewalofNuclear Plants (NRC 1996). This GEIS reflects more than 1000 reactor years of operating experience with nuclear power plants accumulated in the United States. The GEIS assesses the environmental impacts associated with nuclear power plant LR and an additional 20 years of power plant operations, and provides a technical basis for revision of 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," w:th regard to the renewal of nuclear power plant OLs.
| |
| Recent revisions to 10 CFR 51 (61 FR 66537-66554) cover the preparation of LR EISs. Upon receipt of an LR application, the staff begins to prepare a site-specific supplement to the GEIS. The supplement addresses issues presented in 10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Subpart A. Procedures found in this document may be used by the staffin preparation of the supplement. Appendix B of this document provides a cross-reference between the issues to be addressed in the site-specific supplement to the GEIS and the ESRPs in this document. The issues are listed in Appendix B in the NUREG-1555 (Draft) 8 August 1997 O
| |
| c
| |
| | |
| same order as Table B 1 of 10 CFR 51, Appendix B.- Additional information related to the GEIS and 4 the environmental issues covered in it is included in the introduction to Appendix B of this
| |
| (
| |
| ' V )- _ - document,: ,
| |
| * EnvironmentalJustlee
| |
| ~
| |
| The President issued Executive Order 12898 in February 1994 mandating that Federal agencies make
| |
| -"environmental justice" part of each agency's mission by addressing disproportionately high and i adverse human health or environmental effects of Federal programs, policies, and activities on -
| |
| minority populations and on low income populations. NRR Office Letter 906, Revision 1
| |
| '(NRC/NRR 1996) contains interim guidance to NRR staff on conducting environmentaljustice reviews, i
| |
| The guidance in NRR Office Letter 906 is reflect:<i in this document by the addition of three new ESRPs. ESRP 2.5.4 contains procedures for identification and description of minority and low-income populations that could be impacted by a proposed action. ESRPs 4.4.3 and 5.8.3 cover the subsequent sta# assessment and evaluation of specific impacts for plant construction and operation, respectively, Environmentaljustice is included as an issue it. Appenuix B related to LR. In addition, wording changes in other ESRPs now reflea the NRC commitment to address environmentaljustice issues.
| |
| * Yellow Creek Decision h' in February 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,in a partial initial decision on environmental and site suitability matters, sanctioned a Limited Work Authorization (see 10 CFR 50.10[e]) for the Tennessee Valley Authority's Yellow Creek facility (7 NRC 215 [1978]). In that partial initial decision, subsequently upheld by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (8 NRC 702 [1978}), the Licensing Board held that the NRC authority does not extend to matters within thejurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). More specifically, the NRC authority is limited for those matters expressly assigned to the EPA by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. According to the Appeal Board,"The role of the NRC is one of factoring anticipated water pollution into its NEPA benefit cost balance analyses on
| |
| , proposed nuclear plants."
| |
| The rulings of the Licensing and Appeal Boards have been factored into revision of the ESRPs that are related to water issues. The ESRPs that are in this document related to water quality contain procedures to identify and evaluate potentially adverse impacts associated with nuclear power plant construction and operation. However, the text now re Octs the NRC's limited role in this area. In addition, ESRP 9.3.3," Alternative Plant and Transmission Systems: Nonradioactive-Waste-Treatment Systems," which was included in NUREG 0555 (NRC 1978), has not been carried forward to the present document, and subsequent ESRPs have been renumbered.
| |
| 'O.
| |
| b' ' ' l'
| |
| - August 1997 9 NUREG-1555 (Draft)
| |
| L i'
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| . Open Access to Traasmission Lines and Economic Deregulation Recent changes in the economic regulation of utilities have expanded the options to be addressed in O consideration of the need for power in EISs required by .J CFR 51, Appendix A(4). Regulatory agencies in sorne States have initiated the process of economic deregulation, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commist'on has adopted regulations to ensure all power generators open access to power transmission facilities (61 FR 21540 21736). The effects of these changes on environmental review procedures are likely to be Mgnificant, especially with respect to the definitions of demand, service secas, and benefits. Rey are also likely to be significant with respect to the selection and consideration of alternatives.
| |
| He ESRPs related to the need for power (ESRPs 8.1 through 8.4), consideration of alternatives (ESRPs 9.1 through 9.4), and benefit-cost balance (ESRPs 10.1 through 10.4.3) have been modified to facilitate environmental reviews of applications that full outside the bounds of the traditional structure of regulated utilities. However, economic deregulation will continue to evolve tandard procedures for environmental reviews in an unregulated, open access regulatory arena have neither been developed nor meet the test of time. The ESRPs in this document provide guidsnce, but may net be appropriate for all reviews. If the NRC is faced with an application of this sort, the reviewers should review the current Commission policy before ste: ting the review.
| |
| * Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives At the time the original ESRPs were published, the NRC staff EISs did not cons der des' gn siterna-tives to mitigate the consequences of severe accidents. Current NRC policy developed t fler the Limerick decision (Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC,869 F.2d 719 [3rd Cir.1989]) req ires consideration of design alternatives to mitigate the consequences of severe accidents in b 3s prepared at the OL stage. Consideration of Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternativ r (SAMDAs)is also required at the LR stage for the plants for which a site-specific SAMDA has not been included in an EIS or supplemental EIS.
| |
| SAMDAs have been included in Final Environmental Statements (FESS) for the Limerick I and 2 and Comanche Peak I and 2 operating license reviews and in the Watts Bar Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG 0498 [NRC 1995]). A new ESRP (ESRP 7.2) has been prepared to guide staffin the consideration of SAMDAs.
| |
| General Instructions The following 1.'.structions, applicable to most of the ESRPs, are provided here to avoid repetition in each plan:
| |
| * Project Overview. As an initial step in each individual environmental review, the reviewer is expected to develop an understanding of the cotire project proposed by the applicant. The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that reviewers put their individual reviews in perspective with the overall project and concentrate their efforts on issues of substanic. This general project review is to be NUREG-1555 (Draft) 10 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| s>c
| |
| = conducted 'as the first step (accqunce review phau) of the overall environmental review process -
| |
| l and is to be completed prior to developing requests for additional information.
| |
| -
| |
| * 1starsal Review Coordination. The EPM is the central point of contact for all reviewers.
| |
| o AltL., ugh each ESRP represents a discrete segment of the NRC's overall environmental review, no -
| |
| . review can be completed without coordination with'related reviews. For example, the technical :
| |
| analysis ESRPs (4.0 through 7.0) rely on the descriptive chapters (1.0 through 3.0) for background -
| |
| information. - All reviewers are instructed to maintain close communication with other reviewers throughout the review procedure. With very few exceptions, the reviews on a given project see -
| |
| :. conducted in parallel; thus, completed " output" of related reviews may not be available to reviewers before their own environmental review is initiated.
| |
| * Enternal Review Coordination. The EPM usually initiates contacts with outside groups, and must be informed of all such contacts as outlined in NUREG/BR-0073, the NRC Project Manager 's .
| |
| Handbook (NRC 1989). Each reviewer is expected to sock out and be aware of any related technical !
| |
| enalyses and assessments in areas of concurrentjurisdiction, such as air and water quality and aquatic impacts. Particular attention should be givea to these analyses and assessments prep red under provisions of memoranda of understan6g between the NRC and other Federal, State, t regional, local, and affected Native American cribal agencies. When so directed by the specifics of I the memoranda of understanding, the reviewer pasticipates with officials in the development of the impact assessments directed by these ESRPs. Working througn the EPM, the reviewer is responsible fbr resolving any differences of opinion between staff analyses and analyses of other agencies.
| |
| [
| |
| ~
| |
| l - When resolution of differences is not possible, the reviewer ensures that all viewpoints are addressed T in the EIS or that the specific provisions of the me.noranda of understanding for this contingency are foll6wed.
| |
| . Connaltation With tre Applicant. The analysis procedures for many of the ESRPs direct the f reviewer to " consult with the applicant" in certain specified circumstances. All consultations of this
| |
| ; nature are made through the EPM.
| |
| L ..
| |
| l' - r Site Visit. In most environmental reviews, reviewers benefit from a visit to the site of the l applicant's proposed action. This visit gives the reviewer first hand knowledge of the location and ;
| |
| position of the applicant's facilities within the site, it alm gives the reviewer an opportunity to !
| |
| observe,the environment in the vicinity of the site.
| |
| = = . Depth of Review, .Where an analysis procedure, as outimed in an ESRP, has been conducted by an
| |
| ; applicant and reported in the applicant's ER, the applicant's work is evaluated in sufficient depth to i
| |
| . permit independent verification of the analysis and its results. The reviewer may conduct ;
| |
| i-8-Wt analyses, if necessary.
| |
| * ' gem &$IS. The NRC has developed a geographical information system for staff use (Geographical i
| |
| Environmental & Siting information System (gen & SIS)). This system includes environmental data and links to other Internet sites that have data that may be important in environmental analyses.
| |
| O v August 1997 - 11. NUREG-1555 (Draft)-
| |
| e ., - ..,. >- .. . . -, c-w., ,- c
| |
| | |
| Reviewers are expected to make use of gen & SIS and its links to other sources of information in reviewing an applicant's ER and in performing independent analyses. j l
| |
| e Best Management Practices. The analysis procedures in ESRPs often direct the reviewer to j evaluate the applicant's commitments to use construction, refurbishment, or maintenance practices that limit adverse impacts. These practices, often referred to as best management practices (BMPs),
| |
| are construction and refurbish:nent activities that tend to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
| |
| Many practices are chosen to prevent or control water pollution and minimize soil erosion resulting from land disturbance or other land management activities. Examples of construction activities recognized as BMPs can be found in a number of sources, some of which are referenced below.
| |
| BMPs not referenced below are generally acceptable when they have been used by another Federal agency, i Quality Assurance. In evaluating the applicant's environmental information, reviewers should identify and evaluate the quality assurance measures taken by the applicant in the collection and analysis of data. Quality assurance measures are also evaluated where computer models have been used to predict environmental consequences of the proposed actions.
| |
| . Findings. The sections of an EIS that summarize findings for the NRC decisionmakers should reflect the results of a " consensus" agreement among the reviewers. This requires input from the reviewer, the EPM, and any other reviewers who would be affected by the findings.
| |
| . Documentation. Each reviewer maintains documentation, logs, and other records to ensure that records of contacts with outside agencies and organizations are maintained.
| |
| * Definitions. Use of the following terminology applies only to the environmental review process.
| |
| Terms such as plant and station as used in an EIS continue to reflect an applicant's choice of terms to identify the proposed project (e.g., Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit 1).
| |
| STATION: All facilities (reactors, control buildings, intakes, discharges, etc3 that are located or are proposed to be located on the applicant's site. Generally, the station includes everything located on the applicant's property that surrounds the proposed or existing reactors. in some cases, intakes and discharges may be beyond this property line, but are considered part of the station. Transmissior Tnes and their associated facilities are not considered part of the station.
| |
| Existing or proposed f acilities not associated with the production of electricity (e.g., a visitor center or a fish hanhery) an. considered part of the station.
| |
| PLANT: The proposed nuclear reactors, steam-clectric systems, intakes, discharges, and all other on station facilities involved with the production of electricity. Plant can be more than one reactor steam-electric system, but does not include existing units already in operation.
| |
| Transmission lines and other of'-station facilities are not part of the plant.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (Draft) 12 August 1997
| |
| _________.__m_ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
| |
| | |
| . - . . - - . . - - _ _ ~ . - , - -. - . . - .- . - - _ . - - - .
| |
| ._.n.-.
| |
| (
| |
| IRRI: . One reactor steam-electric system. Generally, unit is used only'when the' applicant is proposing a multi-unit planti .
| |
| 5 FACILITY: Any identifiable part of the station or associated portions of the applicant's system, ' l both existing and proposed. Examples: The visitor center is a facility.L A substation is a facility, 1
| |
| ? An intake system could be a facility (if separated from the remainder of the plant).
| |
| PROJECT: Everything the applicant is proposing.: Th4 8.ncludes transmission lines, access : i roads, communications stations, etc. - i As used in these ESRPs, mitigati$n and avoidancc will have the following meanings:
| |
| MITIGATION: Impact mitigation is the process of modifying a design or practice (either a .
| |
| construction practice or an operating procedure) to lessen its environmental impact. Successful mitigation will remove an impact from the ' adverse' category.
| |
| AVOIDANCE: Impact avoidance is the process of using an alternative design or practice that -l svolds the identified adverse impact. Note that alternatives may have adverse impacts of their i
| |
| - own and must be evaluated to ensure that any such impacts can be successfully mitigated. .
| |
| a
| |
| :{ '
| |
| 1: Related Documents he ESRPs are only one of several sets of procedures used oy the NRC to meet its respont.ibilities under NEPA. Other documents that provide guidance relevant to environmental reviews include -
| |
| * - Project Manager's Handbook, NUREG/BR-0073 (NRC 1989) -
| |
| . . " Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues," Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulstion Office Letter 906 (September 27,1996)
| |
| * NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2.1976.- Preparanon ofEnvironmentalReportsf r Nuclear
| |
| . Power Stations'
| |
| . * - DG 4005, Preparation ofSupplementalEnvironmental Reportsfor Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses le NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev. l.1975. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations V '*
| |
| * Standard Review Planfor the Review of' 2fec* Analysis Reportsfor Nw: lear Power Plants, ;
| |
| s : NUREU-0800 (NRC 1987).
| |
| '4
| |
| , ' he Project Manager 's Handbook provides staff with guidance on determining when an environmental
| |
| - document must be prepared, the type of environmental docun.ent that should be prepared, and procedural -
| |
| e matters related to the preparation of environmental documents. The collection and evaluation of material
| |
| ~
| |
| , ^
| |
| x Ar*us 1997J 13 NUREG 1555 (Draft) d
| |
| ;f 4 -
| |
| | |
| 1 for environmental de :uments generally involves frequent hteractions with the applicant a= the staff examines the available information and identifics issues requiring clarification or additional !nformation.
| |
| The handbook provides guidance on these interactions and on interactions with other NRC stafTwho deal with the applicant on other matters.
| |
| He NRR Ofuce Letter 906 establishes procedures and provides guidance related to the preparation of environmental assessments and the consideration of environmental issues for l': esing actions.
| |
| Procedures and guidance in the office letter specifically relate to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National llistorical Preservation Act, and Executive Order 12898 dealing with environmentaljustice.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2 provides guidance to applicants on the preparation of ERs for nuclear power stations. His guidance is specifically intended for CP and OL applications submitted tinder 10 CFR 50.
| |
| Ilowever, Regulatory Guide 4.2 should provide reasonable guidance to preparation of ERs for ESP and COL application 1 DG 4005 provides guidance on the preparation of supplemental ER: for license renewal applicatior.s.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.7 provides applicants with guidance in the initial stage of selecting potential sites for
| |
| .'ucIcar power stations. It discusses the major site characteristics related to public health and safety and the environmental issues considered in determining the suitability of sites for light water cooled reactors.
| |
| Sites that appear to be compatible with the generat uiteria have to be examined in greater detail before they can be considered " candidate" sites, (i.e., sites that are considered in selecting a " proposed" or
| |
| " preferred" site).
| |
| %e Standard Review Plan (SRP)for the Review ofSqfety Analysis Reports (NUREG 0800) deals primarily with issues related to safety, it contains several sections on the evaluation of the consequetices of accidental releases of radioactive material. Although the emphasis of the analyses conducted under the SRPs is somewhat different than that of the analyses conducted under the ESRPs, the results of the SRP analyses are relevant to environmental reviews. For example, the reviews conducted under ESRP Chapter 7.0 draw upon the results of reviews conducted under the SRP.
| |
| References 10 CFR 2, Subpart F. " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and issuance of Orders."
| |
| 10 CFR 50," Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 10 CFR 50, Appendix Q," Pre application Early Review of Site Sultability issues."
| |
| 10 CFR 50.10," License required."
| |
| 10 CFR Si," Environmental Piotection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| NUREG 15" , aft) 14 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 10 CFR 51, Subpan A," National Environmental Policy Act-Regulations Implementing (q "/
| |
| Section 102(2)."
| |
| 10 CFR 51, Appendix A " Format for Presentation of Materialin EnvironmentalImpact Statements."
| |
| 10 CFR 51, Appendix B," Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.20," Criteria for and identification oflicensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.21,"C:lteria for and identification oflicensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.22," Criterion for categorical axclusion; identification oflicensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.27. " Notice of intent."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.28," Scoping-panic! pants."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.29," Scoping-environtaental impact statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52,"Early Site Permits; Standard Design Cenifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear O\ Power Plants."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Appendix Q," Pre application Early Review of Site Suitability issues."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.25,"Early site permits; extent of activities permitted."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.91," Combined licenses; authorization to conduct site activities."
| |
| 10 CFR 54," Requirements for Renewel of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
| |
| 10 CFR 100,10," Factors to be considered when evaluating sites."
| |
| 10 CFR 100.20," Factors to be considered when evaluating sites."
| |
| 61 FR 21540-21*/36-Federal Energy Regulation Commission " ensure all power generators open access to power transmission facilities."
| |
| 61 FR 66537 66554, Rev. to 10 CFR 51.
| |
| A
| |
| () . August 1997 15 NUREG 1555 (Draft)
| |
| | |
| Yinni Environmental Statement i989. Comanche Peak I and 2 Operating License Review, NUREG 0775, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Final Environmental Statement 1989. Limerick 1 and 2 Operating License , NUREG4974, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| DG-4005, Preparation ofSupplememal Environmental Reportsfor Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. t997.
| |
| NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofDtvironmentalReportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. 2. 1995. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1989. Project Afanager's Handbook, NUREG/13R-0073, Rev.1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. FinalEnvironmentallmpact Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement No. I, Docket Nos 50 390 and 50-391, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatoty Commission (NRC). 1978. EnvironmentalStandard Review Plansfor the EnvironmentalReview ofConstruction Permit Applicationsfor Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG 0555 Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Pla ifar the Review ofSafety Analysis Reportsfor Nuclear Power Plants, Section 2.3.3. Appendix A, " Recommended Formatfor Hourly AfeteorologicalData To Be Placed on Afagnetic Tape. " NUREG 0800, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Envi onmentalImpact Statementfor License Renewal o/ Nuclear Plants. NUREG 1437, Vol.1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,42 USC 2011 et seq.
| |
| Calvert Chfrs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission,449 F. 2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.
| |
| 1971).
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Energy Reorganir.ation Act, as amended,42 USC 5801 et seq.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (Draft) 16 August 1997
| |
| | |
| _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ _ . . ~ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _
| |
| i I
| |
| Executive Order 12898. " Federal Actions To Address Envimamental Justice in Minority and Low. !
| |
| 3 laceae Populations." $9 Fedrest Aegisser: 7629 7633 (1994).
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean ,
| |
| Water Act). ;
| |
| i Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC 869 F. 2d 719 [3rd Cir.1989).. l National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended,42 USC 4321 et seq.
| |
| -1 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended,16 USC 470 et seq. - l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC/NRR). 1996. . ]
| |
| " Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental ;
| |
| lasues." NRR Omco Letter No. 906, Revision 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| j i
| |
| . 7 NRC 215 (1978), Tennessee Valley Authority's Yellow Creek facility.
| |
| 8 NRC 702 (1978), Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
| |
| 1 ;
| |
| i I
| |
| i >
| |
| g.
| |
| I-I e- j
| |
| : 4. ,
| |
| August 1997.~ - 17 NUREO 1555 (DraR) k E
| |
| --v-~ , - ~ . , . = . - - - .-- . ~, ..-.~,,+,...-..._m- - - - - - . , _ , .-.,_a.-i.,__ ......__mi__._ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ =
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| NU;9,M W j U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| # N ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD i
| |
| n V
| |
| %,****')REVIEW PLAN '
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
| |
| !.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,
| |
| REVIEW RESPONSIDill11ES Primary--Generic Issues and Environmental Project Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW 1his environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of introductory paragraphs for the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraphs covered by this ;
| |
| plan is to (1) outline the purpose and organization of the EIS, and (2) introduce the material to be presented from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 1.1 and 1.2.
| |
| Review Interfaces b None.
| |
| Data and Inform. tion Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager, 11, ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introduction prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the requirements of the following regulations:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language August 1997 1.0-1 NUREG-1555 (DR AFT)
| |
| ~
| |
| USNRC ENYlRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN .
| |
| s '"*""""W,"*"'"'r.,t.,*,2:ti:,'"o:::",!.".ty'g*
| |
| . '"'2., s rw d?tA,tti.'2*2.":".1%,".t2
| |
| .%::.';.n..t.sr"a,-l:2'"#.un g ,,; g ,g, Pt.%,,sJ ;g s:,2:5.'*'"'"",*Sh,f.*,".2.,E.,i m y g ,=, g g g .,. si w .u 4 .sv. - .. . ...,o,ow... - m. . .
| |
| 8"""""$.v., wall'2ft,M *" "J.Ted Ec' *Atit* """"* " """" "**'*"'
| |
| | |
| + 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix A. " Format for Presentation of Materialin Environmentalimpact Statements" with respect to the format and content of an EIS.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Iechnical Rationale ne technical rationale for evalus'.ing the applicant's environmental impact statement is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix A, lists the information that must be included in an EIS prepared by the Commission to meet its responsibilities under NEPA. He format for an EIS may expand upon or differ from the format suggested in 10 CFR 51, Appendi,1 A. Derefore, the introduction should describe the format and organization of the EIS and relate them to the format presented in Appendix A.
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of material to overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES De material to be prepared is informational in nature, and no specific analysis of the data is required.
| |
| IV EVALUATION FINDINGS De reviewer for this ESRP should prepare at least two introductory paragraphs for the EIS. The first j paragraph (s) should describe the organization and format of the Els or Supplementary EIS and relate that information to the format presented ;.10 CFR 51, Appendix A. Following these paragraphs, there should be a paragraph that introduces the information to be presented by the reviewers ofinformation covered by l ESRPs 1.1 and 1.2. His paragraph should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their j relationships to information to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| l V, lhiPIEMENTA'110N l l
| |
| ne method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES .
| |
| 10 CFR 51 Appendix A," Format for Presentation of Materialin EnvironmentalImpact Statements."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREO.1555 (DRAFT) 1.0 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREO 1555 I
| |
| l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N l
| |
| O /,,,,3 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,*****#) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1.1 TifE PROPOSED PROJECT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES ,
| |
| i Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None I, AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of a brief introductory description of the proposed project and the site location and identification of the applicant. The scope of the review directed by this plan includes identifying the applicant and other owners, specifying the site location and major features of the project, and summarizing the staffs procedures in conducting the environmental review.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should provide the reviewers for other ESRPs with the location and official description of the site and plant.
| |
| Data and Information Needed The following data should usually be obtained during the course of reviewing the environmental report (ER) and preparing input to the environmental impact statement (EIS):
| |
| full names of all organizations (e.g., utilities, municipalities) sharing ownership of the proposed project (from the ER) e name of the organization designated as the applicant. This organization is the contact with NRC during the licensing process and will be responsible for construction and operation of the proposed project (from the ER).
| |
| August 1997 1.1 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN L'E,j, 2',.?.2&4* ",f"..?".".*i:,%**.:f,!."J,*(Jf."*A:.'fr. ?,,,:,t.'.'?, ,",,." "."*al.* fd" *" ,, ,, ,,
| |
| TJ's g, =,3,,, ,,,e;ra' 'e""T.a.','47..,.,..,1E* m" 'e''*.:: .fr.~.c"..r#..# f,m" .*"'.n..
| |
| 4
| |
| ,n,.g g *.,, g,,, g p-.e..
| |
| . o .s.-
| |
| v , ....- -,..~.-.
| |
| 8.*.,,".*".':,,.
| |
| ",. dem':tt.'.", ,t::::tii".4"' ?.,M:C;l:fi.T'c%4 ""' " ** ***" "**d""'
| |
| __.__.___~.__.____._______._______------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| | |
| e site location with respect to nearby towns and natural features (from the ER) e number and type of reactors, highest anticipated gross thermal megawatt output, and net electrical output (from the ER) e cooling system description (intake type, heat dissipation type, discharge type, source of cooling water)(from the ER)
| |
| . transmission system description (kilometers of new rights-of way, new towers or conductors on existing rights-of way)(from the ER) e the nature of the proposed action and the constraints that are placed on the review because of the type ofaction
| |
| * proposed dates for start and completion of major activities (from the ER).
| |
| l
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
| |
| 'Ihe reviewer should ensure that the information provided by the applicant is adequate to prepare input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) similar to that shown in Appendix A to this plan. Acceptance criteria for a description of the proposed project are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| l + 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, with respect to listing of procedural matters and the availability of l environmental documents
| |
| * Executive Order 12898 with respect to public involvement in the process, specifically involvement of minority and low income populations.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as l
| |
| follows:
| |
| i e There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's proposed project is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| ESRP 1.1 contains basic infonnation on the proposed project by specifically identifying the applicant i
| |
| and concisely describing the proposed action, in addition, the section outlines the process followed by NRC in implementing the NEPA process related to the proposed action under the requirements of 10 CFR 51.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 1.12 August 1997 l
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| i Executive Ordw 12898 requires that Federal agencies consider environmentaljustice as part of the !
| |
| NEPA process; as an IM+;:it agency, NRC is committed to implement a process to consider j environmentaljustice in its decisionmaking, involvement of the public, especially minorities and !
| |
| - low income populations, is essential to the assessment of environmentaljustice. Measures designed j to enhance involvanent of minority and low income populations should be identified specifically in j the description of the ER evaluation process. [
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| - W material to be reviewed is informational in nature, and no specific analysis of the data is required. l h reviewer should identify the plant owners, those organizations sharing ownership of the station >
| |
| location, and makr design features of the proposed project.
| |
| IV, EVALUNHON FINDJblGS }
| |
| . Appendix A to this plan presents a sampie format for ESRP 1.1. In some circumstances, the reviewer may need to prepare additional information to fully cover the subject material (e.g., multiple applicants, ,
| |
| unusual siting. State applicant relationships). The statement in Appendix A is appropriate for applications for construction permits under 10 CFR 50 and combined licenses under 10 CFR 52, l Subpart C. Reviews related to other applications will require revision of the statement to fit the specific nature of the review.
| |
| The description of the information considered in the preparation of the EIS should discuss opportunities for public participation during the process. Efforts to obtain input from minority and low income populations related to environmentaljustice should be called out specifically, V. IMPLEMENTATION h method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 50," Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
| |
| - F metions."
| |
| - 10 CFR $1, Subpart A. " National Environmental Policy Act-Regulations implementing Section '
| |
| _. 102(2)." '
| |
| i
| |
| - August 1997 - 1.l.3 - NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| 'wWyc.e -
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| l l
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpart C," Combined Licenses."
| |
| Executive Order 12898," Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations." 59 FederalRegister,7629 7633 (1994), i 1
| |
| l O
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| o
| |
| / APPENDIX A EIS SAhiPLE FORhiAT FOR ESRP 1.1 Pursuant to the Aton.4 Energy Act, as arnended, and the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code ofrederalRegulations, an application, with an accompanying ER, was filed by Community Gas and Electric Corporation (CO&E) and accepted for docketing on December 31,1999. A contract for the joint ownership of the proposed station was signed in January 2000 by CO&E and Public Power Corporation (PPC). The shairs to be owned by the participating utilities in the Public Power Plant (PPP) are CG&E 80% and PPC 20%.
| |
| CGAE will act as project manager on behalf ofitself and the other applicant (hereinafter collectively referred to as the applicant) for a combined license to build and operate a pressurized water nuclear reactor designated as the PPP Nuclear Unit No I (Docket No. STN 52 1), which is designed for ultimate operation at 3500 megawatts thermal (htWt) with a nominal net electrical output of 1100 hiW. Waste heat is proposed to be dissipated by a natural draft cooling tower. Water will be withdrawn from Lake Washington through a submerged intake structure. The proposed station is to be located in Any County, Any State, approximately 15 km (9 miles) SW of Lincoln on the south shore of Lake Washington. About 30 km (20 miles) of new transmission line rights of way will be required to link the proposed station to existing transmisslor grids.
| |
| He applicant proposes to start site preparation and limited construction activities in 7001, full
| |
| 'g constrnction activities over the period 2001 to 2005, and to begin commercial operation in 2007.
| |
| The major documents used in the preparation of this statement were the applicant's ER, Design Certification 5210, the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), and supplements thereto.
| |
| Independent calculations and sources ofinformation were also used as a basis for the assessment of environmental impact. In addition, some of the infonnation was gained from a visit in January 2000 by the staff and its contractor to the station site and surrounding areas.
| |
| Public scoping meetings were held in Lincoln and Washington, D.C.; public hearings were held before and after completion of the draft statement; and the public was invited to comment on the draft statement. Notices of these opportunities for participation in the process were published in newspapers and broadcast on radio and television. Advertisements of these were sent to representatives of Native American tribes and to churches in areas oflow income population.
| |
| Although the staff examined data from all of these sources in making its assessments, only summaries of the most pertinent data are given in this statement. To avoid repetition, the staff has ptovided references to the sources of detailed information, much of which is found in the applicant's ER.
| |
| As a part ofits safety evaluation, the Commission conducts a detailed evaluation of the applicant's plans and equipment for minimizing and controlling the release of radioactive materials under both normal operating conditions and postulated potential accident conditions, including the effects of natural
| |
| | |
| phenomena, inasmuch as these aspects are considered fully in other documents, only the salient features tlat bear directly on the anticipated environmental effects are repeated in this environrnental statement.
| |
| Copies of this Draft Environrnental Impact Statement and the applicant's ER are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,2120 L St N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, and l st the Lincoln City Library,100 Main Street, Lincoln, Any State. l 0
| |
| l NUREG 1$$$ (DRAIT) 1,16 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREC 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C) [,,,,h ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,**'**j REVIEW PLANOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1.2 STATUS OF REVIEWS, APPROVAIE, AND CONSULTATIONS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs identif.;ation and assessment of enviromnentally related authorizationsW required by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies as a prerequisite to plant licensing, construction, or tefurbishment.
| |
| He scope of the review directed by t his plan includes identification of the authorizations (and the authorizing agencies) that address environmental issues. This should include (1) determination of status, f'}
| |
| 'V (2) identification of enviroamental concerns, and (3) evaluation of potential administrative problems that could delay or prevent ugency authorizction. His environmental review shculd be used by the reviewers for ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 to help identify areas of environmental concern and determine applicant compliance with existing standards and regulations.
| |
| Review Interfa.as The reviewcr should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers of the information covered in the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| -. ESRP Chanters 2.0. 4.0. and 5.0 Based on the information in the environmental report (ER),
| |
| provide updated lists of environmentally related authorizations required by Federal, State, regional, (a) As used in this ESRP, the term '' authorizations" includes consideration of reviews and approvals that might be conducted by other agencies or organizations.
| |
| August 1997 1.2 1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN "Er' ' "
| |
| (_ 'T (y
| |
| S f"*Icom, ,, ;*To",d,at.".':dm%W '" '.%d."'W'.fta*!!m*.'2*.%":r!",w".'im*"
| |
| :,50*/,P4"'"
| |
| a g.;,.,m,go;,.g.I'.Ja,.'t.u.f7..T,yg,74"""*t.: ..
| |
| d oi nt a un*s..v.Lm.
| |
| :.';.r,r. .
| |
| n'. .
| |
| er.n.l.
| |
| , 7o u
| |
| ,rg.g .ag,.,,,m.,,,,
| |
| a w g,4,g.,g. m. ..* - .sv. .. ,+.i., . ....mm o. . ..mm.ni. .o4 i.
| |
| 8:ml"A"imt2*4"atil,T.*J"' EN.T,O',dJ cWs d s? """' ** " * ""*" "*d''"'
| |
| | |
| E local, and affected Native American tribal agencies. The lists should include the status of the authorization, environmental concerns identified by the agencies, and potential administrative problems that could delay or prevent agency authorization.
| |
| . ESRb 3.7. 513.1. and 6.4. If transmission towers taller than 61 m (200 ft) are planned, alert the reviewers to the status of Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) approval for construction.
| |
| Data and Information Nerded A list of the environmentally related authorizations required by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies should be developed as part of the review process before initiation of plant construction or refurHshment. This list should usually include the following:
| |
| . the name of each related authorization, including the responsible agency and the applicable law, ordinance, or regulation (from the ER) e the principal envircnmental factors to be covered by the authorization (from the ER) e the date of application / initiation and scheduled date ofissuance of each authorization (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| * the current status of each authorization (from :cosultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of environmental approvals and consultations are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR S t.45(d) with respect to the requirement for applicants to list ah Federal permits, licenses, approvals, and other entitlements that must be obtained in connection with the proposed action and to discuss the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and re.quirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.70 with respect to the requirement that NRC staffindependently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.71 with respect to the requirement that the environmental impact statemer.t (EIS) list all Federal permits, licenses, approvals, and other entitlements that must be obtained (a implementing the proposed action, and discuss the status of compliance with those requirements.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 1.22 August 1997
| |
| | |
| i e! - Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the mgulations identified abovs are as : j
| |
| , ( follows: ?
| |
| q r
| |
| * 'Ihe re are no mgulatory positions specific to this ESRP - .
| |
| 1 Tachalcal Rationals The technical rationale fM evaluating the applicant's reviews, approvals, and consultations is discussed
| |
| -in the following paragraph: 1 -;
| |
| Respons ollity for protection of the environment has been assigned to many agencies. The NRC -- j staffis required by the referenced sections of 10 CFR $1 to consider in its analysis of environmental impacts the concerns and requirements of the agencies that have regulatory -
| |
| 1 authority. -!
| |
| :111. REVIEW PROCEDURES c The basic list and status of authorintions can be obtained from the applicant's ER to guide the reviewer who should take the following steps:
| |
| (1) Consult the reviewers of ESRP Chapters 2.0,4.0, and 5.0 to determine j
| |
| - * - if any authorlations should be added to the applicant's ER.
| |
| }
| |
| * which of the authorintions have to do with environmental concems. l (2) For each such environmentally related authorintion, establish the following:
| |
| e current status of each authorintion -
| |
| . environmental concems of the authorizing agency that are to be addressed by the impact section [
| |
| reviewers
| |
| ~
| |
| * potential problems that may affect granting of the authorintion
| |
| * ' administrative requirements of the authorizing agencies.
| |
| [
| |
| - (3) Give particular attention to the status of authorlations that must be granted before the NRC can issue a construction permit (e.g., Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly
| |
| - mforred to as the Clean Water Act).
| |
| h August IM. 11.2 3 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)J 1
| |
| '%gic g - W - o^u* y w wgy y a pc- g. $ it -W ry w=py r g gs 3 rw greges-g wy" w 'ge'waioriy-W W wy1 yry W og'w tuy yMS wm - $ y*
| |
| | |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Appendix A to this plan provides a sample format for including a list of the status of authorintions relevant to this ESRP. In some circumstances (e.g., a potential problern in State siting authorintions),
| |
| the reviewer may need to prepare additional information to fully cover the subject material.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51 AS,"Environmemal report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.70, "Dran environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| 10 CFR $ 1.71, "Dra A environmental impact statementwontents."
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean Water Act).
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| . _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ . ~ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . ,
| |
| APPENDIX A - ,
| |
| SAMPLE FORMAT FOR ESRP l.2 ,
| |
| The applicant has provided a status listing of related authorintions requiral from Federal, State, regional, local, and abcted Native American tribal agencies in connection with the proposed station (ER Seedon 12). The applications for authorintions are summarized in Table 1.2 1. The staff has reviewed ;
| |
| . that listing and has consulte d with some ofh t e appropr iate agenciesi n en effort to identify any j significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies, j 4, Table 1.21. Federal State, and Local Authorizations j i
| |
| Agency Authority ActMty Covered U.S. Army Corps of Rivers and Harbors Act of Permit for Construction of Engineers 1899 Intake and Discharge Facilities U.S. EPA or State Clean Water Act Discharge of Process Waste Water State River Basin Allocation for Consumptive l Commission Water Use O
| |
| 6 I
| |
| i 6
| |
| 6 1I x , August 1997 1,25 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) !i
| |
| ,, _ . . , _ . - . - . , ,.,a.. . . , - - . . . . . .. _ . . J b - , . , . . . . . . . , . , , . - - . - . , - . , . - _ . , , _ , , . - . ,
| |
| | |
| NURE].1555
| |
| . U.S. NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o '** ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD U '[s,*****):, REVIEW PLAN '
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCl. EAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTALDESCRIPTION REVIEW RES) ONSIBILITIES Primary-Gen sic Issues and Environmental Project Branch Secondtry-N one
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW Thir ',nvironmental standard review plan (ESRP) direct's the staff's preparation of an introductory prograph for the site description portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan is to introduce the material to be presented in the EIS based on the eviews conducted under ESRPs 2.1 through 2.8.
| |
| Review Interfaces d None.
| |
| Data and information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| * 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 2.0 1 NUllEG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMEN'I AL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| , d,*a*,?.A,?.n.c.*i:,L'att:t'" 13.L"'*.*ot.' h*,2.":".iL".*itit*" '
| |
| p"o'a.f.t2,r.,*/J*J#,.g;r.r.lrt,Y.
| |
| u1 g f ggy,g,, .a. n,. .o* e .,a . .r.E, vui e.. !,*Jtea*A:.t.ta.V
| |
| * oo,.oia
| |
| (_)
| |
| o g g y,*,, g,g4g,g. , s..ar . .. .,,,,,,i. .. . ..-4 1. .-os. o i.
| |
| , .n. ..w.
| |
| L L*"'""".'4 d,tt':r'u'*J" .' 2:fw.e"d' a::3,$"n.fcTal* """* "* ** ""*'*""**'"'
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| l Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the Commission's regubtions identified above are as follows:
| |
| . There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Mnical statlM The technical rationale for the evaluation of the applicant's environmental description is disvuned in the follov.ing paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of materia! to overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in naturc, and no specific analysis of the data is regoired.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer for this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers ofinformation covered by ESRPs 2.1 through 2.8. This paragraph should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.0 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 1 NUREG.1555 i
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| , [,. h ENVIRONMENTAL' STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.1 STATION LOCATIO*1 REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES l Primary-{Jeneric issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None I, AREAS OF REVIEW
| |
| 'lhlt cridronmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of a description of the geographical loce'lon of the site. 'Ihe scope of the review directed by this plan should include consideration cf geography in sufEcient detail to orient the reader and to establish a geographical point of teference for other descriptive material (e.g., land and water use, local ecology, or demography).
| |
| Eeview Interraces
| |
| ( The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 2.5.3. 2.7. 4.2.1. and 4 2.2. Provide information regarding the plant location, site description and layout, and surrounding region.
| |
| . ESRPs !.B.1 and 5.8.2. Provide a detailed description of the plant location and surrounding region affected by the proposed plant operation so that the reviewers ofinformation for ESRPs 5.8.1 and 5,8.2 can address the socioeconomic effects of plant operation.
| |
| . ESRP 9.3. Make available maps, photographs, and descriptions of the proposed site and surrounding region.
| |
| August 1997 2,11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '"***'*?,,'a"t't, A
| |
| ,n",fra.'i:Av.:f4".0p'.
| |
| '"*"2,"6 ."o22 ., , p. g.i.' g:DL 't.:!.'"."*"a."::*A".'ati",,a r,
| |
| t ;.r,. c'E.a r i ro,t.t.".'',*".f.'1.,Tt.'.
| |
| g g g g ,g, p t#."'?M',@,2,g'*"" -i . o 6.v en.i,. oi.
| |
| d g .o g g g ,. . m . ~ .ar, ..,,,,, wi.. . a .. - i..n .
| |
| d d 8:=cl1nte:rta'.". #=t ,TO 2.N.~.C*o.i e'?at **""* "* " 5 ""*" "*'''"'
| |
| | |
| Data and Information Ngtd3 The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| 9
| |
| * site location: State; county; latitude and longitude Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates; and towmhip, range, and section(s)(from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| + area of the site (from the ER) e distance and direction from the nearest major city (from the ER and population center)
| |
| + distance and direction from several nearby towns and readily recognized landmarks, including major nearby highways, rivert, or other bodies of water, within 10 km (6 mi) of the plant site (from the ER and site visit)
| |
| + for geographical orientation, simplified maps (based on an official source ofinformation such as a State highway map) centered on the plant site: one general map with about an 80 km (50 mi) radius and a second map with about a 10 km (6-mi) radius of the plant (orient true north at the top of the map)(from the ER)
| |
| + a high-oblique aerial view or perspective drawing of the site with an indication of the plant boundary (plant site should occupy about 10% of the view)(from the ER upon request (reproducible copy) frorn the applicant)
| |
| The reviewer should also verify, both by site visit and by independent review of geographical information, that the descriptive material is correct and sufficiently detailed for environmental analysis.
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptable criteria for the inclusion of descriptive site information are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.45 with respect to requirements of a description of the affected environment.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria to meet the regulations identified above are e.s follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, with respect to the inclusion of a site location and description
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.7 with respect to establishing descriptive material for analysis ofland and water use, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, and demographics.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.1 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l, F
| |
| Tanhalcal Ratlanals [
| |
| (
| |
| 1he technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's station location is discussed in the following -
| |
| paragraph:
| |
| This evaluatim assembles descriptive Information useful for clearly and concisely orienting the ;
| |
| roadw to the location of the station. It also is intended to provide reviewws with a genwal {
| |
| orientation of plant location in the region.
| |
| Ill, REVIEWPROCEDURES Because this section is primarily for orientation, the information needed can usually be obtained from the applica.w's ER. The reviewer should visit the site to ensure that important fostures have been noted. ,
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS {
| |
| l When presenting evaluation findings, the reviewer should vwify that the descriptive information is useful for clearly and concisely orienting the reader to the location of the station and that the descriptive =j materialis correct and complete, {
| |
| The material should be presented in a narrative style maintaining both brevity and clarity. Usually the topic can be covered in a few sentences accompanied by figures as described in the Data and Information ,
| |
| Needs section. :
| |
| V, IMPLEMENTATION !
| |
| The method described hwein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the l Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable - ;
| |
| attemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. i VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR $1 A5," Environmental rept;, genwal requirements," ,
| |
| Regulatory Oulde 4.2, Rev. 2, " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations." t Regulatory Guide 4,7. Rev.1. " General Site Suitability Critoria for Nuclear Power Stations." i 1
| |
| A
| |
| [ August 1997 ' - 2.1 3 - NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) ,
| |
| i Yh~ .. , - -.-- - - . . . - - --r,~n--, ,.---.---,-.m-. -,n,, w-.,.,e .w .,,-+,.,n,a, , ~ m n , - s .~ ,~- - , $
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 7
| |
| U
| |
| ([. U.S.
| |
| REVIEW PLAN NUCLEAR REG OFFICE OF NCOLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.2 LAND REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic Issues and Environmental Project Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's preparation of an introductory paragraph for the land area description portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material to be presented from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 2.2.1 through 2.2.3.
| |
| a Ecxtew Interraces None.
| |
| Data an,1 Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the prop > sed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| .. 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 2.21 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN '
| |
| d.,w. of th. ome. of Nucl R eto, R.gul.tlon .t.ff
| |
| !"""J*gt.':,3*,3%:." '"' ''
| |
| N Envl.onm.nt.1.t.nd.,d ..vt.w p"*e5'?
| |
| *" *".%'.""10rn'/3,*r4', Fox ,'1"4*".,
| |
| 'W.178.dpl.n. .r.
| |
| /.".p,.pw.d
| |
| ..s'1.',TJ' fo, th.#,. i,,: .In.
| |
| : f. ".TinWo'nm.nia 4(')
| |
| w R.,.n.a..",l"."2.,
| |
| . tu m* e .: at n..i.'',07 uon . 0."A."W.ata,Jia T .
| |
| -.i.. .mn, d.i. .-i. -4 i.
| |
| g g , , ,,,nawg,gg.,- ,i.n. .m ....a c i *ar.
| |
| 8:=l1::!:,"'tark",.*a'%ft,*R"*.4" #.,N.".*hi,$d7c' *ro"a' !* """* '"* " * ""*" "*'"'""Y l
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specinc criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as ;
| |
| follows:
| |
| {
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions speci0c to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationalg The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's land description is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of material to overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| IfI. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specl0c analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer for this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph should introdu.:e the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers for ESRPs 2.2.1 through 2.2.3. This paragraph should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS. It should also highlight the differences in emphasis of the reviews conducted under the three ESRPs.
| |
| V. IMPI_EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified ponions of the regulations.
| |
| VI, REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) ' 2.2 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| i n .
| |
| l NUREG.1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O <^\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** /
| |
| REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.2.1 Tile SITE AND VICINITY REVIEW RESPUSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None -
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff s review ofland use of the site and vicinity.N The scope of the review directed by this plan should include the establishment of the nature and extent of present and planned land use within the site and vicinity that might De impacted or modified as a result of station construction or refurbishment and operation, r
| |
| ( Review Interfaces
| |
| \.
| |
| W reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 212. Provide land use data as needed to describe surface-water and groundwater uses.
| |
| (a) For the purpese of these environmental reviews," site" and " vicinity" are defined as follows:
| |
| : 1. " Site"-The site is defined as that area ofland owned or controlled by the applicant for the principal purpose of constructing and operating a nuclear power station. As a general rule, the applicant's " site boundary" should be accepted as defining the site.
| |
| : 2. " Vicinity"-For small sites (on the order of 2 km ), 2the vicinity is the area er compassed within a radius of 10 km (6 mi) . For largcr irregularly shaped sites, the vicinity is a band or belt 10 km (6 mi) wide surrounding the plant site . The intent is to investigate land use in an area in which the site makes up no rnore than 10% of the area. If a lake or pond is to be created for use by the station, the entire water body area should be included in the vicinity. The vicinity considered may foilow natural or political boundaries.
| |
| August 1997 2.2.1 1 NUREG ISSS (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN m * "E' f"h@id,'a"P,d,3atn.dti:/mt;:/,%'(#a"*r*JW,2*.'M*,'t,n."::*ii".T/4*,",a*.".. ,., .t h .?.2/A%*;r
| |
| * 4
| |
| -d
| |
| -(v) pg; gy,g;,g,.nlr,a"!"a' o. Tw 7..-*-aid
| |
| ..,*teS*,J/4''"*',*l.aJ.
| |
| maa- 2.m"c'220,
| |
| .vu to r - uon tma*-id
| |
| 'J."W'L'-
| |
| I."#!?:4"3.*,a,,",.TadA*t",,t:2 P'""""**d 5*****'' " *'"*d"' '"**""'"* *-'""' ''
| |
| d 4dim':12.'"n"=fsta"*.c"o'i.';l",,N.TC".Te P.".a'".*".' ita!* """"" " * ""*" "*'"'''"'
| |
| * URP 2.4.1. Provide land use data as needed to describe terrestrial ecology, 1
| |
| * ESRP 2.5.2. Provide land use dats, as needed to describe community characteristics. !
| |
| * ESRP 2.5.3. Provide land use data as needed to describe historic and archeological sites and natural landmarks.
| |
| * ESRP 3.1. Provide land use data as needed to relate the desciiption of the proposed plan and related offsite structures to the site and vicinity.
| |
| * URPs 4.1.1. 4.1.3. and 4.4. Ensure that the land use descripdons are a/ quate to support the construction or refurbishment impact assessments for land use, historic and archeological sites, and socioeconomics.
| |
| * ESRP 4.2.2. Provide land use data as needed to assess construction or refurbishment impacts on water use.
| |
| * ESRPs 5.1.1. 5.1.3. 5.4. and 5.8. Ensure that the land use descriptions are adequate to support the operational impact assessments for land use, hb Mc and archaeological sites, socioeconomics, and radiological impacts of normal operations.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modilled according to the anticipated magnittje of the potential impact. The following data or mformwlon should usually be obtained:
| |
| * maps showing land use within the site boundary. (These maps should be of the same scale as maps showing the plant and construction areas in ESRP Chapters 3.0 and 4.0.) Land use categorie.s should be classified consistently with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) land-use classification codes listed in "USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data"(USGS 1997). Maps should show general patterns of ownership by outlining boundaries of parcels owned by individuals, or corporations, governments, or other entities. Specialland-use categories within the sitt Soundary such as Native American or military reservations, State and national parks, naticnal monuments, national forests, wild and scenic rivers, designated coastal zone areas, and wilderness areas, should be shown (from the environmental report [ER),"USGS Land Use and land Cover Data" consultations with resource agencies, and USGS [1997]).
| |
| * land areas (hectares) devoted to major uses within the site boundary (from the ER)
| |
| * maps showing major land uses in the site vicinity with land uses classified consistently with the USGS categories (USGS 1997)(from the ER)
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.2.12 August 1997 O
| |
| s
| |
| | |
| i 1
| |
| i e land areas (hectares) that are devoted to major uses within the site vicinity (from the ER) - ] !
| |
| . maps showing highways, railroad lines, and utility rights.of. ways' that cross the site and vicinity l (fkom the ER). -j i
| |
| e . ogress limitations from the area surrounding the site (from ti,e ER or application) -l
| |
| * special land uses (e.g., recreation) other than makr land uses in the site and vicinity that could be j significantly after . i by construction or refurbishment of the proposed project (from the ER and t consuhation with local agencies) . ,
| |
| t
| |
| * mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, coal, oil, natural gas, and ores) adjacent to or within the site l boundary presemiy being exploited or of known commercial value (from the ER) l e ownership of mineral resources (i.e., whether the mineral resources are owned by the surface !
| |
| landowner or by another owner) .
| |
| e land use plans that include the site and vicinity within their scope (from applicable Federal, State, j regional, local, and r,ffected Nctive American tribal planning agencies). j
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA r
| |
| f Asp;.m criteria for the review ofland use at the site and vicinity of the site are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| l
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to analysis requirements to be included in environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by NRC :
| |
| f e 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), with respect to discussion in EIS: prepared by NRC of possible conflicts between alternatives and the objectives of applicable land use plans. .
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are i provided in
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Chapter 2.1, which sets out the land use information requirements for
| |
| : inclusion in an applicant's ER
| |
| * the second proposed Rev. 2 to Regulatory Guide 4.7, which sets out the land use and aesthetic -
| |
| - considerations related to site suitability. . ;
| |
| a 4
| |
| L August 1997 .
| |
| 2.2.13 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) ;
| |
| a m _;#..w-.a -E - -.Ua-%,..~ w +4,.+..-,..-4.-a,#,.- , e .,me. .--9%,.-e ww c- w wy#,r. ~ e , y, m. .- ,- .v,4-.. q--,-r,-y, e,e,, y , m w w-w r e
| |
| | |
| l Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of planned land use within the site and vicinity is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| NRC's regulations it'plementing NEPA provide that NRC EISs are to include a section discussing the environmental consequences of alternatives (10 CFR 51, Appendix A[7]). The section is to include a discussion of"possible conflicts tetween the alternatives and the objectives of Fedcrat, State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Native American tribal) land use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned." In addition, the regulations povide that due consid-eration is to be given in an EIS to comply with applica' ole zoning and land ust regulations (10 CFR 51.71(d)).
| |
| Guidance on (1) what constitutes a land use plan or policy, e.nd (2) how an agency should handle poten-tial confilets between a proposal and the objectives ofland use plans is addressed by the Cocacil on Environm-ntal Quality (CEQ)in Question 23 of" Forty Most Asked Questions"(CEQ 1981). With respect to what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, CEQ states on page 18033 that The term " land use plans" ir, eludes all types of formally adopted documents for land use planning, zoning and related regulatory requirements. Local general plans aie included, even though they are subject to future change. Proposed plans should also tm addressed if they have been formally pro-posed by the appropriate government body in a written form, and are being actively pursued by officials of the jurisdiction. Staged plans, which must go through phases of development ... should also be included even though they are incomplete.
| |
| With regard to how an agency should handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives of land use plans, CEQ states on page 18033 (CEQ 1981) that ne agency should first inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential conflicts. If there would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could crise in the future when the plans are finished ...
| |
| the EIS must acknowledge and describe the extent of those conflicts. !f there are any possibilities of resolving the conflicts, these should be explained as well. De EIS should also evaluate the serious-ness of the impact of the proposal on the land use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the proposal will impair the ef1'ectiveness ofland-use control mechanisms for the area. Comments from officials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and answered in the EIS, NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, identifies the information needed by the staff in its assessment of the potential environmental effects of a proposed nuclear facility and establishes a format acceptable to the staff for its presentation. NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.7 discusses land use considerat!ons that may render a proposed site unsuitable for a nuclear power station and procedures for evaluating land use impacts.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.2.1 4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| Y l
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEr>URES
| |
| , (--
| |
| The reviewer's analysis ofland-use characteristics should be closely linked with the impact assessment review described in ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 (e.g4 4.1.1 and 5.1.1) to establish the land-use charac-teristics most likely to be affected. With this in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| (1) Identify the present land use within the site boundary and vicinity according to categories defined by the USGS (1997).
| |
| * Base the level of detail in selecting land-us,: :ategories on the needs of subsequent assessments.
| |
| . Identify total area by land-use category.
| |
| * Compare the land uses of the site and vicinity to be changed as a result of station construction and operation (ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0) with the land use of the region as described in ESRP 2.2.3.
| |
| (2) Identify the following characteristics:
| |
| . waterways, highways, roads, and railroads that cross the site. Of particular interest am those that would be closed to public use.
| |
| p
| |
| * docking facilities or barge slips on any waterways within the site vicinity V . natural gas, electrical transmission, comn mications, and other utility lines that cross the site e golf courses and picnic, swimming, fishing, boating, and other recreational areas v,ahin the site end vicinity
| |
| = visually sensitive areas or viewsheds that would be affected by plant construction or refurbishment a residential areas, airports, and industrial or commercial facilities within the site vicinity
| |
| = agricultural areas within the site and vicinity a commercially exploitable mineral resources
| |
| = land-use plans that include the site and vicinity within their scope.
| |
| p Augu::t 1997 2.2.1-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| u l
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer st ould ensure that the information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the effects of O
| |
| construction or refurbishment and operation of the station on land use. %c reviewer should use the site visit and consultation with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal agencies to assess the accuracy of the land-use designations.
| |
| The depth and extent of the input to the EIS will be govemed by the land-use characteristics of the site and vicinity in wl-ich the station is to be located and the potential land-use impacts of plant construction or refurbishment and operation. The information should be presented in a concise form. Data should be given in tables showing the land use of the site and vicinity.
| |
| The following information should be included:
| |
| . a brief description of the land use characteristics of the site and vicinity
| |
| + a tabulation of areas dedicated to each land use category in the site and vicinity. The tabulations may be supplemented by land use maps as necessary for clarity. The tabulations needed for ESRPs 2.2.1,2.2.2, and 2.2.3 should be combined into one table.
| |
| He reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided by the applicant or obtained by the reviewer to meet the relevant requirements and that the reviewer's evaluation of the information supports include the following type of statement in the EIS or other environmental document:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available infonnation on land use at the propssed site and in the vicinity of the site and concludes that the information is adequate to permit the identification and assessment of potential impacts.
| |
| V, IMPt.EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases ir) which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).1981. " Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Euvironmental Policy Act Regulations," 46 Federal Register,18026-18037.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.2.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).1997. "USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data," USGS Survey Earth Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.4.1974. Reporting Procedurefor Afathematical Afodels Selected to Predict Heated Efluent Dispersion in Natural Water Bodies.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev. 2. I995. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations. Second Proposal.
| |
| t
| |
| -[h
| |
| ( August 1997 2.2.1-7 NUREG-lSSS (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| ! NURE2-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
| |
| /''% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD-REVIEW PLAN
| |
| *****/ OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.2.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFFSITE AREAS REVIEW RESPONS!BILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary--None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the stafi's review ofland use of transmission line corridors,Maccess corridors, and other offsite areas that will be modified for the sole purpose of supporting construction and operation of the proposed project. The scope of the review directed by this plan should include consideration of these areas in sufficient detail to form a basis for assessing the land-use impacts from the construction and maintenance of offsite facilities.
| |
| /m Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| ESRP 2.3.2, Provide land use data as needed to describe surface-water and groundwater uses.
| |
| ESRPs 2.4.1 and 2 5 2. Provide land use data as needed to describe terrestrial ecology and community characteristics.
| |
| ESRP 2 5 3. Provide land use data as needed to describe historic and archaeological sites and natural landmarks.
| |
| (a) See ESRP 3.7 for a definition of transmission line " corridors."
| |
| August 1997- 2.2.2-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN lO '"
| |
| * I*"*ThI'.Yr EEs'er m h .Ybs". tN " ***c"es put of Er man w%
| |
| " ==:a=w.=.
| |
| YtN*EYMU.Y."w gth.ggr,.g.d.*tIr@di.Th.
| |
| ntaiet .nvironm . ,.,ydgpw pient. er. kny.d to Pr.w per
| |
| ,.n,g,.iggdgw pl.n. we be revie.d pelosessy. appropriet.. to ccommodate comments end to
| |
| $$**** NtEc7af MnEo'r7.eus.*tN*w.0MYc$os'ss. ..ntb t the us. Nues , n. sus.tay
| |
| * ESRP 3.1. Provide land use data as needed to relate the description of the proposed plant and related offsite structures to the site and vicinity.
| |
| * ESRP 3.7. Provide land-use data as needed to support descriptions of transmission corridors and offsite areas.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.1.2. 4.1.3. and 4.4 Ensure that the land-use descriptions are adequate to support the construction impact assessments for land use, historic and archaeological sites, and socioeconomics.
| |
| * ESRP 4.2.2. Provide land use data as needed to assess construction or refurbishment impacts on water use.
| |
| * ESRPs 5.1.2. 5.1.3. and 5.8.1. Ensure that the land use descriptions are adequate to support the operational impact assessments for land use, historic and archaeological sites, and socioeconomics.
| |
| * ESRP 5.6.1 and 5.6.3. Ensure that the land-use descriptions are adequate to support the operational impacts assessments of the transmission system and the terrestrial ecosystem and on humans.
| |
| Data and Information Needs
| |
| 'lhe kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified r arding to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following dsta or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| e proposed routes for corridors that will be used for construction of transmission lines from the station site to an inteiconnecting point or points on the existing high voltage transmission systems (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| . proposed routes of access corridors to serve the proposed station (from the ER) e corridor lengths, widths, and areas (from the ER) e land-use restrictions, if any, contained in any casements (from the ER and consultation with land resource agencies)
| |
| * land use within the corridors using the categories defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1997). Land use information should be subdivided into corridor segments having predominantly similar land use types (from the ER, consultation with applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies, and USGS (1997])
| |
| e identification of offsito areas by land use, size, and location (from ER, site visit, and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, ant' Native American tribal agencies) 2.2.2 2 August 1997 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l L
| |
| (L p
| |
| * local and regional land-use plans of State, regional, and local agencies (from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal agencies) t
| |
| -
| |
| * special land-use classifications (e.g., Indian or military reservations, wild and scenic rivers, State and
| |
| ~
| |
| national parks, national forests, designated coastal zone areas, floodplains, wildlife refuges, and 1 wilderness areas)(from the ER, consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and Native
| |
| - American tribal agencies, and USGS [1997]).-
| |
| !!. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review ofland use in transmission line corridors,' access corridors, and other offsite areas that will be modified for the sole purpose of supporting construction and operation of the proposed project are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to analysis requirements to be included in environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by NRC
| |
| * 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), with respect to discussion in EISs prepared by NRC of possible conflicts between alternatives and the objectives of applicable land-use plans.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| s
| |
| * Chapter 2.1 of NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, which sets out the land use information requirements for inclusion in an applicant's ER
| |
| * the second proposed Rey,2 to NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7, which sets forth the land use and aesthetic considerations related to site suitability.
| |
| Technical Rationak De technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's description of planned land use of transmission corridors and offsite areas is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| NRC's regulations implementing NEPA provide that NRC EISs are to include a section discussing the environmental consequences of alternatives [10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7)). The section is to include a discussion of"possible conflicts between the attematives and the objectives of Federal, State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Native American tribal) land use plans,
| |
| - policies, and controls for the area concerned." In addition, the regulations provide that due consid-
| |
| ~ 3.. .erstion is to be given in an EIS to compliance with applicable zoning and land-use regulations
| |
| [10 CFR 51.71(d)].
| |
| A
| |
| ; August 1997 2.2.2 3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| . - = - . . - . - -. .- . - . .. - -.
| |
| | |
| I The guidance on (1) what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, and (2) how an agency should handle l potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives of land use plans are addressed by the Council l i
| |
| on Environmental Quality (CEQ)in Question 23 of" Forty Most Asked Questions"(CEQ 1981). With regard to what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, CEQ states on page 18033 that the term " land use plans" includes all types of formally adopted documents for land use planning, l zoning and related regulatory requirements. Local general plans are included, even though they are subject to future change. Proposed plans should also tw addressed if they have been formally pro- ,
| |
| I posed by the appropriate government body in a written form, and are being actively pursued by officials of the jurisdiction. Staged plans, which must go through phases of development ... should also be included even though they are incomplete.
| |
| With regard to how an agency should handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives of land use plans, CEQ states on page 18033 (CEQ 1981) that the agency should first inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential conflicts, if there would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could arise in the future when the plans are finished ...
| |
| the EIS must acknowledge and describe the extent of those conflicts. if there are any possibilities of resolving the conflicts, these should be explained as well. The EIS should also evaluate the serious-ness of the impact of the proposal on the land-use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the proposal will impair the effectiveness ofland-use control mechanisms for the area. Comments from officials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and l answered in the EIS.
| |
| NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, identifies the information needed by the staff in its assessment of the potential environmental effects of a proposed nuclear facility and establishes a format acceptable to !
| |
| the staff for its presentation. Regulatory Guide 4.7 discusses land use considerations that may render a proposed site unsuitable for a nuclear power station and procedures for evaluating land use impacts.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES Re reviewer's analysis ofland-use characteristics should be closely linked with the impact assessment review described in ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 (e.g.,4.1.2 and 5.1.2) to establish the land-use charac-teristics most likely to be affected. With this in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| (1) Identify the present land use within the transmission corridors, access corridors, and offsite areas according to categories defined in USGS (1997).
| |
| = Base the level of detail in selecting land use categories on the needs of subsequent assessments.
| |
| . Identify total area by land-use categories.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.2.24 August 1997
| |
| | |
| j'" . L. Compare the land use of the corridors that would be changed in ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 with 4 : land use within the region as described in ESRP 2.2.3.
| |
| /(2) Identify the following characteristics of the transminion corridors,'accou corridors, and offsite ,
| |
| areas: . -
| |
| 4 l
| |
| - .E waterways, highways, roads, railroads, airports, and airplane flight paths
| |
| _ natural gas, electrical transmission lines, communication lines, and other utilities "
| |
| ~. r golf courses and picnic, swimming, fishing, boating, and other recreational areas -
| |
| i residential areas and industrial or commercial facilities i
| |
| Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal land-use plans t
| |
| l . specialland-use classifications.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS ne reviewer should ensure that the land use information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the A effects of construction and operation of transmission lines, access corridors, and offsite areas. De
| |
| ,' ' Q reviewer should use the site visit and consultation with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and
| |
| ' Native American tribal agencies to assess the accuracy of the land-use designations.
| |
| The depth and extent of the input to thE EIS should be governed by the land use characteristics of the transmission corridors and offsite areas in which the plant is to be located and the potential land-use .
| |
| impacts of plant construction and operation.
| |
| The information should be presented in a concise form. Data should be given in tables showing land use in the transmission corridors, access corridors, and offsite areas.
| |
| The following information should be included:
| |
| . a brief description of the characteristics of the transmission corridors, access corridors, and offsite-4 areas
| |
| - = a tabulation of the areas dedicated to each land use category in the transmission corridors, access corridors, and offsite areas. Information on transmission ' corridors should be subdivided into corri-dor segments having predominantly similar land uses. The tabulations may be supplemented by land-use maps as necessary for clarity. The tabriations required for ESRPs 2.2.1,2.2.2, and 2.2.3
| |
| : should be combined into a single table.
| |
| . j- ] - . -
| |
| ; : August 1997 2.2.2-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| , , - , m w---$ ,-w2,--,v,, we --
| |
| v- -w -c:
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided by the applicant or obtained by the reviewer to meet the relevant requirements and that the reviewer's evaluation of the information supports including the following type of statement in the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information on land use in transmission corridors and offsite areas and concludes that the information is adequate to permit the identification and assessment of potential impacts.
| |
| V. IMPl EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES l 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).1981. " Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's i National Environmental Policy Act Regulations." 46 FederalRegister,8026-18037.
| |
| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1997. USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data. USGS Earth Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C.
| |
| l l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations. Second Proposal, Rev. 2 to Regulatory Guide 4.7, DG 4004, Washington, D.C.
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.2.2-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O ,,,\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ['s,*****)
| |
| REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ' OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.2.3 THE REGION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary 4cneric Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary---None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs review and description ofland use in the regionW of the site. The scope of the review directed by this plan should include establishment of the nature and extent of existing and planned land use within the region that might be impacted or modified as a result of construction and operation of the proposed project.
| |
| O Review Interfaces U
| |
| The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers of infonnation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.2.1. Obtain land-use information and categories.
| |
| . ESRPs 2.5.2. 3.1. 4.2.2. 4.4. 5.4.1. and 5.8.1. Provide regional land-use data as required to allow these ESRP reviewers to complete their descriptions or impact assessments.
| |
| (a) For the purpose of these environmental reviews, the " region" is defined as an area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the station site but excluding the " site and vicinity"(defined in ESRP 2.2.1).
| |
| . August 1997 2.2.31 NUREG-1SSS (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL 5TANDARD REVIEW PLAN d *** "
| |
| 'Me r'.*nOw"A""."v:,%T.jp'o' 7p6d"id'*doevm
| |
| ' m.'UfA"**ESW "$''*e n p.t of I-u IL*."."".*.tt"".t:,@/a*J!.*e""A,.d m _h
| |
| .tr T.o.,tq* dp. .:';u.t."'#.J:a".po".ad, _.
| |
| =,r_ . . . to p, o Puhe ,.ng .t.nd.yrdw pl.n. we b. revi d pated 6. sy. w .pprop,i.t., to .ccommod.t. comm.nt. .nd to d
| |
| c:=il".':o*" ora vo. u 2l'2;ist"**
| |
| . do',"J."2%g.'i"d c *Inis" """* ** ** "**" "**'"'
| |
| | |
| Data and Information Needs ne kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. He following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . maps showing major land use within the site boundary Land use categories should be consistent with those defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1997)(from the environmental report
| |
| [ER), consultation with resource agencies, and USGS [1997]).
| |
| e land areas (hectares) devoted to major uses within the site boundary (from the ER) e principal agricultural products of the region and average annual yields (from the ER)
| |
| = maps showing the major transportation and utility networks within the region (from the ER) e maps showing major public and trust land areas in the region (from the ER).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of land use in the region are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR S t.7)(d) with respect to analysis requirements to be included in environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by NRC
| |
| * 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), with respect to discussion in EISs prepared by NRC of possible conflicts between alternatives and the cbjectives of applicable land-use plans.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are provided in a here are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description ofland use in the region is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| NRC's regulations implementing NEPA provide that NRC EISs are to include a section discussing
| |
| - the environmental consequences of alternatives (10 CFR 51, Appendix A[7]). The section is to 1 include a discussion of"possible conflicts between the alternatives and the objectives of Federal, J State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Native American tribal) land-use plans, 1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.2.3-2 August 1997 O l l
| |
| l l
| |
| l i
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| _ ~ - ._
| |
| - n ~. - . - - . - . .. . - - - . ._ . ..- -
| |
| 7.g
| |
| 'V,.
| |
| m, l
| |
| - policios, and controls for the alta concerned." In addition, the regulations provide that due con- ;
| |
| s_,
| |
| sideration is to be given in an EIS to compliance with applicable zoning and land-use regulations .
| |
| (10 CFR 51.71[d]). ,
| |
| 4 _
| |
| ]
| |
| Guidance on (1) what constitutes a land use plan or policy, and (2) how an agency should handle poten. -
| |
| . tial conflicts between a proposal and the objectives ofland use plans are addressed by the Council on - s
| |
| ' Environmental Quality (CEQ) in Question 23 of" Forty Most Asked Questions"(CEQ 1981). With-
| |
| - regard to what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, CEQ states on page 18033 that L 3
| |
| the term " land-use plans"_ includes all types of formally adopted documents for land-use planning,
| |
| : zoning and related regulatory requirements. Local general plans are included, even though they are subject to future change. Proposed plans should also be addressed if they have been formally _ '
| |
| proposed by the appropriate government body in a written form, and are being actively puauod by
| |
| ~F officials of the jurisdiction. Staged plans, which must go through phases of development J.Whould :
| |
| also be included even though they are incomplete.
| |
| '- With respect to how an agency shoul;l h'andle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives of land 1sc plans, CEQ states on page 18033 (CEQ 1981) that the agency should first inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential conflicts. If there would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could arise in the future when the plans are finished ...
| |
| /^' ~t he EIS must acknowledge and describe the~ extent of those conflicts, if there are any possibilities of
| |
| \ resolving the conflicts, these should be' explained as well. The EIS should also evaluate the serious-
| |
| , ness of the impact of the proposal on the land-use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the u . proposal will impair the efRctiveness ofland use control mechanisms for the area. Comments from officials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and .
| |
| answered in the EIS.
| |
| Illi REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| - The reviewer's analysis oflandiuse characteristics should be closely linked with the impact assessment review described in ESRPs Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 to establish the land-use characteristics most likely to be affected by the proposed project.- With this in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| l (1) Identify present land use within the region according; to the categories defined by the USGS (1997):
| |
| La = Determine the level of detail used in selecting land-tise categories in consultation with the .
| |
| reviewers for construction and operational impacts on land use and socioeconomics and with the l.. ' reviewer for radiological impacts.
| |
| V Provide land-use categories for the entire region.
| |
| A - E Include all land-use categories used by the reviewer of ESRP 2.2.1.
| |
| ~
| |
| T August 1997.) - 2.2.3-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| .a t
| |
| m_____.__._.__.___._..__.___._m._____.__m.___ _ . . u..,_,_ , , , _ , , , . . . y_. ., _. , ,. _ , _ , . , , _ ,,,___,._s ,p.,
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| i (2) Identify the following characteristics of the region:
| |
| * major waterways, highways, roads, railroads, airpons, and other transportation routes within the s region. Of particular interest are those routes that would be used during construction or opera-tion of the proposed project and routes that could be affected by construction or operational activities.
| |
| . electric transmission corridors and other utility rights-of way (e.g., natural gas line corridors) within the region
| |
| * principal agricultural products, crop areas, and average annual yields a special land-use classifications within the region (e.g., Native American or military reservations, wild and scenic rivers, State and national parks, national forests, designated coastal zone areas, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas)
| |
| * Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal land use plans.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer should ensure that the information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the effects of the l proposed project construction and operation on regional land use and account for all major regional land uses. The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies to assess the accuracy of the land use designations, and should ensure that the regional land-use categories are consistent with those selected for ESRP 2.2.1.
| |
| The depth and extent of the input to the EIS should be governed by the land-use characteristics of the region in which the station is located and the potential land-use impacts of the proposed project con-l struction and operation.
| |
| The information for ESRP 2.2.3 should be presented in a concise form, and should include the following:
| |
| * a brief description of the land use characteristics of the region
| |
| * a tabulation of the areas dedicated to each land-use category in the region. The tabulations may be supplemented by land-use maps as necessary for clarity. The tabulations required for ESRPs 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 should be combined into one table.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided by the applicant or obtained by the reviewer to meet the relevant requirements and that the reviewer's evalaation of the information supports including the following type of statement in the EIS:
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.2.3-4 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| n The Mhas reviewed the available information on land use in the region and concludes that the (V) information is adequate to permit the identification and assessment of potential impacts.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION
| |
| - The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. hlEFERENCES 10 CFR 51, Appendix A," Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental Impact Statements."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71, Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| Council on Environmer.tal Quality (CEQ).1981. '' Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations." 46 FederalRegister,18026-18037.
| |
| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),1997. USGS Land Use and Land Caver Data. USGS Earth Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
| |
| i\
| |
| p August 1997 2.2.35 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NURE31555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o /f,,,,% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| 's***** ) REVIEW. PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.3 WATER REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW ,
| |
| This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the hydrological and water quality description portions of the environmental impact Statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material to be presented from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 2.3.1,2.3.2, and 2.3.3.
| |
| Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplemens from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| = 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 - 2.3-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ~
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN e t *
| |
| '?.. ,i ot
| |
| *""W,,*12o'd,M.n.c.T.,%t::d p*%*",'.".*o"%:,27,1.,'J.;i,."3, a'' 2.".#47 71.,,', =:';
| |
| .rf. '#g"*f4.TJ2,*.'
| |
| c'.a. .m. 0*2f::* int.W.#"
| |
| : m. ,a* m .. ,
| |
| . . . *.i.t".g. .o.o .,
| |
| (m'-)g ,,,,, e , ,,3, ,
| |
| a g g ,.g.. .. w ,. a .v... ..... . .
| |
| 8".".'".*".'a.ro,2:rti.'.", d ""
| |
| #.".'"J:,*".*e"a.",i.o dd J:."4,.d.i e ern" """* ** " 8 ""*" "*'**"'
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| Regulatory positiotas and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations idemilled above are as .
| |
| follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Iechnical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's hydrological and water quality program is described in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of material to overall orgra zation and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| *The material to be prepared ' formational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer of information cbvered by t.' tis ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 2.3.1,2.3.2, and 2.3.3. This paragraph should list the types of information to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environmental impact staterhent-general."
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.32 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE2-1555
| |
| ,,,, U.S. NUCLEAR RE ULATCRY COMMISSION
| |
| .o 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD U \,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.3.1 HYDROLOGY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description of the surface-water bodies and groundwater aquifers that could affect the plant water supply and effluent disposal or that could b affected by plant construction, refurbishment, and operation of the proposed project, including transmission corridors and offsite facilities. The scope of the review directed by this plan includes consideration of site specific and regional data on the physical and hydrological characteristics of ground and surface water in sufficient detail to provide the basic data for other reviews dealing with the evalua-tion impacts on water bodies, aquifers, aquatic ecosys' ems, and social and economic structures of the O(_,/ area. ,
| |
| j Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| = ESRP 2.3.2. Obtain descriptions of the region's water uses (e.g., the location and nature of water users and water use areas) for the area surrounding the proposed plant site (for the purpose of determining the level of detail required for the description of the hydrology).
| |
| . ESRPs 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.4.2. 3.4.2. 4.1.1 through 4.1.3. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.3.1.1.
| |
| 5.3.1.2. 5.3.2.1. 5.3.2.2. 5.4.l_ 5.5.1. 5.5.2. 6.1. 6.3. 6.6. and 9.4.1. Ensure that ESRP 23.1 contains descriptive information in sufficient detail to support the descriptions and assessments given in these ESRPs.
| |
| August 1997 2J.1-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) ;
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN d.nc. of th. Offic. of Nucl..r R..etor R.gul.tlon .t.ff Environm.m.I .t.nd.rd ..vt.wgan. * .r. pr.p.r.d for
| |
| * th.
| |
| ic824.'A*". To'#,I . t,,'.Ecst,/'.ne J.P t.i a fL"7,: '" "
| |
| i I
| |
| n i
| |
| '"**"""@,'.3.m i Nport or Nuci .utPow 4f" tton .
| |
| i!.*,t St ?'r.".*4."ic.02'.'*Ja.*oCLC';f.",. "
| |
| : r. f.*;".d "';.'t.Wi*f i,*anm.m.i '.y.t4!
| |
| V g.ng; ,.3gg , .n. .. ...i .. .. .,,,,,a. .. to ... no t. o-m. .no to 8"",2."l'n*"!M:ft'i.
| |
| o n" mil,Tte"u'do',N.Tei:d,.*nTas" """""* " 5 ""*"" "''"'''"'
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Data 'and Information Needs He kinds of data and info 2 mation needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, the O
| |
| anticipated magnitude of the potential hydrological impacts, and (to a lesser degree) distance from the site. General, surface-water, and groundwa*.cr data and information should usually be obtained as described in the following sections:
| |
| GeneralW General data and information to be obtained include the following:
| |
| * maps (including digital databases such as a Geographic Information System [GIS]) of sufficient detail to show the relationship of the site to major hydrological systems that could affect or be affected by plant construction, refurbishment, and operation (from the environmental report (ER] and the general literature) e for surface-water bodies used as a heat sink, maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum, and minimum monthly temperature of the water body (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| = - for surface-water bodies and wetlands, estimated erosion characteristics and sediment transport, including rate, bed and suspended load fractions, and gradus. tion analyses; a description of the floodplainN and its relationship to the site; a description of wetlands and their relationship to the site; the design basis flood (DBF) elevation; and, where applicable, the DBF discharge (from the ER and the general literature).
| |
| Surface Water Surface-water data and information to be obtained fall under three categories: freshwater streams, lakes and impoundments, and estuaries and oceans.
| |
| (a) Features necessary to describe the hydrosphere but that do not provide a basis for assessing impacts need not be described in great detail, (b) " Floodplain" is defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoinin inland and coastal waters including floodplain areas of offshore islands This includes, at a minimum, that area subject to a 1% or greater cha.nce of flooding in any given year. Tiie base floodplain shall be used to designate the 100-ysar floodplain (1% chance floodplain). The critical action floodplain is defined as the 500 year floodplain (0.2% chance floodplain)(from Executive Order 11988," Floodplain Management").
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.3.1 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| q t i The following data and information about freshwater streams (for the watershed containing the site) should usually be obtained:
| |
| V
| |
| = a list of major streams, size of drainage areas, and gradient (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal agencies) e maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum, and minimum monthly flow (from the ER and the generalliterature) flood frequency distrib stions (from the ER and the general literature), including levee failures (from the ER and the generalliterature)
| |
| =
| |
| flood control measures (reservoirs, levees, Good forecasting)(from the ER, the general literature, and the site visit) historical drought stages and discharges by month, and the 7-day once in-10 years low flow (from the ER and the general literature) e important short-duration flow fluctuations (e.g., diurnal release variations from peaking operation of upstream hydroelectric project)(from the ER and consultation with local agencies) within the influence of the intake and discharge structures, velocity distribution (horizontal and O
| |
| d vertical), bathymetry at and near the intake structure, bathymetry at and downstream of the discharge structure and stream cross-sections (from the ER) other hydrographic modifications (e.g., diversion dams, channelization)(from the ER and site visit)
| |
| =
| |
| a list of wetlands and floodplains and their seasonal characteristics.
| |
| The following data and information about lakes and impoundments should also usually be obtained:
| |
| a description oflake or impoundment (t' rom the ER and site visit) where influenced by the intake or discharge structures, or vice versa, size, location, and elevation of outlets (from the ER and the general litemture)
| |
| +
| |
| where influenced by the intake or discharge structures, or vice versa, elevation-srea-capacity curves (from the ER and the general literature) a a sammary description of reservoir operating rules (from the ER and consultation with local agencies) annual yield and dependability (from the ER and consultation with local agencies)
| |
| /
| |
| G
| |
| \
| |
| V August 1997 2.3.1-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 1
| |
| * variations in inflows, outflows, water surface elevations, and storage vo!umes and retention time (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| . net loss including evaporstbn and scepagt (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| . cunent patienw, including frequency distribut ons of current speed, direction, and persistence (from the ER And the pneral ineratare) e temperatun: distribution (horizontal and vertic al) and t' ratification and seasonal variations of density induced currents (from the ER) e detailed bathymetry in vicinity of station intake and outfall (from the ER).
| |
| The following data and information dout estuaries and oceans should also usually be obtained:
| |
| . shoreline and bottom descriptions, including seasonal variations due to sediment transport (from the ER and site visit) e tidal current pattems (velocities and phases), range, and excursion (from the ER and the general literature) e nontidal circulation pattnns, including frequency distributions of current speed, direction, and persistence (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| = temperature and salinity distribution (horizontal and vertical), including temporal variations (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| . detailed bathymetry in the vicinity of the station intake and outfall (from the ER)
| |
| + for estuaries, maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum, and minimum monthly river discharge and flushing characteristics (from the ER and the general literature).
| |
| Groundwater Finally, groundwater data and information should usually be obtained, including the following:
| |
| = the areal extent of aquifers, recharge and discharge areas, elevation and depth, and geologic formations (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| * piezometric contour maps and hydraulic gradients (historical,if availabk, and current)(from the ER and the generalliterature) e flow travel times (from the ER and the general literature) 2.3.1-4 August 1997 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| -g h
| |
| a
| |
| . soil proporties, including permeabilities or tranunissivities, storage coefficients or specific yields,
| |
| . total and effective porosities, clay content, and bulk densities (from the ER and the general lherature)
| |
| ( interactions between site surface and groundwaters (from the ER and the general literature) '
| |
| 1 .
| |
| t
| |
| = : historical and seasonal trends in~ groundwater elevation or piezometric levels; interactions between - ,
| |
| different aquifers (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| . recharge rates, soll moistare characteristics, and moisture content in vadose zone i existence of any local aquifers designated or proposed to be designated as " sole source aquifers." i
| |
| ' 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
| |
| \
| |
| ! Acceptance criteria for the review of the hydrology at the proposed plant site are based on the relevant
| |
| : requirements of the following:
| |
| . . 33 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits
| |
| . 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, with respect to conditions, limitations, and restrictions on construction activities e
| |
| 40 CFit 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection 4
| |
| 40 CFR 122 with respect to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Spem (NPDES) permit conditiens for discharges including stormwater discharges 40 CFR 124 with respect to the NPDES process 1
| |
| 40 CFR 227 with respect to criteria for evaluating environmental impacts e
| |
| 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplememchestrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole source aquifer
| |
| . State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific c riteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the envionmerital impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water. quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment
| |
| . O
| |
| ' August 1997 ' 2.3.1 5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| oiaquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit cost balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| * Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply, in Jefferson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the United States Supreme Court granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the State's role in regulating water rights.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| Ischnical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of the area's hydrology is as follows.
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the hydrologic environment is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refur-bishment. This ESRP provides the key background material that is essential for understanding the impacts on water use, water quality, land use, ecological systems, and monitoring programs.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer's analysis of hydrology will be closely linked with the environmental reviews described by ESRP Chapters 3.0,4.0,5.0, and 6.0 to establish the hydrological characteristics that are most likely to be affected and the adequacy of the related monitoring programs.
| |
| (1) Identify the monthly and annual ranges and averages, and the historical extremes of the physical and hydrological characteristics of the hydrosphere potentially affecting or affected by plant construction and operation.
| |
| (2) Adjust the historical data to present or known future conditions (e.g., reservoirs built and operated during the period of record, scheduled construction of dams).
| |
| (3) Develop data or take measurements using acceptable hydrological techniques if observations are incomplete or unavailable.
| |
| (4) Determine if the site or any plant related structure or alteration of the natural topography is on a floodplain or wetland.
| |
| 2.3.1-6 August 1997 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| J-
| |
| /m \
| |
| \
| |
| (5) Use sources of data, such as river basin commissions, State agencies, and Federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), including the following possible sources for site-specific data:
| |
| . comprehensive framework studies of water and related lands by river basin planning organizations and regional interagency committees
| |
| . reports and data from Federal agencies, including the USGS,' Bureau of Reclamation, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, Weather Service, Coast and Geodetic Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coast Guard, National Marine Fisheries Service , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Highway Administration
| |
| . reports and data by regional power administrations such as the Bonneville Power Administration and Tennessee Valley Authority
| |
| . Storage and Retrieval System for Water and Biological Data (STORET) water-quality data, computer printouts for specified geographic area, time period, and water-quality constituents from the EPA
| |
| . well logs from water well drillers O
| |
| . reports and data from State agencies, including ecology, conservation, public health, fish and game, forestry, agriculture, water resources, State lands, State engineer, and highway depart-ments and special natural resources commissions (names and functions vary from State to State),
| |
| and from Native American tribes.
| |
| . Sundard llandbooks (Maidment 1992; Linsley, Kohler, and Paulhus 1982; Mays 1996).
| |
| The depth and extent of the input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) will be governed by the hydrological resources that could affect or be affected by plant construction and operation and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. With this in mind, the reviewer .hould do the following:
| |
| (1) Ensure that
| |
| . data are sufficient to provide quantitative information on the hydrological resources potentislly affecting or affected by plant construction and operation
| |
| . Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies appropriate to the objectives of this environmental review have been consulted a
| |
| sufficient data are provided for the assessment of anticipated impacts during the period of plant operation.
| |
| !") August 1997 2.3.1-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (2) Where necessary, evaluate the collection of additional data and the substantiation of methodology used to estimate hydrological parameters.
| |
| (3) Assess the hydrological descriptions with respect to relevancy, completeness, reliability, and accuracy ofinput to the impact assessments of other sections.
| |
| (4) Verify that the measurements and data development programs use accepted hydrological practice (which includes those identified in the references listed in this ESRP).
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Based on he applicants description of the site hydrology, the staff concludes that characterization of the hydrologic system is valid and adequate to evaluate the impacts of the plant construction, refur-bishment, and operation on the affected surface and subsurface environment.
| |
| V, IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluaCon of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI DEFERENCES 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 33 CFR 330, Appendix A," Nationwide Permit and Conditions."
| |
| 40 CFR 5, Appendix A," Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 124," Procedures for Decisionmaking."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."
| |
| 40 CFR 227," Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of Materials."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2.1976. " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations."
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.3.1-8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (, - . - . . - . - - ._ .
| |
| r''N - .
| |
| ( Executive Order No. I 1988, " Floodplain Management," 42 Federal Register 46499 (1977).
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,92-1911 Supreme Court of the United States,
| |
| $10 U.S.1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| Linsley, R. K., M. A. Kohler, and J. L. H. Paulhus. 1982. Hydrologyfor Engineers, Third Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.
| |
| Maidment, D., ed. 1992. Handbook ofHydrology, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. <
| |
| Mays, L. W., ed.1996. Water Resources Handbook. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.
| |
| U.S. Water Resources Council, Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O.11988,
| |
| . 43 FederalRegister 6030(1978).
| |
| O L
| |
| i I
| |
| L
| |
| -.'\ (
| |
| August 1997 2.3.19 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l
| |
| | |
| NURES-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| ()
| |
| v V, ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| %,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.3.2 WATER USE REVIEW RESPONSIBIIJTIES Primary-Civil Engineering and Geosciences Br:nch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description of surface-water and groundwate'r uses that could aliect or be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed
| |
| - project, including transmission corridors and offsite facilities. The scope of the review directed by this plan includes (1) consideration of such water uses as domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial, mining, recreation, navigation, and hydroelectric power; (2) identification of their locations; and (3) quantification of water diversions, consumption, and returns. The review should be limited to present V and known future water uscs.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.2. Obtain descriptions of the regional land uses for the area surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| * ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain descriptions of the hydrology of the region surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| = ESRP 2.3.1. Provide descriptions of the regional water uses (e.g., the location and nature of water users and water-use areas) for the area surrounding the proposed plant site (for the purpose of assisting that reviewer in determining the level of detail required for the description of the l_ hydrology).
| |
| l August 1997 2.3.2-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL SE LARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '"#*""*"4""2d,#nts.t.*i'A*!!l$"w!'pll"n'd*"Ydfo*ofJA*e*nt.'.""d*"d."
| |
| i . *n%".'#tf*" *
| |
| /~T '#hn%:,?.,*/J*Jf,"d" ".,':t".o'0"e7e.*?.?"*U'Y'"P.: """ "
| |
| f#- 0 !r2%:L'#.
| |
| V TGCl:'TJ O.07.O*illt%'.*.d "'""**""*"'' "#'" P""'"*""*d'*"""'""''""''""'*"'d en al ow plans wiH b. revised periodicaHy, as apMate, to .ccommodate comm.nts and to l
| |
| !P J"" " ",t?:121'.", M;i"Calln". cad.fcWJ' """* '* " $ ""d*" """"'"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRPs 2.3.3. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.3.2. 4.2. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3. 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.4. 5.2. 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.3. 5.3.2.1.
| |
| 5.3.2.2. 5.4. 5.4.1. 5.5. 5.5.1. 5.5.2. 5.8. 5.8.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.6. and 9.4.2. Ensure that ESRP 2.3.2 contains descriptive information in sufficient detail to support the descriptions and assessments given in these ESRPs.
| |
| Dalapid information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be mod..sd according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts on existing and known future water uses during the period of project operation. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * maps (including digital databases such as a Geographic Information System [GIS]) showing the relationship of the site to the major hydrological systems (from the environmental report [ER] and the general literature)
| |
| . maps showing the relationship cithe site to surface-water bodies that could affect or be affected by plant water use (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| * maps (and cross sections where feasiole) showing those portions of groundwater aq_ifer systems that could be afTected by plant withdrawals and/or discharges (from the ER and the general literature) e quantitative description of present and known future groundwater withdrawals on the site and for distances great enough to cover aquifers that may affect or be adversely affected by the plant. The following should be included for each withdrawal or discharge:
| |
| - location and depth of well with respect to the site (from the ER, the site visit, the general literature, and consultation with State and local agencies)
| |
| - identification of aquifers (from the ER, the general literature, and consultation with State and local agencies)
| |
| - the average monthly withdrawal rates by use category (from the ER, the site visit, the general hterature, and consultation with State and local agencies)
| |
| - identification of any aquifers designated by EPA as sole-source aquifers.
| |
| + quantitative description of present and known future surface-water uses (withdrawals, consumptions, and returns) that are within the hydrological system in which the site is located and that may affect or be affected by the plant. This should include a quantitative description of any water uses that pro-vide potential liquid pathways for both radiological and nonradiological effluents. The following should be included for each withdrawal or discharge:
| |
| NUkEG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.3.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| - - - . - . . - ~ - - . - - . . - - _ . . - - - - , . . - . - . - ..
| |
| 1
| |
| -l
| |
| --__ _ i r ,
| |
| j - : locations of diversions and retums with respect to the site and the water body (from the site visit, -
| |
| ~
| |
| ' the general literature.'and consultation with State and local agencies) - _
| |
| 5
| |
| ~ f identification of the water body (from the ER and the general literature) .
| |
| - the average monthly withdrawal and retum rate for each diversion by use category. .
| |
| * : quantitative and qualitative description of recreational, navigational, instream, and other_noncon-
| |
| ; sumptive present and known future water uses.- For a 10-km (6-mi) radius, this should include the
| |
| ' following (from the ER, site. visit, the general literature, and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies):
| |
| - - Identification of water bodies and locations with respect to the site (maps may be useful)
| |
| . the kind and location of activity on the water body (maps may be useful)
| |
| - the use rate with time variation.
| |
| * summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water body restric-tions on water use imposed by Federal or State regulations (from the ER and consultation with
| |
| ' Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal r gencies).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA i Acceptance criter i afor the revi ew of water use areb .-sed on t he re levant requ irement s of the following:
| |
| l
| |
| * 35 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits
| |
| * 133 CFR 330, Appendix A, with respect to conditions, limitations, and restrictions on construction activities-
| |
| * - 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection
| |
| * 40 CFR 122 with respect to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges
| |
| * 40 CFR 149.with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or
| |
| : above a sole source aquifer L
| |
| j
| |
| * State and Native American tribal water laws ard water rights.
| |
| : l. -
| |
| l-n,~ .
| |
| August 1997L : 2.3.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) f
| |
| | |
| 1 Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| . Compliance with environmental quelity standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider altematives to the proposed action that are available for revocing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit cost balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) should establish its own impact determination.
| |
| . Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the United States Supreme Court granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the State's role in regulating water rights.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the foimat and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| Icehnical Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of surface water and groundwater uses that could affect or be affected by the construction, operation, or refurbishment is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the regional and plant water use is essential for the evaluation of potential impam on the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refur-bishment. This ESRP reviewr the key water use background material that is essential for under-standing the impacts on water use, water quality, land use, ecological systems, and monitoring programs during botl, construction and operation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDUVE ne rev>wer's analysis of surface water and groundwater use should consider the aspects of water use that are mncerned with consumptive use, nonconsumptive use, and effluent pathways. The depth of analysis wid be related to the importance of water ute and proximity of the use te the plant. With this in mind, the reviewers should do the following:
| |
| NUREG 1$55 (DRAFT) 2.3.24 August 1997
| |
| | |
| n (1) Identify consumpt:ye water uses that could affect the water supply of the plant or that may be adversely affected by the plant, including the following important characteristics:
| |
| . water source e locations of diversions and returns e amount and time variation of use
| |
| * water rights.
| |
| (2) Identify recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive water uses, including those that could be affected by transmission line and offsite area construction and operation. The important characteristics to be quantified are e location e activity
| |
| * amount and time variation of use.
| |
| (3) Identify the water uses that provide potential pathways for both radiological and nonradiological Q ellluents including the following important characteristics:
| |
| U
| |
| * water sources e location of diversions for consumptive uses e location of receptors for nonconsumptive uses e amount and time variation of use for each.
| |
| (4) in addition to information obtained from the applicant's ER and from responses to subsequent questions to the applicant use ad?itional sources of data, such as e local water supply companies or agencies a river basin commissions
| |
| * State agencies (e.g., water resources, fish and wildlife)
| |
| (~
| |
| i August 1997 23.2 5 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| * various Federal agencies, such 6s the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey, and Native American tribal agencies when needed to complete the analys!s. local water users may be questioned during the site visit.
| |
| ($) Using the above information, compile and tabulate water uses by the categories and characteristics described in this ESRP section, but limit the analysis to consideration of present and known future water uses.
| |
| (6) Ensure that water use data and information are adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the impacts of proposed project construction and operation on consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses.
| |
| (a) In evaluating the adequacy of this material, the reviewer should ensure that data are
| |
| + sufficient to provide quantitative information on water use characteristics to be impacted by construction and operation
| |
| + are adequate to predict water use impacts to the plant during construction and operation.
| |
| (b) Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribLl agencies in making this evaluation.
| |
| IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS The depth and extent of the input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) will be governed by the water uses that could be afTected by the proposed project construction and operation (or that may affect the plant) and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts to water use. The following infor.
| |
| mation should usually be included in ESRP 2.3.2:
| |
| * a summary of present and known future groundwater withdrawals on the site and for distances great enough to cover potentially afTected groundwater aquifers. Appropriate maps or descriptions from ESRP 2.3.1 will be referenced to depict the groundwater hydrology. References to applicable State ,
| |
| water use laws should also be included.
| |
| * a summary of present and known future surface water uses that aie within the hydrological system in which the plant is located and that may affect or be adversely affected by the plant. Appropriate maps or descriptions from ESRP 2.3.1 will be referenced to depict the surface water hydrological system being used. References to applicable State water use laws should also be included.
| |
| + a summary of present and known future recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive water uses (maps may be useful).
| |
| The reviewer verifies that sullicient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.3.26 August 1997
| |
| | |
| t i
| |
| .f i
| |
| . , , Based on the applicant's descripilon of the present and known future regional water uses, the !
| |
| staff concludes that characterization of the locations of the different water uses, as well as the i
| |
| ( ,
| |
| quantification of the water diversions, consumption, and retums, is valid and adequate to evalu. -
| |
| sie the impacts of the plant construction, refurbishment, and operation on the affected water ;
| |
| users. !
| |
| V, IMPLEMENTATION
| |
| '(
| |
| Ihe method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the - !
| |
| Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable }
| |
| alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. j i
| |
| VI. REFERENCES " l
| |
| .1
| |
| - 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 33 CFR 330, Appendix A," Nationwide Permit and Conditions."
| |
| 40 CFR 6, Appendix A," Statement of Procedures of Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection." l 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination System." l 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers." >
| |
| O Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmentalReportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,92 1911, Supreme Court of the United States, 510 U.S.1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 1994). ,
| |
| a P
| |
| x Aug sti997 2.3.27 suRto.is55(DRi m i
| |
| 0 1
| |
| , ,m -. -- ,_ .
| |
| ~- .. .~. - . , . - ~ , - , . - . ,,..,,;.,-.--_- - - - . - - . - . , -
| |
| | |
| i NUREJ 1555 l 1
| |
| l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :
| |
| o /',,,,, \ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN ;
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j 2.3.3 WATER QUALITY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Civil Engineering and Ocosciences Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW His environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description of the water-quality characteristics of surface-water bodles and groundwater aquifers that could (1) affect plant water use and emuent disposal or (2) be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed project. The scope of the review directed by this plan should include consideration of site specific and regional data on the physical, chemical, and biological water quality characteristics of ground and surface water in suflicient detail to provide the basic data.for other reviews dealing with the evaluation of construction and opera-
| |
| . tional water-quality impacts to water bodies, aquifers, aquatic ecosystems, and water use.
| |
| Review Interfacts De reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.31. Obtain descriptions of the hydrology of the region surrounding the proposed plant site. ,
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.2. Obtain descriptions of the regional water uses (e.g., the location and nature of water users and water use areas) for the area surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| . ESRP 2 A2. Ensure that this ESRP contains sufficient detail to support the description of the aquatic environment in ESRP 2.4.2.
| |
| August 1997 2.3.31 NUREG-1555 (Draft)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '* d *"
| |
| ., fY k"**w
| |
| *nI"YhN.1u"elSI.'D*"ev'NISYth.
| |
| o d,"""'0".:,T/,2,
| |
| #NtN*wYM.O.D.*II,'EiYug,;
| |
| v g,g,,y'""
| |
| " "1 ,4,,.,,*.'c a
| |
| o, **.n p.rt
| |
| . :n,?.of .
| |
| gggagg.g,,g w. i .w ~ .s,. .. ,+. .. . -. . . .
| |
| d c::':: l".'ad W:it",L':rdit,*"'"" *"N .".%.'".*'.To i&4 """* ** ""*" ""*'"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRPs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive water-quality information in sumclent detail to support the desenptions of the plant water treatment in ESRPs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
| |
| * ESRP 3.6. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive water quality information in sumclent detail to support the description of the characteristics of the plant water treatment systems discharge in ESRP 3.6.
| |
| + ESRPs 4.2.2. 4.3.2. 5.2.2. 5.3. and 5.5. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive water quality information in sumcient detail to support the assessment of the water use and aquatic ecosystem impacts of plant construction and operation proposed by the reviewers for ESRPs 4.2,4.3,5.2,5.3, and $.5.
| |
| . ESRP 6.5.2 and 6.6. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive water quality information in sumcient detail to support the assessment of the adequacy of the baseline aquatic ecology and water-quality monitoring program in ESRPs 6.5.2 and 6.6.
| |
| Dgg and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site nd station specific factors, the anticipated magnitude of the potential water-quality impacts, and (to a lesser degree) distance from the site. %c following data and information should usually be obtained:
| |
| + the menn, range, and temporal and spatial variations of the surface water and groundwater quality characteristics For surface waters: water temperature, suspended solids, total dissolved solids, hardness, turbidity, color, odor, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, 5-day biological oxygen demand (130D),
| |
| chemical oxygen demand (COD), phosphorus fonns (total and orthophosphate), nitrogen forms (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, organic), alkalinity, chlorides, sulfate, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, heavy metals (e.g., lig, Pb), pil, phytoplankton (chlorophyll a), and indicator microorganisms (e.g., total coliform, fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci) (from the environmental report [ER] and from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and afTected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| For groundwaters: the above surface water data, minus phytoplankton and with silica, iron, carbon dioxide, and bicarbonate added (from the ER and from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| + other site specific water quality characteristics (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| * descriptions of pre-existing aquatic environmental stresses and their effects on surface or groundwater quality for waters that interact with the plant (e.g., water bodies at or near the site that NUREG 1555 (Draft) 2.3.3 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| do not meet established water quality standards)(from the ER and consultation with Fedemi, State, !
| |
| regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) !
| |
| e descriptions of pollutant sources with discharges to water thr.t may interact with the plant, including locations relative to the site and the affected water bodies, and the magnitude and nature of the pollutant discharges, including spatial and temporal variations (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA [
| |
| t Acceptance criteria for the review of water quality in water bodies affected by the proposed project are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| e 33 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits ;
| |
| i e 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, with respect to conditions, limitations, and restrictions on construction activities e 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection ,
| |
| e 40 CFR 122 with respect to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges e 40 CFR 124 with respect to the NPDES process e 40 CFR 125 with respect to water quality standards
| |
| * 40 CFR 133 with repect to treated emuents e 40 CFR 147 with respect to restrictions on waste disposal options e 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole source aquifer
| |
| * 40 CFR 165 with respect to the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide containers e 40 CFR 227 with rerpect to criteria for evaluating environmental impacts *
| |
| * 40 CFR 403 with respect to waste emuc.its
| |
| : 40 CFR 423 with respect to emuent limitations on existing and new point sources
| |
| + 40 CFR 700 716 with respect to practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals O August 1997 2.3.33 NUREO 1555 (Draft) 1 e
| |
| - . ~ , a---,,,m-e
| |
| , , ,-,v-- - - -r,-,nn.-- - .-wm-,.-.n-, .ag-a , s w.ww, m .y 4 , , mp-- -y, g-m~.--,--,-m- w,,--
| |
| | |
| + State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC should consider the assess-ment in its determinatien of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit cost balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (to the degice possible in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) should establish its own impact detennination.
| |
| + Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson Countyp UD #1 vs, Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the U.S. Supreme Court granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the State's role in regulating water rights.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of water-quality characteristics, surface-water bodies, and grot.ndwater aquifer- is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the water quality is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| 'this ESRP contains background water quality material that is essential for understanding the impacts on water use, water quality, land use, ecological systems, and monitoring programs during both construction and operation. The references in this section provide a thorough summary of standard practices.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer's analysis of water quality should be closely linked with the reviews described in the Review Interfaces section of this ESRP to ensure that the physical, chemical, and biological water-quality parameters that could affect or be affected by plant construction and operation have been described. With this in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| NUREG l$$5 (Draft) 2.3.3-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| [\ . (1) Identify the location and spatial distribution of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, the monthly and annual ranga, and the hist ;rical extremn of those water quality characteristics that i could potentially affect or be affected by plant construction and operation. ;
| |
| * Adjust the data for present day conditions.
| |
| {
| |
| * If historical observations are incomplete or unavailable for the locations of concr ., obtain these data through consultation with the applicant or with appropriate resource agencie s. -
| |
| (2) Determine the presence of existing watw quality related environmental stresses. I
| |
| . Determine stresses on the bases of the quality criteria requirements of other water users, as indicated by the approved watw use classification or watw resource planning' documents for the watw body in question.
| |
| . As part of the determination, consult the historical litwature addrusing watw-quality issues for i the water body in question. ,
| |
| (3) When applicable, discuss the water quality conditions, water rights, and agreements as they affect ;
| |
| water quality and water resource plans for the site and vicinity with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal water resource and pollution control and monitoring agencies.
| |
| g (4) Obtain the information primarily from the applicant's
| |
| . ER -
| |
| e responses to questions to the applicant
| |
| . = consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies. j Us3 sources of data such as river basin planning organizations and State and Federal agencies such as the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Englueers, and the U.S. Geological Survey, if additional information or verification is deemed necessary."
| |
| e (a) If site specific data are available, the following sources are recommended:
| |
| : a. comprehensive framework studies of water and related lands by river basin planning organizations and regional interagency committees
| |
| : b. - Storage and Retrieval System for Water and Biological Data (S1DRET) water-quality data, computer printouts for specified geographic area, time period, and water-quality constituents .
| |
| from the EPA'
| |
| : c. reports and data from State agencies, including ecology, conservation, public health, fish and 3'
| |
| . game, forestry, agriculture, water resources, State lands, State engineer, and highway depart-
| |
| ' monts and special natural resources commissions (names and functions vary from State to State), !
| |
| ~
| |
| - and from Native American tribes.
| |
| . August 1997 2.3.35 NUREG 15$5 (Draft)
| |
| . _ __a an a_.a_ . _ ru.J _,_1_.; . - , _ _ ._ . u-a. _ __u . an,.2_ . _ _ , , __s,,_a__,_,
| |
| | |
| (5) Ensure that
| |
| * data are sufUclent to provide quantitative infortnation on the physical, chemical, and biological water-quality characteristics potentially affecting or affected by plant construction and operation e the water-quality descriptions are sufficient, with respect to relevancy, completeness, reliability, and accuracy for input to the impact assessments of other sections
| |
| * Fed ral, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies appropriate to the objectives of this environmental review have been consulted.
| |
| (6) When evaluating the adequacy of this material,
| |
| + consult the applicable standards and guides for this environmental review and use the site visit and/or consultations to permitting agencies to evaluate the completeness of the water quality descriptions.
| |
| * evaluate, when necessary, the collection of additional data, the verification of data, and the substantiation of the methodology used to estimate water quality parameters.
| |
| (7) include the appropriate depth and extent of the input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) as governed by the water quality characteristics that could affect or be affected by plant construction and operation and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The following information should usually be included as input to the EIS:
| |
| + descriptions of site and vicinity surface water and groundwater quality that could affect or be afTected by plant construction and operation. The description may consist of statistical sum-maries of the water-quality characteristics, including mean, mean low and high, and historical low and high values (as available) for the site and vicinity. The data included should be cora-mensurate with the anticipated impacts. Figures may be used to show long term and seasonal trends, such as variations in dissolved oxygen and nutrient :oncentrations and pH variations.
| |
| * a description of the water-quality related environmental stresses in the site and vicinity.
| |
| IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Dased on the applicant's description of the regional water quality, the staff concludes that characterization of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the groundwater and surface-water bodies is valid and adequate to evaluate the impacts of the plant construction and operation on the affected surface and subsurface environment.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (Draft) 2.3.36 August 1997
| |
| -,w,
| |
| | |
| V. IMPI FMENTATIQN V}
| |
| l "Ihe method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the r
| |
| Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 33 CFR 330, Appendix A," Nationwide Permit and Conditions."
| |
| 40 CFR 6, Appendix A." Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR.122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: 'the NPDES Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 124," Procedures for Decisionmaking."
| |
| 40 CFR 125," Criteria and Standards for the National Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 133," Secondary Treatment Regulations."
| |
| (n) v 40 CFR 147, " State Underground in.jection Control Programs."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."
| |
| 40 CFR 165," Regulations for the Acceptance of Certain Pesticides and Recommended Procedures for the Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers."
| |
| 40 CFR 227," Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of Material."
| |
| 40 CFR 403," General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution."
| |
| 40 CFR 423," Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."
| |
| 40 CFR 700-716. " Relevant Sections of Toxic Substances Control Act."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmentalReportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,92 1911, Supreme Court of the United States,510 U.S.1037; i14 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W,3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| ys i.
| |
| k August 1997 2.3.37 NUREG-1555 (Draft) i
| |
| | |
| NURED 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O ,
| |
| ,,,,N ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD v i g,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION s
| |
| 2.4 ECOLOGY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Nneric issues and Environmental Project Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW nis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the stafl's preparation of an introductory paragraph for the ecological description portions of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material to be presented from the reviews condue;ed under ESRPs 2,4.1 and 2.4.2.
| |
| ( Review Interfaces k
| |
| None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear and analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 2,41 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| .t"'"'""'* "2 Uta*.'01:lit:"#.it.Ma'#.".. ,iot O IM"',y;':,c.m'2n?.5.ta'",3::f,!.".'#,f.
| |
| .n, * ':T .nyt e
| |
| /#4.*; O,.d. Th.inr,onm?... ,',pord ,. vie
| |
| ., ;2::'; t"*ri,:
| |
| w rm .W:l*t to P,.t'lr:. pion o, pl.n.p .t, "c'*m.d
| |
| ( g gitgth g nt .1.t ,. k.y
| |
| ,gg=.igy,,gg.,. . . ... ,.,iooi..iiv. .. .,,,on,i.t.. to . . . . nt. .o. io p
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specinc criteria necessary to meet the regulation identined above are as follows:
| |
| * Rere are no regulatory positions specine to this ESRP.
| |
| h IF nleal Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's ecology description application of this criterion is as follows:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne material to be prepared is infonnational in nature and no spe:inc analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS He reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for I
| |
| the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 2.4.1 and 2. l.2. This paragraph should list the types ofinformation to be pre <ented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for ccmplying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.4 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555
| |
| ,,,, U.S. NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMIS510N (vD
| |
| \
| |
| 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| (,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2A.! TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description of the terrestrial envi-ronment and blots of the site, transmission corridors, and offsite areas likely to be impacted by the construction, refurbishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed project. This review should provide input to other reviews dealing with evaluation of construction, operation, and refurbishment l Impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and to reviews thet are concerned with land use.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan includes identification and description of species compo-sition, spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, and other structural and functianal attributes of biotic assemblages that could be impacted by the proposed action. The scope should also include the identification of any "important" or irreplaceable terrestrial natural resources and the location of wildlife sanctuaries and natural areas that might be impacted by the proposed action.
| |
| Review Interfaces
| |
| %e reviewer should obtain inpu! f< im or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.2.1. Obtain information about land use of the site and vicinity to complete the description of the site's terrestrial ecology.
| |
| . ESRP 212, Obtain information about land use of the transmission line corridors, access corridors, and other pertinent offsite areas to complete the description of the site's terrestrial ecology.
| |
| August 1997 2A.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REYlEW PLAN a ".W." "*".. .,i ot O
| |
| g E.
| |
| '"*-f,,'ated,o'io?/,taav,'1,r*d g g i gn:,!:*/,i*''"!*;r.,.
| |
| ,3 ,,,.g..'"o. n,..n i"s'#R"*
| |
| 're.M- oi..Y.. tid.TJnt!.'."r,2.T*
| |
| .,', p.. 3 2,:.oJ.
| |
| - W.,.e*. t."O vuE r.Jo',t,t,',',:.pionoito....oi.i gg.om,.;g,g,p. a w .*a , .sv . .. ,+. .. . .. o,ou . ..,o, o1. -a i.
| |
| 8:=2".'J#Rvoiiim'." Mil,Tle"n'." d4.*:C"d T c%" """"* ** ""**' a**'"Y
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 2 R. Provide appropriate information on the principal terrestrial ecological features of the site and vicinity in sumcient d: tail to allow for an evaluation of the cumulative impacts to the terrestrial ecosystems resulting from related Federal project activities.
| |
| * ESRP 4.1.1. Provide appropriate information on the principal terrestrial ecological features of the site and vicinity in sumcient detail to allow for an evaluation ofland use impacts resulting from site and vicinity construction or refurbishment.
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.2. Provide appropriate information on the principal terTestrial ecological features of the transmission corridors and offsite areas in sumelent detail to allow for an evaluation ofland use impacts resulting from transmission corridor and other offsite facility construction or refurbishment.
| |
| . ESRP 411. Provide information on the principal terrestrial ecological features of the site and vicinity in sumelent detail to allow for an evaluation of the impacts on the terrestrial ecosystems resulting from construction or refurbishment.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. Provide information on the principal terrestrial ecological features of the site and vicinity in sumcient detail to allow for an evaluation of land use impacts resulting from operation of the power station, e ESRP U12. Provide information on the site's terrestrial ecology so that a description ofimpacts on the terrestrial ecosystem from operation of the heat dissipation systems can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 5.4. Provide information on the principal terrestrial ecological features of the site and vicinity in sumcient detail to allow for the evaluation of the radiological impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem due to normal plant operation, e ESRP 5.6.1. Provide information on ihe site's terrestrial ecology so that an evaluation of impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem from operation and maintenance of the transmission system can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 6 51. Provide information on the principal terrestrial ecological features of the site and vicinity in sumcient detail to allow for the evaluation of the terrestrial monitoring programs.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne kinds of data and information that are to be considered will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. Refer to Table 2.4.1 1 for a listing of species and habitat criteria for' designation of "important" species and resources. The following data or informa6 a about the site and vicinity should usually be obtained:
| |
| e a map that identifies "important" terrestrial resources on and in the vicinity of the site NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.4.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 7 e the area occupied by each nstural and man made habitat type (from the environmental repost [ER]) ,
| |
| ( ]/
| |
| * U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps of the site (7% min, scale, w hen available)(from the generalliterature) e list and description of"important" species and their spatial and temporal distributions on and in the vicinity of the site, including their relative abundance and their life histories-critical life stages, biologically significant activities, seasonal habitat requirements and population fluctuations, food chain, and other interspecific relationships (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| * list of threatened or endangered species that are known to occur, or could potentially occur, on or in the vicinity of the site, including their site speci9c habitat, and an identification of their other locations and critical habitats within the region e list of species that are of concern as disease vectors or pests. Detailed field surveys of such species are not needed (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) e identification of the major vegetation layers (e.g., overstory and understory), their dominant species, and the relative abundances of these species (from the ER).
| |
| h b
| |
| * a qualitative estimate of the importance of habitat of threatened, endangered, and other "important" species on and in the vicinity of the site relative to the habitat of such species throughout their entire range (from the GR and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) e locations of travel corridors for "important" terrestrial species and alternate routes for those coiridors that could potentially be blocked by use of *
| |
| * site (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native Americ4 rihal agencies) e a list ofimportant ecological systemt, on the site or in the vicinity that are especially vulnerable to change or that contain important species habitats, such as breeding areas (e.g., nesting areas),
| |
| nursery, feeding, sesting, and wintering areas, or other areas of seasonally high concentrations of individuals of"important" species (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) a description of natural and man induced efrects (e.g., farming, logging, grazing, burning) and preexisting environmental stresses (e.g., infestations, epidemics, catastrophes), and 15 current ecological conditions that are indicative of such stresses (from the ER)
| |
| . a description of the status of ecological succession of biota on and in the vicinity of the site (l.c.,
| |
| weed, brush, pole, and mature stages)(from the ER)
| |
| (Q August 1997 2.4.13 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) l
| |
| | |
| + a description and location of any ecological or biological studies of the site or its environs that are l currently in progress (from the ER)
| |
| + docurnentation that the applicant has consulted with the appropriate Federal and State agencies (e.g.,
| |
| as requhed by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) and affected Native American tribes (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| 1 I
| |
| The following data and information about transmission corridors and offsite areas should usually be obtained:
| |
| + a map that identifies "important" terrestrial resources along routes of transmission and accers corridors frorn the station site to interconnecting points on the high voltage system
| |
| + major vegetation types within the proposed corridors (from the ER, site visit, and through consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) i
| |
| + a list of"important" species known to occur within and adjacent to the proposed corridors, their spatial and temporal distributions and their life histories (including critical life stages, biologically significant activities, seasonal habitat requirements and population Ductuations, food chain and ctr er interspecific relationships)(from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| + a list of threatened or endangered species (plants and animals) known to occur within the propored corridors and adjacent areas, their seasons of occurrence, estimates of abimdance, local flight patterns, and critical habitats (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| + where proposed transmission lines cross important waterfowl areas, a list of descriptions of these areas and data on the local abundance and distribution of waterfowl, their seasonal status, and local flight patterns (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| + lirts of species that are of concern as disease vectors or pests. Detailed field surveys of such species kre not needed (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| + a more-detailed examination of any segment of the rights of way determined to be pa ticularly sensitive to impacts of construction NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.4.1 4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| * ' a summary of any pewisting enviroon ental sanas from such so rees such as poilutards, as well as
| |
| ~ l
| |
| \ ' portinent ecological conditions suggestive of such stresses. A discussion of histories of any !
| |
| infestations, epidemics, or catastrephos (caused by natural phonomna) that have I.ad a significant . ,
| |
| . hnpact on blota in the vicinity of the transmission corridors should also be included; j
| |
| 11, ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA f Acceptance criteria for the review of ternstrial ecology on and in the vicinity of the site and transmission j corridors are the relevant requirements of the following: j i
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.75 with resput to descriptions of the environment affwted by the issuance of a ,
| |
| construction permit
| |
| * - 10 CFR 52, Subpvt A, with rapect to descriptions cf the environment affected by the issuance of an -
| |
| early site permit . ;
| |
| *i 10 CFR 51.95 with respect to the preparation of supplemental environmental impact statemerts
| |
| . (EISs) in support of the issuance of an operating license l
| |
| * Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act with respect to the prohibition of taking, possessing, selling, i transporting, importing, or exporting the bald or golden eagle, dead or alive, without a permit l
| |
| * Endangered Species Act of 1973 with respect to identif' ying threatened and endangered species, i
| |
| . critical habitats, formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or l
| |
| ~ National Marine Fisheries Sorvice :
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife enources in the planning of development projects that affect water resources
| |
| * Migratory Bird Treaty Act with respect to declaring that it is uniswful to take, import, export, ,
| |
| possess, buy, nell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers or other parts of nests and eggs, i
| |
| and pmducts made t' rom migratory birds are also covered by the Act. "Take" is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or collecting.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as i follows: !
| |
| e ,
| |
| ' e ' Regulatory Guide 4,7 contains guidance concerning the ecological systems and blote 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 populations ofimportant :
| |
| species or on ecological systems with which they are associated from the construction or operation of -
| |
| a nuclear power station at the site. The reviewer should ensure that the applicant's description of the -
| |
| August 1997 2.4.15 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)~ ;
| |
| R
| |
| (
| |
| . ~ . .o w. _ m.+, ..__ 3 . . -_ , , ,.. w.,m., .4 w o _ ,, _ # my v y e o n % .M , ,. r- ~ ~ ~- w - +,-- -w -te m e- v- ~ A
| |
| | |
| site and tiansmission corridors identifies important species or ecological systems that could potentially be impacted by station and transmission corridor constructlan and operation.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. I, contains technical information for the design a id execution of terrestrial environmental studies, the results of w hich may be appropriate for inclusion in the applicant's ER. The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate results are included in the ER.
| |
| Technical Rationalg The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of the area's terrestrial ecology is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the terrestrial ecology in the vicinity of the power station site and associated transmission corridors is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the terrestrial environment that may result from plant construction, operation, or refurbishment. Use of these rceptance criteria should help ensure inclusion of the terrestrial ecological attributes most needed to predict impacts.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURIiS 1he reviewer should ensure that the ecological information is adequate to serve as a basis for assessment of the impacts of design and siting of the plant, and plant construction, operation, or refurbishment. In evaluating the adequacy of the description of terrestrial resources of the site and offsite areas, the reviewer should consult the applicable acceptance criteria of this ESRP , Within these criteria, the reviewer will find a framework of those descriptive features of terrestrial resources,irdged adequate for most situations of nuclear power station siting. The reviewer should also become familiar with the provisions of the legislation listed in this ESRP.
| |
| With these guidelines in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| (1) Identify the species and habitats that will be considered "imponant" ecological resources of the site, vicinity, transmission corridors, and ofTsite areas for evaluation of potential impacts on them, using Table 2.4.1 1 as a reference.
| |
| (2) Consult with local ollices of the appropriate Federal and State agencies to determine the possible presence of such species.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (D AAFT) 2.4.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| Table 2.4.1 1. Importa,t Species and liabitats V !
| |
| Speelen Habitat Rare species Wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves, if they may be adversely affected by plant or transmis.
| |
| . Listed as threatened or endangered at slon line construction, operation, or 50 CFR 17.11 (Fish and wildlife)or tefurbishment 50 CFR 17.12 (Plards). Thit information may also be found via :he Internet at the U.S. liabitats (dentified by State or Feoual agencies as Fish and Wildlife llomepage in OEn& SIS. unique, are, or of priority for protection, if these areas may be advernly afheted by plant or
| |
| + Proposed for listing as threatened or endan- transmission line operation and maintenance ,
| |
| gered, or is a candidate for !isting in the most current list of such species as published in thu Wetlands (Executive Order 11990), floodplains FedemI Reghter. 'this information may also (Executive Order 11988), or other resources ,
| |
| be found via the Internet at the U.S. Fish and , specifically protected by Federal regulations or Wildlife llomepage in gen &S!S. Executive Orders, or by State regulations
| |
| + Listed as a threatened, endangered, or other Land areas identified as " critical habitat" for species of concern by the State or States in species listed as threatened or endangered by the which the proposed facilities are located U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Commercially or recreational!y valuable species d Species that are essential to the maintenance and survival of species that are rare and commercially or recreationally valuable (as defined previously)
| |
| Species that are critical to the structure and function of the local terrestrial ecosystem Species that may serve as biological indicators to monitor the effects of the facilities on the terres-trial environment (3) Identify the threatened and endangered species that, based on known distributions, could probably be expected to be present within these areas, but that have not been recorded by documented observations.
| |
| (4) In the case of commercially or recreationally valuable species, verify types of wildlife and plants that could be adversely impacted by the proposed action, and in dJi; ion to the applicant's ER, consult
| |
| . with State or local agencies or organizations that malrtain records of harvest levels of these species.
| |
| (5) Review the available site specific data for adequacy, accuracy. and completeness.
| |
| ,A
| |
| ) August 1997 2.4.17 NUREG 1555(DRAFT)
| |
| .-. -- =.
| |
| | |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS ne depth and extent of the input to the EIS should be governed by the kinds of tenestrial ecological resources that could be affected by plant construction, operation, and refurbishment, and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impsets to these tesources, ne reviewer should prepare input to the EIS desenptions of the site and offsite areas potentially affected by the proposed project. The input should be brief and should include the following information:
| |
| * the principal terrestrial ecological features of ti e site and vicinity, transmission arid access corridors, and offsite areas, with emphasis on the communities that will be potentially affected by proposed prohet construction, operation, refurbishment, and maintenance. His infonnation should be based on an arialysis of at least one full year of data, to reDect seasonal variations in terrestrial populations.
| |
| nus, the extent of discussion of various plant and animal communities should be adequate to support the impact assessments for ESRP Chapters 4.0 and S.0.
| |
| . wildlife sanctuaries, natural areas, and related areas that could be afTected
| |
| . a discussion of"important" species that may be affected by plant or transmission corridor construc-tion, operation, or refurbishment. Estimates of their abundance should be provided when appropri-ate. Special habitat needs, such as cover, forage, and prey species, should be emphasized if the proposed project woi :J potentially disrupt these needs.
| |
| . species ilsts should be prepared as an appendix to the EIS
| |
| * a summary of the consultations with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal ageneles, including the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (through the regional director) and the director of the State Fish and Oldlife agency, if the reviewer verifies thst sufficient information has been provided by the applicant in accordance with the requirements of this ESliP section, then the evaluation supports the following type of concluding statement, to be included in the staffs EIS:
| |
| ne staff has reviewed the available information relative to the site's terrestrial ecology The staff concludes that the site description is adequate t comply with 10 CFR 51.45. The data are also sufficient to support an evaluation of potential impacts to the terrestrial environment that could result from plant construction, refurbishment, and/or operation.
| |
| V, WPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except la those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specified portions of the regJations.
| |
| NUREG 1,455 (DRAFT) 2.4.18 August 1997
| |
| | |
| r J
| |
| o ,
| |
| 4 i
| |
| . VI, REFERENcER
| |
| .10 CPR 51 Subpart A " National Environmental Policy Act-Regulations implementing l Seetion 102(2)." - !
| |
| 1 10 CFR $ 1.45, " Environmental report." !
| |
| 10 CFR 51.75,"DraR environmental impact statements-production and utilization facilities: draR l environmental impact statement-construction permit."' .j i
| |
| 10 CFR 51.9f," Final environmoutal impact statemente-productio. and utilization facilities: !
| |
| x;;h :M to Anal env)tonmental impact statement." -
| |
| l t
| |
| 10 CFR $2.79, " Contents of application; technical information." j 10 CFR 52, Subpart A,"Early Site Permits."
| |
| 50 CFR 17.11. " Fish and wildlife."
| |
| 8 l
| |
| 50 CFR 17.12. " Plants." ;
| |
| i 1
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. 2. I996. GeneralSite Suitabilityfor Nuclear Powr Stations. !
| |
| O Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. I, I977. TerrestrialEnvironmentalStudiesforNsslear Power Stations.
| |
| i Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended,16 USC 668 et. seq. j Er S;M Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Executive Order 11988," Floodplain Management."
| |
| Executive Order 11990, " Protection of Wetlands." '
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq. j Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended,16 UTC 703 et seq.
| |
| t
| |
| +
| |
| O, August 1997 2.4.19. NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) {
| |
| I
| |
| _.....__,_,...._.,__..-_~.._u..__-...J
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON ENVIRONMENTAL STANDAP.D
| |
| (~)
| |
| v i i
| |
| %,*****/ REVIEW PLAN .
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION .
| |
| i 2.4.2 AQUATIC ECGLOGY REVIEWRI'APONSIBILITIE1 Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard revi,:w plan (E3RP) directs the stan's description of the aquatic environ.
| |
| ment and blota at and in the vicinity of the site and other areas likely to be impacted by the construction, maintenance, operation, and refurbishment of the proposed project. This review should provide input to reviews dealing with evaluation of construction, refurbishment, and operational impacts on aquatic eco-systems and to other reviews that deal with the aquatic environment.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include the spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, and other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages on which the proposed action could have an impact. The review should also identify any "important" or irreplaceable aquatic natural resources and the location of sanctuaries and preserves that might be impacted by the proposed actions.
| |
| Review Interfacti The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| a ESRP 211. Obtain infonnation about the hydrology of the site to complete the description of the site and vicinity's aquatic ecology.
| |
| l
| |
| . ESRP 213. Obtain information about water quality areas to complete the description of the site and vicinitv's aquatic ecology.
| |
| l :
| |
| l August 1997 2.4.21 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) ,
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN I d
| |
| * ri&"LIO,,,*.' *
| |
| 'YA"4.".".i"./3%'!*" "*"
| |
| "i
| |
| * 2fi et"f"dLiw",/#'."4,%Tll.dd",.D
| |
| ,':i n
| |
| (
| |
| (^J a!=2t%*
| |
| C .
| |
| w,,qa,,*M,,*;T 1- . . . .t'"."
| |
| _ .*_"M_w r [' 'r:en.y, p. '..t g ,a*, ,g g ,. .. .*.a - ,. ,, .. . .. . ..
| |
| 8 ""'"*"''Am.':rt :d",d: .T *"N::Cd, T'c"Atta? ""' " '* ** ''""" "*'~r 1
| |
| l .
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| . ESRP 4.3.2. Provide information on the principal aquatic ecological features of the site and vicinity j in sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of the impacts to the aquatic ecosystems resulting from l const2uction or tefurbishrnent, j e ESRP 5.3.1. Provide information on the principal aquatic ecological features of the site and O alty in sumcient detail to allow for an evaluation of the impacts of the coohag system intake structures.
| |
| . ESRP 5.3.2. Provide information on the principal aquatic ecological features of the site and vicinity in sumcient detil to allow for an evaluation of the impacts of the cooling system discharge structures, e ESRP 5.3.2.1. Provide information regarding the site's aquatic ecology so that a description and assessment of the plant's hydrothermal discharge and associated physical impacts may be completed, e ESRP $.3.2.2. Provide information regarding the site's aquatic ecology so that a description of impacts from operation of the discharge system can be completed, e ESRP $.6.2. Provide information regarding the site's aquatic ecology so that an evaluation of the impacts to aquatic ecosystems from transmission facil:ty operation and maintenance can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 6.5.2. Provide information regarding the site's aquatic ecology so that an evaluation of monitoring programs as they relate to the aquatic ecology of the site can be completed.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information required will be affected by site and station specific factors and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact.
| |
| 'Ihe following data or information about the site and vicinity should usually be obtained:
| |
| e characterization of the aquatic environment of the water body and onsite streams including the following information categcries:
| |
| . biological (from the environmental report [ER] and the general literature) hydrological (from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| - physiochemical(from ESRP 2.3.3).
| |
| e maps showing "important" aquatic resources ("important" species and habitat defined in Table 2.4.2 1) of the site and vicinity NUREG IS$5 (DRAFT) 2.4.2 2 August 1997 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| (/
| |
| + the temporal and spatial (including depth) distribution and abundance of"important" finfish, shellfish, and other invertebrates, including benthic organisms, especially in the discharge area and receiving water body. Such critical life support requirements as spawning areas, nursery grounds, food habits, feeding areas, winteririg areas and migration routes (to the extent that power plant construction, refurbishment, and/or operation is expected to affect these parameters).
| |
| . the location and value of the commercial and sport fisheries and the seasonal distribution of harvest by species (from the ER, the general literature, and consultatloa with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| . endangered and threatened aquatic species that are known to be present or could potentially occur ons!te and an identification of their other locations and critical habitats within the region. Also identify specific habitat requirements (e.g., thermal tolerance ranges), community interrelationships, and relative abundance (from the ER, the general literature, and consultation with Fede al, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| . key aquatic indicator organisms expected to gauge changes in the distribution and abundance of species populations that are particularly vulnerable to impacts from plant construction, refurbish-ment, and/or operation a the presence of" nuisance" species such as Corbicula sp. or Mytilus sp. onsite or in the vicinity of the plant and that are capable of blocking or bio fouling the cooling water intake system or that can cause other significant problems e a list ofimportant ecological systems onsite or in the vicinity that are especially vulnerable to change or that contain important species habitats, such as breeding areas (e.g., spawning areas); nursery, feeding, and wintering areas; or other areas of seasonally high concentrations ofindividuals of "important" species (from the ER and consultulon with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| . the relative significance of various aquatic habitats in a regional context (from the ER, the general literature, and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| . a description of onsite natural, man induced, and pre-existing environmental stresses, and the current ecological conditions that are indicative of such stresses (from the ER).
| |
| The following data or information about transmission corridors and offsite areas should usually be obtained only when the proposed transmission corridors and offsite areas intersect or are adjacent to aquatic resources:
| |
| gS August 1997 2.4.2 3 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| . a map and description of the location and extent of threatened and endangered or other "important" aquatic species that are known or expected to b present in the vicinity of the transmission corridors together with any specific habitat requirements or commur., e interrelationships (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| + any physical, chemical, and biological factors known to influence distribation and abundance of threatened and endangered aquatic life in the vicinity of the transmission corridsrs (from the genera!
| |
| literature) e documentation that the applicant has consulted with the appropante Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native Aracrican tribal agencies (e.g., as required by the Fish and Wild!!fe Coordination Act (from the ER) e identification of other Federal and State projects within the region that are or could potentNiy affect the same threatened and endangered specie
| |
| * or their habitats that occur on or near the site (from the FR) e a map that identifies "important" aquatic resources in the vicinity of the transmission corridors (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of aquatic ecology en and in the vicinity of the site and transmission corridors are the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.75 with respect to descriptions of the environment affected by the issuance of a constioc-tion permit
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.95 with respect to the preparation of supplemental environmental impact statements in support of the issuance of an operating license
| |
| . 10 CFR 52, Subpart A, with respect to descriptions of the environment affected by the issuance of an early site permit
| |
| . Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 with respect to natural resources, and land or water use of the coastal zone
| |
| . Endangered Species Act of 1973 with respect to identifying threatened and endangered species, ciitical habitats, and initiating formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.4.2 4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| e Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 with respect to restoration and
| |
| (- maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1953 with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife resources in the planning of development projects that affect water resources
| |
| * Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 with respect to the protection of marine mammals
| |
| * Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 wi*h respect to dumping of dredged material into the ocean
| |
| . Rivers and liarbors Appicpriations Act of 1899 with respect to the deposition of debris in navigable waters, or tributaries to such waters.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above at as follows:
| |
| * Regulatury Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, details the means by which the applicant collects base'ine data used to compare subsequent data to evaluate pt nt construction and operation or refurbishmeat impacts. He reviewer should ensure that the applicant's measurement of conditions before . Ite preparation includes all environmental parameters necessary to evel'1 ate impacts during stati0n operation, as well p
| |
| , i as during site preparation, station construction, and station refurbishment.
| |
| 5
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 4 7 contains guidance conceming the ecological systems and biota at potential sites and requires that their environs be sufficiently well known to allow reasonably certain pred.'d tions that there would be no unacceptable or unnecessary deleterious impacts on populations of important sycles or cn ecological systems with which they are associated from the construction, operation, or refurbishment of a nuclear power station at the site. He reviewer should ensure that the applicant's description of the site and transmission corridors identify important species or eco-logical systems that c-)uld potentially be impacted by station and transmission corridor construction, operation, or tefurbishment.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of the area's aquatic ecology is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the power station site and associated transmission corridors is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the aquatic environment that may result from plant construction, operation, or refurbishment. Use of the above acceptanee criteria will help ensurn inclusion of the aquatic ecological attributes most needed to predict impacts.
| |
| \
| |
| August 1997 2.4.25 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| lit. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne reviewer should ensure that the regional and site-specific aquatic ecological information is adequate to aerve as a basis for assessment of the effects of design and siting of the plant, plant construction, operation, or refurbishmen'. In assessing the adequacy of the description of aquatic resources of the site and offsite areas, the reviewer should consult the applicable acceptance criteria of this ESRP section.
| |
| Within these criteria , the reviewer may find a framework of those descriptive features of aquatis resourcesjudged adequate for most situatioas of nuclear power station siting. The reviewer should also become familiar 4 ht the provisions of the legislation listed in the " Acceptance Criteria" section.
| |
| With these guidelines in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| (1) Identify the species and habitats that will be considered "important" ecological resources of the site, vicinity, transmission corridors, and ofTsite areas for evaluation of potential impacts on tL,m, using Table 2.4.2 1 as a reference.
| |
| (2) Consult with local offices of the appropriate Federal agencies and the appropriate State agencies to verify the possible occurrence of such species.
| |
| (3) Identify the theatened and endan-ared species that, based on known distributions, could probably be expected to be present within these areas, but that have not been recorded by documented observations.
| |
| (4) In the case of commercially or recreationally valuable species, verify types of wild!7e and plants that O
| |
| could be adversely impacted by the proposed action, and in addition to the applicar,t's ER, consult with State or local agencies or organizations that maintain records of harvest levels of these species.
| |
| ($) Review the available ske specific data for adequacy, accuracy, an.d completeness.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS ne depth and extent of the input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should be governed by the kinds of aquatic ecological resources that could be affected by plant construction, operation, and refurbishment, and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts to these resources. The reviewer should prepare as input to the EIS descriptions of the onsite and cffsite areas potentially affected by the proposed project. The input should be brief and should contain the following information:
| |
| * the principal aquatic ecological features of the site and vicinity and those sensitive offsite areas affected by transmission and access corridors and related facilities, with emphasis on the communities of the ecosystem that will be potentially affected by project construction, refurbishment, operation, and maintenance. This information should be based on an analysis of at NUREO 1$$5 (DRAFT) 2.4.26 August 1997
| |
| | |
| Table 2.4.21. Important Species and Habitats Species Habitat Rare species Wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves, if they may be adversely affected by plant or transmis-
| |
| * Listed as threatened or endr . ' fred at sion line construction, operation, or 50 CFR 17.11 (Fish and wilJ re) or refurbishment 50 CFR 17.12 (Plants). This information may also be found via the Internet at the U.S. Habitats identified by State or Federal agencies as w Fish and Wildlife Homepage in gen & SIS. unique, rare, or of priority for protection, if these areas may be adversely affected by plant or
| |
| . Proposed for listing as threatened or transmission line operation and maintenance endangered, or is a candidate for listing in the most current !!st of such species as published Wetlands (Executive Order 11990), floodplains in the Federal Register. This information (Executive Order 11988), or other resources may also be found via the Internet at the U.S. specificah, ; totected by Federal regulations or Fish and Wildlife Homepage in gen & SIS. Executive Orders, or by State regulations
| |
| . Listed as a threatened, endangered, or other Land areas identified as " critical habitat" for species of concem by the State or States in species listed as threatened or endangered by the which the proposed facilities are located U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Commercially or recreationally valuable species t
| |
| Species that are essential to the maintenance and survival of species that are rare and commercially or recreationally valuable (as defined previously) ;
| |
| Species that are critical to the structure and function of the local terrestrial ecosystem l
| |
| Species that may serve as biological indicators to q monitor the effects of the facilities on the 3 v- terresttial environment least one full year of data to reflect seasonal variations in aquatic populations. Thus, the extent of discussion of various biotic components should be in proportion to the estimated severity of impacts and should be adequate to support the assessment of ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0.
| |
| . descriptions of existing site and vicinity environmental or man-induced stresses to aquatic biota m
| |
| \ August 1997 2.4.27 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| + a discussion of"impartant" aquatic species that may be affected by plant cr transmission corridor constniction, operation, or refurbishment . Estimates of their abundance should be provided where I
| |
| appropriate. Special Sabitat and forage needs should be emphasized, if the proposed project wculd potentially disrupt mese.
| |
| . species lists incit. 'ed as an appendix to the EIS.
| |
| * A summary of const itations with appropriate Fder.il, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal ageacles, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (through the regional director), and the director of the State fish and wildlife agency.
| |
| If the reviewer verifies that sufreient information hr.s been provided in accordance with the requirements of this ESRP section, then the evaluation supports the fol! awing type of concluding statement, to be included in the staff's EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information relative to the site's aquatic ecology. The staff concludes that the site description is adequate to comply with 10 CFR 51.45. The data are also sufficient to support an evaluation of potential impacts to the aquatic environment that could result from plant construction, refurbishment, and/or operation.
| |
| V. IMPIFMENTNHQN ne method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commi.wion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFEREllCES 10 CFR 51.45, " Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.75, " Draft environmental impact statement-construction permit."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.95," Supplement to final environmental impact statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpart A,"Early Site Permits."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.79," Contents of applications; technical information."
| |
| 50 CFR 17.11," Fish and wildlife."
| |
| 50 CFR 17.12," Plants."
| |
| Regulatory Gtside 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparution ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.4.2-8 Augi'st 1997 O
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l . . . .. .
| |
| .A Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. 2. I995. GeneralSite Suitabilityfor Nwlear Powr Stations. Second Proposal.
| |
| Coastal Zone Manage nere. Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Executive Order 11088," Floodplain Management."
| |
| Executive Order 11990, " Protection of Wetlands."
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean Water Act).
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Pub. L. 92-522, Oct. 21,1972,86 Stat.1027, as amended,16 USC 1361 et seq.
| |
| Marine Protection, Reseamh, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended,33 USC 1401 et seq.
| |
| Rivers and Harbor Appropriations Act, as amended,33 USC 401 et seq.
| |
| O U
| |
| q(f-August 1997 2.4.2-9 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 1
| |
| | |
| l NURE21555 l l
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O /,,,,, \ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION s 2.5 SOCIOECONOMICS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Project Branch Sacondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the socioeconomic description portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material to be presented from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 2.5.1 through 2.5.4.
| |
| p Review Interfaces k
| |
| ' None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs i
| |
| The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement i from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| l 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA L The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with l- the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| l- = 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| l l
| |
| . August 1997 %.51 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN EnWonm.nt.l .t.nd.rd vi.wg.n. . pr.p.r.d fo, th. d nc. of th. Offic, of Nucl.., R cto, R.gul.tlon .t.ff
| |
| #8"*'.*.d."iof".*""" o g n;'":*%r. f. no.
| |
| f7 N., e. "Wfolo,Jt"#.'"r.:nm* ",v".o. # P 4 *fL"':P','y
| |
| #34,' .a.t"te..d."h"I'.34? ta.'s,'.T.tJTA*,t ".'.,. f "tdts.'L".2"ous'oom.nia
| |
| ,r,u,,,ggygo ,,, gg,,.p. .. w ,. d -. . .. ,+ .. . ... od.1. .-n . .nd to l 8:m""4, tut':rit".* 't Wiri".*,"52"J:Ca.To* nP """a ** u 8 ""*" a '*-v 1
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and speci6c criteria necessary to meet the regulation identified above are as
| |
| - follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's socioeconomic description of the area is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational ln nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION CINDINGS The revicwer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 2.5.1 through 2.5.4. This paragraph should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPIEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those caces in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)' 2.5-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREC 1555 o /',,,,,N U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ENVI
| |
| ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR RCACTOR REGULATION 2.5.1 DEMOGRAPHY REVIEW RESPONSIBlurlES ,
| |
| Primary--Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs analysis of population distribution within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the proposed site in sufficient detail to provide input to analyses of radiological impacts and accident impacts and to provide support for socioeconomic analysis.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include verification of current population distri-i p butions, population distributions predicted at the time of plant startup, and for 10-year increments t, reaching 40 years from the latest decennial census. Both permanent and transient populations should be l
| |
| identified.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.5.2. Provide population forecast data.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.4.1. 4.4.2. 5.8.1. and 5.8.2. Provide community distribution and population forecast data.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.4.1. 5.4.2. and 7.1. Provide population forecast data.
| |
| {
| |
| August 1997 2.5.1 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN d d O*i".1.*PfJ,d.*" '"f.. o,
| |
| ,1,,*:=lElf."'?
| |
| 14 *a**"d"o, "d:sti:m=L"i!."2",Jlfn'i t."*Ad?.'a"o" O"*ma".":
| |
| n e ._m,."gg.t..r.e* .me ::e..c..s,t.r.o,;t..:e* o- %,#. 51-(") ame,= g
| |
| :llta;:,ca,,e,ma""s"=. a a"*-
| |
| =yg;w,.4g.*. ,i.n. .n. -*w ,
| |
| ao*.v. - a.i.. . .c ommoa comm.no .a 2.
| |
| d 8=lll"a"$,tP:f'u'*:2'#."."#J,*iCl;a2ot*w ".*'d"".T,ci c'' rots'!* """* * " 5 ""*" "*'**"'
| |
| | |
| Data and Information Needs Because this plan is primarily for orientation and to provide a baseline, the information needed can usually be obtained from the applicant's environmental report (ER). Population data presented should be based on the current decade census data and, where available, more recent census data. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . Pooulation Within 20 km (12 mi). On a map of suitable scale that identifies places of significant population grouping, such as cities and towns within a 20 km (12-mi) radius, concentric circles should be drawn (with the reactor at the center point) at distances of 2,4,6,8,10, and 20 km. The j circles should be divided into 22%* sectors with each sector centered on one of the 16 compass points (with reference to true north; e.g., north-northeast, northeast, etc.). A table appropriately keyed to the map should provide the current residential and transient populations within each area of l the map formed by the concentric circles and radial lines. The same table or separate tables should i provide the projected resident and transient populations within each area for (1) the expected first i I
| |
| year of station operatica and (2) for 10 year increments reaching 40 years from the latest decennial census. The tables should provide population totals for each sector and annular ring and a total for the 0- to 20-km (0- to 12 mi) enclosed population. The basis for population projections should be j
| |
| described (from the ER).
| |
| e Pooulation Between 20 and 80 km (12 and 50 mi). A map of suitable scale and appropriately keyed tables should be used in the same manner as described above to present the population and its distribution at 20-km intervals between the 20- and 80-km (12 and 50-mi) radii from the reactor (from the ER).
| |
| . Demograohic Characteristics of the 0- to 80-km (0 to 12-mil Enclosed Pooulation. This should include specific reporting of population characteristics and projections for the emergency planning zone def'med as the area within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the plant. Demographic characteristics and projections should also be shown for the " low-population zone" or " exclusion area" populations.
| |
| Demographic charscteristics should include age and sex distribution, transient or migrant population, racial and ethnic background, and income distribution.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for inclusion of socioeconomic demographics are based on meeting the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| . 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) with respect to site acceptance, which is based on the consideration of factors relating to the proposed reactor design and the characteristics peculiar to the site. One cf the factors involves population density and use characteristics of the site environs, including the exclusion area, low-population zone, and population center distance.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.12 August 1997
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| )
| |
| i e 10 CFR 51.45(d) and $ 1.7l(d) with respect to the analyses required in the development of the ER -
| |
| - and er:vironmental impact statement (EIS). In accordance with 10 CFR S I.45(d), the app'icant is .
| |
| required to submit in the preliminary and final environmental reports (PER and FER) information needed for evaluating these factors. Similar information is required to be present in the EIS pursuant i to 10 CFR 51.71 . - --
| |
| * 10 CFR 52,18 with respect to reviewing applications for early site permits -
| |
| * 10 CFR 52.81 with respect to revi? wing applicatior.: for combined licenses.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, addresses population distribution within the vicinity of the plant.
| |
| Technical Rationale
| |
| ' he technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's demographic description is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| Regulations 10 CFR 100,10(b) and 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) require that detailed population density and use characteristics of the site environs be developed.
| |
| Reasonably detailed information about the demographic characteristics of the site environt in ques-tion is required to assess any potential social or economic impacts that might occur as a result of
| |
| - plant construction or operation. Data in the ER must be adequate to make these determinations.
| |
| Demographic data are also necessaiy to assess the impact of both routine and accidental releases to the environment.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES To analyze the population distribution within an 80 km (50-mi) radius of the proposed site, the reviewer -
| |
| should complete the following steps:
| |
| (1) Papare population distribution charts that provide population data for both permanent and transient populations as they presently exist and as predicted at the time of plant startup and for 10-year increments reaching 40 years from the latest decennial census; present the data as shown in
| |
| . Table 2.5.1 1.
| |
| (2) Determine that the data are based on the appropriate geographical coordinates.
| |
| _\
| |
| August 1997 - 2.5.1 3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| . . = - - -.
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| Table 2.5.1 1. Sample Population Distribution Table j l
| |
| Sector 0-2 )
| |
| Sectors /Distaures (km) Total 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-20 20-40 40-60 6040 !
| |
| North (Present date)
| |
| (Startup date) 2000 _
| |
| NNE (Present date)
| |
| (Startup date) 2000 M
| |
| M H
| |
| H M
| |
| M Annulus Total (Present date)
| |
| (Startup date) 2000 Cumulative Total (Present date)
| |
| (Startup date) 2000 (3) Review the following:
| |
| . all data used to update the basic decade census data
| |
| . the methods used to establish population data within 80 km (50 mi) of the site
| |
| . the applicant's methods for population projections.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Input from this ESRP to the EIS input should include the following:
| |
| . a sector chart superimposed on a map extending to a 20-km (12-mi) radius (see Figure 2.5.1-1)
| |
| + a sector chart superimposed on a map extending to an 80-km (50-m) radius (see Figure 2.5.1-2)
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| b N
| |
| \ /
| |
| 4 p eu5
| |
| '?
| |
| 6 4 i-i
| |
| $ 4 8 %
| |
| 8
| |
| ==i1iff1 ! 't *? *? ?
| |
| . I l-11 11) 144 A Figure 2.5.1 1. Example of 0-to-20-km Sector Chart to be Superimposed Over an Appropriate Vicinity Mer i
| |
| r
| |
| (
| |
| . August 1997 2.5.1-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l
| |
| ! l
| |
| | |
| N
| |
| \ y s$#
| |
| / p ** -
| |
| ** +
| |
| % ,p pf setP%e w 5 E
| |
| - G
| |
| $ eg
| |
| $ Ye s
| |
| ....i. a u is a n se e. io.
| |
| 4" "i 4 4 4 4 4 4 Figure 2.5.1-2. Example of 20-to-80-km Sector Chart to be Superimposed Over an Appropriate Vicinity Map NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (' i e a table appropriately keyed to the above figures that provides the projected populations within each
| |
| () sector of the chart (see Table 2.5.1 1) e a summary description of the staff's population distribution review, including extrapolation techniques and descriptions of any unique population factors such as h:gh transient population (daily or seasonal) or new communities.
| |
| Information submitted by the applicant should be adequate to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 100.10 and 10 CFR 5034(a)(1). The population distribution data should be complete and sufficient to assess the radiological impacts of station operation and to support the assessment of socioeconomic factors and impacts.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the guidance of this ESRP and that the evaluation supports the following type of concluding statement, to be included in the staft's EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information relative to the characteristics of the affected population. The staff concludes that the information is adequate to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 5034(a)(1). These conclusions are based on the following:
| |
| . The applicant has developed the information using the recommended information sources and (n
| |
| }
| |
| approaches suggested by prevailing professional practice.
| |
| . The information sources used are the most recently updated versions.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| l VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 5034, " Contents of application; technical information."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71," Draft environmental impact statement--contents."
| |
| 10 CFR 52,18," Standards for review of application, early site permits."
| |
| l 10 CFR 52.81," Standards for review of application, combined licenses."
| |
| ,/q I i
| |
| 'd August 1997 2.5.1-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| i 10 CFR 100,10. " Factors to be considered when evaluating sites."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation of Environmental Reportsfor Nuclear Poner Stations.
| |
| l O
| |
| i NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.1-8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE2-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C) [,,,,h ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD '
| |
| (*****REVIEW PLAN- OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.5.2 COMMUNITY CILtRACTERISTICS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This cavironmental standard review plan (CSRP) directs the staff's identification and description of community characteristics in the regionN of the site, including the site vicinity and other areas likely to be affected by the construction, maintenance, refurbishment, and operation of the proposed plant and related facilities. De review will provide input to other reviews dealing with evaluation of plant construction and operating impacts on the identified communities.
| |
| Q Re scope of the review directed by this plan will be guided by the magnitude and nature of the expected impacts of construction, refurbishment, and operation of the proposed project and by those site-specific community characteristics that can be expected to be affected by these impacts. These characteristics should be described in sufficient detail to permit c - f.,%cet staff assessment and evaluation of the specific impacts.
| |
| (a) For the purposes of this ESRP, the relevant region i- limited to that area necessary to include social and economic base data for (1) the ccunty in which the proposed plant would be located, and (2) those specific portions of surrounding counties end urbanized areas (generally, up to 80 km (50 mi) from the station site) from whicts the construction / refurbishment work force would be principally drawn, or that would receive stresses to community services by a change of residence of construction / refurbishment workers. Other social and economic impacts can generally be presumed to fall within the same area covered by this definition of the region.
| |
| August 1997 2.5.21 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN n T '"J' t"*"Yd.''a ?oftn*.'E"*,L*".".**.L".T!2*
| |
| Q 'an{f,i=1."7.0,@l44,.*;TJ.o'.,'n%.fi."n.o
| |
| *2!T4,*3%.".d 'ln1*.F,.'2"J.WM.d' T *",Ai" El';'p2 n 0 iff '42##*M"J% $"
| |
| g .
| |
| wonm.ni. . ne-a ,. . pi.n. .,. c.v.4 to er. .sion o,n.
| |
| gg gg,g, ,g, m environ ni.i
| |
| ,g,gg*on n g g .pi.n. m . w p.noacay... ,w.i..to- - ai.. n..noi.
| |
| d Ei,.""*i , sA2:f'4"3.'.", A?"il,*R*a.*u"ont*w.*;@d.T
| |
| 'om "''*" . c*'Aidd.' """ ''" " 8 ""*"" "*'"'''"'
| |
| | |
| Review Inte-faces The reviewer thould obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 2.2.1. 2.2.2. and 2.23. Obtain maps and d g riptions of the area in the vicinity of the plant, transmission corridors, and surrounding region.
| |
| * ESRP 2.5.1. In reviewing the description of community characteristics, refer to information associated with the relevant populations that could be impacted by the plant construction, refurbishment, or operation, e ESRPs 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. Provide descriptions of the community characteristics that could be impacted by plant construction activities.
| |
| * ESRP 5.8.2. Provide descriptions of the community characteristics that could be impacted by plant operation.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information to be evaluated will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact.
| |
| The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| ' information related to the area's economic base, including
| |
| - important regional industry by category, including employment (from the environmental report
| |
| [ER] and consultation with State and local officials)
| |
| - size and nature of the heavy construction industry and construction labor force within the region (from the ER)
| |
| - total regional labor force (from the ER and consultation with State officials)
| |
| - regional unemployment levels and future economic outlook (from consultation with State agendes)
| |
| - characterization orincremental onsite labor, peak number of workers and duration of the peak, the number of workers expected to commute daily, the number of workers expected to require temporary and permanent housing, and the inventory of rental and of permanent housing within 80 km of the site (Malhotra and Manninen 1981).
| |
| NUREG ' J (DRAFT) 2.5.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| _ _ - . . , _- - - ~ . .. - - - - . -- - . . - -
| |
| e i ht? : .
| |
| f Information related to the area's political structure, including g -
| |
| ( regional politicaljurisdictions and tax districts identifying those tax districts that will be directly affected by plant wastruction, isfurbishment, and operation (from the ER and consuhation with State agencies)
| |
| - local and regional planning and administrative organistions (from the ER and consultation with ' _
| |
| Federal, State, regional, local, and a%cted Native American tribal agencies) - ,
| |
| a
| |
| '
| |
| * demographic information, including population forecasts (from ESRP 2.5.1)
| |
| .T social structure information, including major community structures (from the ER and consultation -
| |
| with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencier) :
| |
| ~
| |
| * housing information, including the sales and rental market in the region, number and types of units, turnover and vacancy rates, and trends in addition to housing stock, adequacy of structures, and location'of existing and projected housing (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State,
| |
| _ regional, local, and a%cted Native American tribal agencies) e information about the local educational system (regional primary and secondary schools and higher institutions), including capacity and present percentage of utilintion (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) *
| |
| (
| |
| = public and private recreational facilities and opportunities, including present and projected capacity '
| |
| and pen:entage of utillation (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribel agencies) e regional tax structure and distribution of the present revenues to eachjurisdiction and district (from the ER and consultation with State and local agencies) e local p!ans concerning land use and zoning that are relevant to population growth, housing, and changes in land use pattems (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies), .
| |
| = ' social services and public facilities, including
| |
| - - present and projected water and sewer / sewage disposal facilities, including present capacity and L projected percentage of utiliation (from the'ER and consultation with local agencies) .
| |
| - - passent and projected police and fire capabilities, as well as Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies with emwgency planning responsibilities (from the ER and consultation with local agencies)
| |
| - August 1997 2.5,23 . NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| .a_ __ _
| |
| _1 ._. ..__ , ,_ _ __ _ . , - . __
| |
| | |
| - location of hospitals, number of medical dpctors, and specialized health facilities, including present and projected capacity (from the ER and consultation with local agencies).
| |
| * Information on highways and transportation systems, for example:
| |
| regional and local highway systems, including cairying capacity and condition of roads and highways (from the ER)
| |
| - availability and type of public transportation (from the ER and censultation with local officials)
| |
| - modifications that might affect traffic flow to and from the station site (from the ER).
| |
| * Information about distinctive communities including the characteristics of the State, Native American tribes, and the local region that may identify them as distinctive communities, such as historic districts, tourist attractions, cultural resources, and visual resources (from the ER and consultation with State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for evaluating community characteristics are based on meeting the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.45(d) and S t.7)(d) with respect to the analyses required in the development of the ER and mironmental impact statement (EIS). In accordance with 10 CFR S t.45(d), the applicant is requlw 'o submit in the preliminary and final environmental reports (PER and FER) information needed a mluating these factors. Similar information is required to be present in the EIS pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71.
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.45 with respect to reviewing applications for early site permits.
| |
| * 10 CFR 52.81 with respect to reviewing applications for combined licenses.
| |
| Technlent Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of community characteristics is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Reasonably detailed information about the socioeconomic characteristics of the site in question is needed to assess any potential social or economic impacts that might occur as a result of plant construction or operation. Data in the ER must be adequate to make these determinations.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.24 August 1997
| |
| | |
| i q ; lit. rey [EW PROCEDURES
| |
| ' O- i The reviewer's analysis of community characteristics should be closely linked with the impact assess- -l ment review described by the ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 to establish the site specific community -
| |
| characteristics that are most likely to be affected (NRC 1995)._ When analyzing the community . [
| |
| ^
| |
| characteri:*ics, the reviewer should do the following: -t (1) Describe community characteristics for those communities within the region (see the footnote in
| |
| ; Areas of Review in ESRP 2.5.2 for definition of"relevan' glon") that are expected to be impacted.
| |
| ! (2) Conduct an initial screening of the community structure and characteristics within an appmximate ;
| |
| 80-km (50 mi) radius of the site to make a preliminary determination of the potentially affected ~
| |
| subregions end communities, i
| |
| . Address the following factors in the screening process to identify population influx:
| |
| - settlement patterr3
| |
| - labor force
| |
| . -: transportation
| |
| - housing availability
| |
| = . publIC services
| |
| - economics.
| |
| /
| |
| i e Discuss the results of the initial screening with the reviewers of ESRP Chapters' 4.0 and 5.0 to establish any other predicted construction or operating impacts that might affect results of the screening process.
| |
| (3) Desenbe potentially impacted areas of the region and their anociated communities in the following terms (the extent and detail of the descriptions should be in proportion to the magnitude of the impacts anticipated and only those terms nece:sary for subsequent impact evaluation should be used):
| |
| political structure e social structure e demography
| |
| * housing =
| |
| l
| |
| ~ * -: economic base .
| |
| .. social services and public facilities
| |
| = highways and transportation
| |
| . - water and sewer facilities -
| |
| . education
| |
| . public safety -
| |
| . healthL August 1997 2.5 2 5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l J s
| |
| 1 s
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| a recreation
| |
| . taxation e land use planning and zoning.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The depth and extent of the input to the environmental statement should be governd by the charac.
| |
| teristics of the region in which the station is to be located and the potential socioeconomic impacts of plant construction and operation. The following information should be obtained:
| |
| = the procedures used to identify the selected regional ri community characteristics
| |
| . a description of regional and community characteristics e other factors listed in the analysis section of this plan consistent witt. the guidance provided in tha:
| |
| section.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sumcient information has been provided in accordance with the requirements of this ESRP to serve as a basis for assessment of the impacts on the local communities resulting from plant construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| V. IMPIT. MENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an scceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71," Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.81," Standards for review of application, combined licenses."
| |
| Malhotra, S. and D. Manninsa. I981. Migration and ResidentialLocation of Workers at Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites. Profile Analysis of Worker Surveys. NUREGICR-2002 Vol. 2,282 pp.
| |
| 8105180378,08553:184. PNL-3757, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.2-6 August 1997 l
| |
| _-_.___m__.-_.-.
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| : U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statementfor
| |
| % l Refurbishment andLicense Renewaffor Nuclear Power Generating Stations, NUREG.1437, Sections on socioeconomics'and Appendix G: Socioeconomics. Division of Safety lasue Resolution, Omce of - !
| |
| . Nuclear Regulatory Research, Warhington, D.C.
| |
| 9 i
| |
| m .
| |
| August 1997 2.5.2-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NURE2-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n ["'N . ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION f
| |
| 2.5.3 HISTORIC PROPERTIES REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Enviromnental P.mjects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| - I. AREAS OF REVIEW Mis envir'onmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs identification and description of
| |
| ~ historic, archaeological, and traditional cultural resources; the results of the surveys conducted; the location and significance of any properties that are listed in or cligible for inclusion in the National Register of#istoric Places (National Register) as a historic place; and any additional information pertaining to the identification and description of historic properties that could be impacted by con-struction or operation of the proposed project. The descriptions to be provided by this review should be
| |
| ; of sufTicient detail to permit subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific impacts as provided L/ in ESRPs 4.1.3 and 5.1.3.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinfonnation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| l . ESRPs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Obtain land-use data as needed to describe archaeological sites and natural landmarks..
| |
| . ESRPs 3.1. and 3.7. Receive input from these plans regarding site description and layout, i
| |
| * ESRP 4.1.3. Provide descriptions of those significant historic properties that could be impacted by proposed project construction activities.
| |
| I August 1997 2.5.3-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN d'
| |
| f."*mt"'i,, #."'."',,'.o .nten:,2Wa'.*p't."*A: .''t ?, *t,1.'2*,t:s."."*.i".JMT,3f.. .t a g, , =,=gg,.w.=..
| |
| w==:m, . m .mt m"!&m.::m....v
| |
| .r a..:q,., w., e,n
| |
| ; .o. o * .
| |
| l ' .w.
| |
| g ;g g g g ,,i e- .s...,,,,,,,i....-
| |
| v -.a. - . .
| |
| d da 8:ml".'a,*"o,m/:r','2 r.M'=,*it'*4"
| |
| . #J'cC',d.T c n&" """* "'* " 8 ""*" "**"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 5.1.3. Provide descriptions of those significant historic properties that could be impacted by proposed project operation.
| |
| Data and Informrition Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . a detailed description of any archaeological or historical surveys of the proposed site, transmissian line routes, or access corridors, including the following (from the environmental : port [ER j):
| |
| the physical extent of the survey if the entire site was not surveyed, the basis for selecting the area to be surveyed is needed.
| |
| - a brief description of the survey techniques used and the reason for the selection of the survey techniques used the qualifications of the surveyors
| |
| - the fimdings of the survey in sufficient detail to permit a subsequent independent assessment of the impact of the proposed project on archaeological and historic resources.
| |
| Guidance for assessing the adequacy and completeness of previous archaeological or historical surveys can be found in U.S. Department of the Interior reports (NPS 1985; DOI 1983).
| |
| . the comments of any organizations contacted by the applicant to locate and assess archaeological and historic resources located on or near the proposed station site (from the ER)
| |
| + a description of all properties within the proposed site or within proposed transmission line corridors, access corridors, and offsite areas that are in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register or are included in State or local registers or inventories of historic and archaeological resources (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) e a description of any historic property within 15 km of the proposed site or within 2 km of proposed transmission line routes, access corridors, and offsite areas that are in or have been determined cligible for inclusion in the National Register or are included in State or local registers or inventories of historic and cultural resources (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.3-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . .- . - ._ .. ~ _ _ _, . . _ . . . _
| |
| ;e:
| |
| [ 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of the historic properties that could be impacted by proposed project
| |
| : construction' and operation are based on the relevant requirements of the following: _,
| |
| - U 36 CFR 800 defines the process b'ywhich a Federal agency meets the requirements under l Sections 106 and i10 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to ensure that ages.cy-assisted or licensed undertakings consider the effects of the undertaking cn historic properties included in or eligible for the NationalRegister. Under this regulation, the Federal agency is required to identify and evaluate all historic prMities in the project area, and take measures to mitigate adverse affects as being significant.
| |
| 36 CFR 63 contains guidance by which historic proprties are evaluated and determined eligible for listing on the NationalRegister.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are provided - ,
| |
| : as follows:
| |
| . Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1 (NRR 1996) contains guidance for complying with the requirements contained in the National Historic Preservation Act.
| |
| Technical Rationale f
| |
| k The technical rationale for evaluating an applicant's description of historic properties is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| Because of NEPA and Section 106 of NHPA, the NRC's actions are required to fall under 36 CFR 800, which provides regulatory guidance for identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties from potential adverse impacts resulting from Federal agency undertakings. Information developed at this stage will contribute necessary data for ESRPs 4.1.3 and 5.1.3.
| |
| The construction and subsequent operation of a nuclear power facility could impact historic properties directly (e.g., destruction or alteration of the integrity of a property) or indirectly (e.g.,
| |
| prohibiting access or increasing the potential for vandalism). Elements of Section 110 of NHPA
| |
| . require Federal agencies to manage and protect identified, eligible historic properties located on lands under theirjurisdiction.
| |
| ~ III. REVIEW PROCEDURES MIhe reviewer's analysis of historic properties should be closely linked with the impact assessment review
| |
| ' described by ESRPs 4.1.3 and 5.1.3 to establish the historical and archaeological characteristics that are l most likely to be'affected. Additional guidance in the conduct of this environmental review is given in
| |
| [/N L 3 : August 1997, 2.5.33 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) ;
| |
| u l 1
| |
| ,, . - ~ _ . ~, -. , - , . i
| |
| | |
| NRR Office Letter 906, Revision 1 (NRR 1996) listed in the Acceptance Criteria section of this plan.
| |
| He reviewer should take the following steps to obtain the necessary information:
| |
| (1) Contact the appropriate State Historic Preseivation Officer (SHPO) to determine if there are any additional comments or information concerning the proposed station site.
| |
| (a) Make initial contact by phone and invite the SHPO to participate in the site visit.
| |
| (b) If the SHPO has comments or information that add to or amplify that which was provided to the applicant, request that the SHPO forward, by letter to the staff, these additional comments, (2) Contact the Archeology and Ethnography Program (AEP) of the National Park Service (NPS), U.S.
| |
| Department ofInterior. His office is a particularly useful source of expmise in :he area of historic and cultural preservation and is staffed with orofessionals who can assist in the environmental review and in analyzing the resul'.s of the applicant's surveys and investigations.
| |
| (3) In consultation with the SHPO, apply the Nationa/ Register criteria outlined by the U.S. Department of the Interior (NPS 1990; 1991) to all identified historic properties that are on the station site or that will be directly affected by plant constru: tion. If a property appears to meet the criteria, or ifit is questionable whether the criteria are met, the stafY should request, in writing, an opinion from the U.S. Department of the Interior respecting the property's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. The request for determination of eligibility should be sent directly to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127.
| |
| (4) Have the NPS-AEP staff assist in
| |
| . defining the requirements of additional surveys and investigations that the staff decides should be completed by the applicant
| |
| * reviewing the results of these surveys.
| |
| (5) Consult the Nationa/ Register to verify the list ofNational Register properties provided by the applicant. Note: A proposed station can have a visual or noise impact on cultural and historic resources that are located some distance from the proposed station site. Therefore, all National -
| |
| Register properties within 15 km of the proposed station site or within 2 km of transmission line routes, access corridors, and offsite areas should be identified.
| |
| (6) Meet with the SHPO and, where appropriate, the State Archaeologist and State Historian, to discuss the information provided to the applicant by the SHPO. The SHPO can alert the staff to relevant State and local laws, orders, ordinances, or regulations aimed at the preservation of cultural resources within the applicant's State. De sure to discuss the following:
| |
| NUREC-1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.3-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| = = the data required in items I through 4 above xJ '
| |
| * a list of orgarJzations or individuals that might be able to assist in identifying and locating !
| |
| archaeological and nistoric resources.' Of particular importance are university and Native i .;
| |
| American tribal archaeological and historical staffs.-
| |
| (7) Contact the SHPO of each affected State for sites located on or near State boundaries, or where -
| |
| transmission line routes, access corridors, or offsite areas pass through more than one State.
| |
| - (8) Compare the information provided by the applicant with that obtained from the SHPO and the . ,
| |
| , Nation:rI Register and irsolve any differences in identification and location of cultural and historic ;
| |
| resources.
| |
| - IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS 3
| |
| The reviewer should ensure that those significant historic properties that could be impacted by proposed ?
| |
| project construction and operation have been identified, locsted, and described in sufficient detail to provide the basis for subseqinnt analysis and assessment of these impacts, ne depth and extent of the inn ' to the environmental impact statement (EIS) will be governed by the extent and significance of the loc iified historic properties and by the nature and magnitude of the
| |
| : expected impacts of construction and operation, ne following information should usually be included s in this ESRP :
| |
| a a description of historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Any resource considered to be eligible for the Nationa/ Register should have concurrence from the approprirte SHPO.
| |
| L
| |
| = a description of historic properties included in State or local registers or inventories I e a brief description of any additional important cultural, traditional, or historic pmperties e a summary of the efforts to locate and identify previously recorded archaeological and historic sites e a list of organizations and individuals contacted by the applicant or the staff who provided significant information concerning the location of cultural and historic properties :
| |
| . . a brief description of the overall results and adequacy of any surveys (archival or field) that were conducted by the applicant..
| |
| L i Angust 1997 2.5.3-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l L
| |
| l<
| |
| i
| |
| ^
| |
| - --,. , - , - - , , , , . , - , w..-. .. .- ,
| |
| | |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cates in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for cc nplying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 30 CFR 63," National Register of Historic Places."
| |
| 06 CFR 800," Protection of Historic Properties."
| |
| National Histo,ic Preservation Act, as amended,16 USC 470 et seq.
| |
| U.S. Deputment of the Interior (DOI).1983. " Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the
| |
| ' Interior's Standards and Guidelines," 48 Federal Register,44*/16-44742.
| |
| U.S. National Park Service (NPS).1985. " Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning." National Register, r>ulletin 24, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. National Park Service (NPS).1990. " Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties." National Register, Bulletin No. 38, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. National Park Service (NPS).1991. "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
| |
| National Register, Bulletin No.15, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear R eactor Regulation (NRC/NRR). 1996.
| |
| " Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental issues," NRR Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| NhREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.3-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREC-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (v^'Y
| |
| [,e,,\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD s
| |
| %,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.5.4 ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE REVIEW REEPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW Dis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's identification and description oflow-income and minority populations that could be impacted by construction ar.d operation of thc proposed project to the extent that such information can serve as the basis of an environmental assessment (EA).
| |
| Thia review should provide input to other reviews dealing with evaluation of construction and operational impacts to these populations.
| |
| b
| |
| \ The scope of the review directed by this plan should include consideration of the methods that are used to identify and locate low-income and minority populations, the location and significance of any populations that are particularly sensitive, and any additional informatica pertaining to minority and low-income populations that could be impacted by construction or operation of the proposed project. The descriptions to be provided by this review should be of sufficient detail to permit subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific im,nacts as provided in ESRPs 4.4.3 and 5.8.3.
| |
| Review Interfacgg The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| e ESRPs 4.1.1 through 4.6. 5.1.1 throuch 5.6.3. 7.1. and 7.3. Obtain input from these plans to establish environmental pathways of importance for identifying low income and minority populations of concern.
| |
| August 1997 2.5.4-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN En*onmente .tendwd review plane are propwed for the dance of the office of Nuclear Reactor Reguistion staff
| |
| ;iicors,n .n.
| |
| en
| |
| * onenen.1.".*,3.,:1,?'fn/m it /' o ;" n,o,,J. J.a'.1;L*J*
| |
| evi.w .nt.n',',"3.":,'1"J,.mo*ie ioe.
| |
| 4 ommffJ T
| |
| ;":,n:""c'*.to
| |
| .oon? "'.M:.''
| |
| . ,eu.':,tA. no '''' "'
| |
| C,n 'Gd:7J
| |
| .,e noi .ui 2 '.""r" "e","#tt2d * *"-"'d "'"d"'
| |
| to
| |
| 'g" """' "* ""d '* **a""*" *""*-"'''
| |
| f PubSehed environenental standard review plans will be revised periodically, s. oppropriate, to accommodate comments and to toGeci new information and experience.
| |
| C elon. ffic f Re o Ye e on, as on. C SF
| |
| * ESRP 4 Al. Provide descriptions of those low-income and minority populations that could be disproportionately impacted by proposed project construction activities and the mechanisms by which disproportionate harm could occur,
| |
| * ESRP 5.8.3. Provide descriptions of those low-income and minority populations that could be dispiopertionately impacted by proposed project operation and the mechanisms by which disproportionate harm could occur.
| |
| 'Ihe following review interface should also be conducted:
| |
| * Interface with Environmental Project Manager. Notify the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) of the existence of any unusual circumstances that warrant an environmentaljustice review.
| |
| Data and Information Needs Because this plan is primarily for orientation and to provide a baseline, the biformation needed can usually be obtained from the applicant's environmental report. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * the comments of any organizations contacted by the applicant that locate and assess uniquely vulnerable low income and minority communities located on or near the proposed station site (from the environmental report [ERJ) e a general description (wit.h maps) of the location of all low income and minority populations within the environmental impact area of each alternative site, including offsite areas that can expect significant environmental impact as a result of the proposed project construction or operation
| |
| * a more specific descriptior, of any unique low-income or minority communities within each environmental impact area that are likely to be disproportionately affected by the proposed project construction or operatica (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CFJTERI A The acceptance crittria for inclusion of environmentaljustice information are based on the requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51//l(d) with re get to complying with environmental quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies a 10 CFR 52.18 with respect to reviewing applications for early site permits NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.5.4-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| [,,] + 10 CFR 52.81 with respect to reviewing applications for combined licenses V
| |
| + Executive Order 12898 with respect to impacts on minority populations and low income populations
| |
| + 10 CFS s00.10 with respect to requirements that the site acceptance be based w the consideration of factors relating to the proposed reactor design and the characteristics peculiar to the site.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.7 notes that environmentaljustice is one of the considerations on which site acceptance is baaJ, and provides specific information for making the determinations required.
| |
| TecimledRationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description oflow income and minority populations is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45, the applicant is required to submit in the preliminary and final environmental reports (PER and FER) Information needed for evaluating these factors. Guidelines for specific information requirements for environmental justice determinations are described in p Regulatory Guide 4.7 and Attachment 4 to the Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1: '' Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental issues"(NRR 1956). Information submitted by the applicant is adequate and meets the 10 CFR 51 A5 and 10 CFR 51.71 requirements and interim NRR guidelines ifit permits the identification of minority and low income populations as addressed in that guidance.
| |
| As put of an environmentaljustice review, the reviewer should (1) alert the EPM of the existence of any unusual circumstances that warrant an environmentaljustice review in an EA,(2) determine through c mparative analysis whether a minority or low income population exists at an environ-mental impact site, end (3) assess the degree to which each minority or low income population is disproportionately receiving adverse human health and environmental impacts a"blispropor-tionately receiving are benefits. Data in the ER should be adequate to make these determinations.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer's analysis of rninority and low income populations should be closely linked with the impact assessment review of environmental issues described by the ESRPs 4.1.1 through 4.6,5,1.1 through 5.6,7.1, and 73, to establish the environmental pathwt.ys by which low income and minority households are most likely to be disproportionately affected, if any, in the course of this analysis,
| |
| ; potential sources of relevant information may be available. For example, the reviewer should contact the following:
| |
| l ,/ m l i l' U ) August 1997 2.5.43 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 1 i
| |
| | |
| . lead staff responsible for reviews of these ESRP; e local university departments of economics and sociology. These are paniculnly useful sources of !
| |
| exper'ise h the area of environmentaljustice, particularly those that are State repositories for Dureau l i
| |
| of Census data. These offices are staffed with professionals who can assist the review:r in analyzing the results of the applicant's surveys and investigations and can assist in the environmental review.
| |
| . the cognizant personnei of each affected State, for sites located on or near State boundaries, or where transmission line routes, access corridors, or offsite areas pass through more than one State.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The depth and extcot of the input to the environmental statement will be governed by the extent and significance of the identified low income and minority populations and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts of construction and operation. The following information from ESRP 2.5.4 should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| . a generci description of the location oflow income and minori'y populations within the region surrounding the site. This description should ordinarily be accompanied by two maps that highlight the location oilow income and minority populations, respectively. These maps would ordinarily be based on the most recent Census of Population, suppiamented by other information if available.
| |
| + a description oflow-income and m.aority populations of panicular interest or unusual circumstances, such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as a Native American pueblo.
| |
| . a brief description of any additional important cultural or economic facts that may result in unusually high environmental (including socioeconomic) impacts e a brief description of the overall results and adequacy of any surveys (archival or field) that were conducted by the applicant.
| |
| The reviewer should identify and provide the locations of minority and low income populations for each environmentn impact site.N The reviewer should verify that the applicant's data are adequate and consider them adequate if the following statements are true:
| |
| * Data in the ER adequately describe the locations and distances oflow income and minority commu.
| |
| nities and population concentrations in the vicinity of the facility to determine the percentages of low income and minority populations within the environmental impact site and larger geographic area, anu are in agreement with data obtained from other sources, when available.
| |
| (a) An environmental impact site is a special term used to define the area surrounding an applicant's facility or proposed faci'ity for environmentaljustice analysis (NRR 1996).
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAIT) 2.5.4-4 August 1997
| |
| * When applicable, data in the ER adequately describe the unique lifesttle and practices oflow-V income and minority communities (for example, subsistence activities or dependence on specific .
| |
| water supplies) that could result in disproportionate impacts from plant construction, or refurbishment, and site operations.
| |
| * Descriptions of the nature and extent of activities conducted at the site and in its vicinity including the products and materials likely to be processed, stored, used, or transported, are adequate to permit identification of possible disproportionate hazards to minority and low income populations under either routine operations or accident scenarios.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be us 4 by the staffin its evaluation sf conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. RETERENCES 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71," Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| b 10 CFR 52.18," Standards for review of applications."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.48," Standards for review of application, standard design certifications."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.81," Standards for review of applications."
| |
| 10 CFR 100.10. " Factors to be considered when evaluating sites."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. l.1975. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Executive Order 12898," Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations." $9 Federal Argister,7629 7633.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC/NRR) 1996.
| |
| " Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental issues." NRR Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C, August 1997 2.5.45 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| [D o ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD U
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
| |
| 2.6 GEOLOGY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES I Primary--Civil Engineering and Geosciences 53 ranch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental stanjard review plan (ESRP) directs the use (by reference) of the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER) or Site Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) for all descripticas of site and vicinity geology. Reference to these documents should be made in the environmental impact statement (EIS),
| |
| and no description of site and vicinity geology will be required.
| |
| Review Interracen
| |
| 'ihe reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewer ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 4.1. $.l 1. and 5.1.2. Notify the reviewers when there is any potential for geologic environmental impact.
| |
| Data and Information Needs None, 11, ACCEPTANCE CRITEl@ .
| |
| None.
| |
| August 1997 2.6 1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN w
| |
| I1"M*""""t"2,274#."'"
| |
| tU *M D w". D .*i!,%*c"w*'*"~"''*"#,t#..T.,*py~4: k".'w"p D TU tJ b *e.e M *.' N
| |
| * M v*s* E S c itrd". sam *" "d*-
| |
| -O- = = d ----' ~ ~ ' ' ~ -
| |
| = , m ,.,g g,,. . w ,. w ,. *
| |
| * r. .,
| |
| * i.. . . a.i. . . w i.
| |
| 8"""""* "G.Wid !:',t;:: ,", r."eJ#.,N::C",!.Td o dret." """ * ""***"r
| |
| | |
| i Technical Rationalg The potential for geological impacts is small and will be evaluated ras part of the safety evaluation.
| |
| ]
| |
| Ill. JtEVIEW PROCEDURES The potential for geological environmental Impccts (e.g., subsidence from cooling pond loading) is small, and the staff s experience has been that actual occurrence of such impacts is infrequent. Further, any such potential would be established and evaluated during the staff s safety evaluation and described in the staff s SER or SSER. On this basis, no environmental review of geology is required, but the reviewer's analysis should consist of the following two steps:
| |
| (1) Consult with the staffs safety evaluation reviewers to determine if there is any potential for geological environmental impact.
| |
| (2) When any such impacts can be predicted, notify the reviewers for ESRPs 4.1 and 5.1 to develop, in consultation with the safety reviewers, an analysis and evaluation of the potential impacts.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Evaluation findlegs are not requl red. The reviewer should provide the following statement for inclusion in the EIS:
| |
| The staff s description of site and vicinity geological features and the detailed analyses and evalua-tions of geological, seismolcgical, and geotechnical data as required for an assessment of(l) site suitability for a plant of the general site and type proposed or (2) site safety issues related to the specific proposed plant are or will be included in the staffs SSER and/or SER.
| |
| In addition, when any potendal for geological environmental impact has been determined, the input should note that this determination has been made and identify the appropriate EIS section that contains an analysis and evaluation of the predicted impact.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applican; proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES None.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.6 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURED 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c ['N ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD '
| |
| (,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.7 METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY REVIEW RESPONSIBIL111ES !
| |
| Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection 13rnnch Secondary-None I, AREAS OF REVIEW 7 tis environmental standard review phin (ESRP) directs the staffs description of the meteorology of the de and surrounding area and the characterization of atmospheric transport and diffusion processes (i.e.,
| |
| airflow trajectories, deposition characteristics, etc.) out to a distance of 80 km from the station to permit indrpendent evaluation of atmospheric diffusion characteristics. This review should provide input to reviews dealing with evaluation of construction and operational impacts that involve meteorology.
| |
| /^
| |
| ( The scope of the review directed by this plan includes (1) a description of the regional climatological characteristics to be considered in the assessment of the design of the' plant and its heat dissipation system;(2) a description of the meteorological characteristics of the site and vic3nity, using data from the onsite meteorological monitoring program, to be considered in the assessment of the impacts of the heat.
| |
| dissipation system; (3) identification of the regional atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics to be considered in the assessment of the population dose committnents likely to result from plant operation;(4) identification of the local atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics to be consid.
| |
| cred in the assessment of the individual and population doses likely to result from plant operation; and (5) assessment of specific impacts on the atmospheric environment.
| |
| Review Interfaces
| |
| 'lhe reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewerr ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| August 1997 2.7 1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT).
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN d
| |
| ta*f4f72",a*.' Ta: .
| |
| p y
| |
| f."p*=a'id,*',t*"d."o lo*
| |
| **2.", 3 g a gJ,M*4*;r.r ,,
| |
| 'rfa."o'"tc..
| |
| n,. *-':":i ,.'ta:,%v.:f,!".'@%.
| |
| d s
| |
| r c J* .',g".%'"' :.o.;.@
| |
| co*-oia
| |
| ,r,e,,a,., g,.ngs,.,ig.g.. . ..n ..u. ,.,io. r. .. .,,,,, ,i .. io ... . .-oi. .oo i.
| |
| 8"""'"'t "GoiE", ntil,"".*c"o'e.'oNa*4,,J'c"#!da""""'* " ""*'*" "**'"'
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| + ESRP 2.1 Obtain a description of the plant location.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Obtain descriptions of the cooling system and relevant components for use in dete; mining potential impacts of heat dissipation on the atmosphere.
| |
| * ESRP 3.5. Obtain descriptions of potential release points for radioactive efiluents for use in atmospheric transport and diffusion calculation.
| |
| . ESRP 5.3 2.1. Provide a description of the meteorology at the site of the proposed plant.
| |
| * ESRP 5.3.3.1. Provide meteorological data as required to analyze and evaluate heat-dissipation system effects on the atmosphere.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 Obtain locations of the nearest receptors in each 22% degree sector for atmospheric transport and diffusion calculations. Provide summaries of relative concentration and relative deposition values estimated or approved by the staff and a comparison of the values computed by the staff and the applicant, if they are substantially different from each other.
| |
| * ESRP 6.2. Provide an assessment of the adequacy of air sampling locations and indicate additional air sampling locations, if appropriate.
| |
| . ESRP 6.4. Provide an assessment of the adequacy of meteorological monitoring.
| |
| . ESRP 7.1. Provide meteorological data as required to analyze and evaluate the effects of plant accidents involving radioactive material.
| |
| * ESRP 9.4.1. Provide meteorological data as required to evaluate heat dissipation of alternative systems.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The Linds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact.
| |
| Adequate characterization of atmospheric transport and diffusion processes within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant is necessary, and may include presentation of meteorological data from stations farther than 80 km (50 mi) when this information can provide additional clarification of the mesoscale atmospheric transport and diffusion processes. At least one annual cycle from the onsite meteorological program should be used for atmospheric transport and diffusion calculations. Sources of meteorological information, in addition to the onsite metectological program, should include National Weather Service (NWS) stations, other meteorological programs that are well-maintained and well-exposed (e.g., other nuclear facilities, university, and private meteorological programs), and supplementary meteorological facilities estab-lished by the applicant (or others) to characterize relevant conditions at critical onsite and offsite NUREG 1555 (DRAIT) 2.7 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| locations. All data used in calculations of atmospheric transport and diffusion estimates should be con.
| |
| O)
| |
| ( current with the onsite data collection periods. Onsite data should be presented as hourly averages in the format described in Appendix A.
| |
| ne site and regional meteorology data listed below should be fully documented and substantiated as to validity of their representation of expected long term conditions at and near the site nese data should .
| |
| be taken from onsite meteorological measurements and nearby representative stations, and for relevant stations within 80 km of the site. Regional climatological data, such as averages and extremes, should be based on a period of record that represents long term conditions in the area and examination of available historical information, ne following site and regional meteorology data should be provided:
| |
| * a description of the general climate of the region with respect to types of air masses, r,ynoptic features (high and low pressure systems and frontal systems, and principal storm tracks), general airflow patterns, temperature and humidity characteristics, precipitation, and relationships between synoptic and mesoscale (e.g., land sea (lake) breeze regimes, atmospheric processes and local [ site) meteorological conditions) (from the environmental report (ER))
| |
| + a general description of regional air quality including non attainment or maintenance areas
| |
| + a description (including seasonal and annual frequencies) of the r,cvere weather phenomena (e.g.,
| |
| tomadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, droughts) and adverse air quality conditions (e.g., So,, No,,
| |
| particulates, salt) affecting the site and vicinity (from the ER) i
| |
| 'v) . monthly and annual air temperature and dewpoint temperature summaries, including averages, measured extremes, and diurnal range (from the ER)
| |
| * monthly cumulative frequency distributions of wet bulb temperature based on long term data from representative NWS stations (except for plants with once-through cooling)(from the general literature) e monthly and annual summaries of precipitation, including averages and measured extremes, number of hours with precipitation, hourly rainfall rate distribution, and monthly precipitation wind roses with precipitation rate classes (from the ER)
| |
| . monthly and annual summaries, including natural variability, of occurrences of heavy fog (visibility less than 400 m), and appropriate summaries of other parameters to support the description of impacts resulting from the operation of a closed-cycle heat dissipation system (from the ER) e estirr sted monthly mixing height data, including frequency and duration (persistence) of inversion conditions and methods used to provide the estimates (from tla ER)
| |
| (' ,)e August 1997 2.73 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| * monthly and annual wind roses using the wind speed classes provided in Regulatory Guide 1.23 and wind direction persistence summaries at all height (s) at which data on wind characteristics are applicable (from the ER)
| |
| + monthly and annual summaries of atmospheric stability (from the ER)
| |
| + topographic data presentation should include the following:
| |
| a map showing the detailed topographic features (as modified by ti e plant) on a large scale within an 8 km (5 mi) radius
| |
| * of the station (from the ER)
| |
| - a smaller scale map showing topography within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of the station (from the ER)
| |
| - a plot of maximum elevation versus distance from the center of the station in each of the sixteen 22%-degree sectors radiating from the station to a distance of 8 km (5 mi)(from the ER).
| |
| * hourly averages of wind speed and direction at all height (s) at which 8 km (5 mi) wind characteristics data are applicable; and hourly averages of atmospheric stability (these data should be presented as hour by hour data (see Appendix A for an acceptable format) or monthly and annual joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction by atmospheric stability)(from the applicant upon request) e detailed descriptions of the models and assumptions used to determine normalized concentration (X/Q) and/or relative deposition (D/Q). The meteorological data used in these models should be identified. (Guidance on acceptable models and necessary input data is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111 (from the ER).
| |
| . release point characteristics (from ESRP 3.5)
| |
| . receptor locations (from ESRP 5.4.1)
| |
| *XQ / and/or D/Q at points of potential maximum concentration outside the site boundary, at points of maximum individual exposure, and at points within a radial grid of sixteen 22% degree sectors (centered on true north, north-northeast, northeast, etc.) and extending to a distance of 80 km from the station. A set of data points should be located within each sector at increments of 0.4 km to a distance of 1.6 km from the plant, at increments of 0.8 km from a distance of 1.6 km to 8 km, at increments of 4 km from a distance of 8 km to 16 km, and at increments of 8 km thereafter to a distance of 80 km. Estimates of X/O Mdecayed and undepleted; depleted for radioiodines) and D/Q radiolodines and particulates shouiu be provided at each of these grid points (from the ER).
| |
| (a) Exceptions to the 8 km (5 mi) site vicinity radius may be required when the land-use descriptions (ESRP 2.2.1) suggest that this is appropriate.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.7 4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| __ - ._ . . . _ . - _ . . - _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . ____
| |
| r l
| |
| l i
| |
| p . Ili ACCEPTANCE CS11EILIA j O Acceptance criteria for.the evaluation of site meteorology and air quality are based on the relevant i
| |
| requirmnents of the following:
| |
| j
| |
| * 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, with respect to calculation of air doses from gaseous emissions D- e . 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to permitting an independent evaluation of the reliability of the meteorological and climatological information i
| |
| : e ' 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to'giving consideration to compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected - i Native American tribal agencies -
| |
| i
| |
| . - 10 CFR 52.18 with respect to reviewing applications for early site permits-e 10 CFR 52.81 with respect to reviesing applications for combined licenses
| |
| -e 10 CFR.100.10(c) and 10 CFR 100.20(c) with respect to the consideration of meteorological ;
| |
| . conditions at the site and in the surrounding area.
| |
| j
| |
| . Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as ,
| |
| r 'follows:
| |
| e . The description of the general climate of the region, including severe weather, should be based on
| |
| ; published climatological summaries from nearby representative sites with long periods of record (see .
| |
| references in this ESRP).
| |
| . - At least one annual cycle from the onsite meteorological program should be used to relate local meteorological conditions to local and regional climatology. Regulatory Guide 1.23 provides 1
| |
| ' guidance related to onsite meteorology programs. ESRP 6.4 sets forth the staff review plan for L evaluation of the onsite meteorological program.
| |
| . - Atmospheric dispersion models and assumptions described in Regulatory Guide 1.111 should be - x l used for estimating relative atmospheric concentrations and relative deposition used in the calcu"
| |
| : lation ofindividual and population doses from routine releases of radioactive emuents to the
| |
| ; L atmosphere.
| |
| L.. Atmospheric dispersion models and assumptions described in Regulatory Guide 1.145 should be used for estimating relative atmospheric concentrations and relative deposition used in calculation of
| |
| ' individual doses from accidental releases of radioactive emuents to the atmosphere.
| |
| f N
| |
| $ E August 1997[ 2.7 5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l- - - . - . . . . - - - , - . - _ .-, _ . . , , . - - - , . , -
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| * Atmospheric dispersion models and assumptions promulgated by the EPA should he used for air-quality assessments. i Iphnical Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's meteor and air quality application of these acceptance criteria are discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| 10 CFR 100.10(cX2),10 CFR 100.20(c)(2), and 10 CTR 52.17(a)(1) cover the consideration of meteorological conditions at or near the site. Published climatological summaries for the region provide a basis for derming the general climate of the site and establishing an appropriate context for evaluation of onsite meteorological data.
| |
| Onsite meteorological data are needed to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of heat dissipation to the atmosphere and the routine and accidental releases of radiation to the atmosphere.
| |
| Onsite data for at least one full annual cycle are needed to ensure that the data are representative of site conditions.
| |
| Evaluation of compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, involves staff estimates of the consequences of routine releases of radioactive effluents from the plant, ne staff has considered various methods of calculating these consequences and has presented acceptable methods in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
| |
| Evaluation of the environmental consequences of design basis accidents involves staff estimates of atmospheric dispersion in the vicinity of the plant. De staff has considered various methods of calculating these consequences and has presented acceptable methods in Regulatory Guide 1.145.
| |
| Atmospheric dispersion models and assumptions for assessing the air quality impact of nonradio-logical atmospheric emissions are described by the EPA. Use of EPA models for air quality calculations will ensure consistency with calculations performed by other agencies.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne reviewer's analysis of meteorology should be closely linked with the impact assessment review described by ESRPs 5.3.3.1 and 5.4 to establish the meteorological characteristics that are most likely to be affected.
| |
| To evaluate the applicant's climatological descriptions and metec rological data, the reviewer should compare them with the climatological data available from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and information in climatological references. These references include e standard climatological references, su'ch as Weather and Climate (Koeppe and Delong 1958) and Applied Climatolog (Griffiths 1963) that describe the relationship between climate and geography NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.7 6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 1 i
| |
| O C/
| |
| + other climatological texts such as BoundaryIger Climates (Oke 19. and The Climate Near the Ground (Geiger, Aron, and Todhunter 1995) that describe local climate variability and climate l
| |
| modifications related to man's activities
| |
| + climate descriptions for speciGc regions in the United States that have been prepared by the U.S.
| |
| Department of Commerce (1968), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and that are found in publications such as Climatic Atlas ofthe UnitedStates, Climates of the States, and Local ClimatologicalData AnnualSummaries with Comparative Data. These publications contain information on meteorological extremes as well as typical conditions.
| |
| + up to-date climatological data and summaries that are available electronically from the NCDC ,
| |
| theough gen & SIS
| |
| * severe-weather data related to extreme winds, hurricanes, and tomadoes that have been summarized by Cry (1965), Alaka (1968), Simpson and Lawrence (1971), Changery (1982a, b), Ramsdell and Andrews (1986), and Ramsdell et al. (1987)
| |
| + more recent severe weather statistics that are available through gen & SIS and are updated monthly in
| |
| " Storm Data" published by the NCDC.
| |
| To evaluate the applicant's atmospheric transport and dispersion modeling, the reviewer should compare p it with the standard dispersion modeling techniques, such as
| |
| + atmospheric dispersion modeling techniques that are described in detail in texts including Afereorology and Atomic Energy - 1968 (SIade 1968), Handbook on Atmospherie Difusion (lfanna, Brigga, and llosker Jr.1982), Atmospheric Science and Power Production (Randersen 1984), and Workbook ofAtmospheric Dispersion Estimates: An Introduction to Dispersion Afodeling (Turner 1994)
| |
| + climatological data specifically related to air quality and atmospheric dispersion that are found in the summaries available from NCDC and injournal articles by llosler (1961 and 1964) and llolzworth (1972).
| |
| Regional Climatological and Local Meteorological Characteristics When analyzing regional and local meteorologicel characteristics, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Assess the general climatic description of the region for completeness and accuracy
| |
| + Evaluate climatic parameters such as air masses, general airflow, pressure patterns, frental systems, and temperature and humidity conditions reported by the applicant by comparing them with standard references .
| |
| p k /
| |
| V' August 1997 2.7-7 NUREG.1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| I
| |
| * Verify the applicant's description of the role of synoptic scale and mesoscale atmospheric processes on lccal (site) meteorological conditions by comparing it with the descriptions provided in standard references and the reviewer's knowledge of the area.
| |
| (2) Examine the regional meteorological averages and extremes, including severe weather phenomena and air quality conditions, to establish that the data represent site conditions by comparing e concurrent offsite and onsite data (e.g., monthly averages of wind speed, wind direction frequency, and precipitation, and monthly averages and diurnal variations of temperature and humidity)
| |
| + offsite data for the concurrent period of onsite data with long term (about 30 years) offsite data e the locations of the stations with respect to major topographic features and airflow patterns (e.g.,
| |
| valley flow, land sea (lake) breeze circulations, principal storm tracks).
| |
| (3) Evcluate the local (site) meteorological parameters and topographic descriptions of the site area to establish ths,t the data represent conditions at the site and its immediate vicinity by examining the location of the onsite meteorological tower (and other local sources of meteorological data) with respect to local topographic characteristics that could impact local airflow patterns (e.g., local circu-lation conditions such as " drainage flow") and meteorological parameters such as temperature and humidity.
| |
| (4) Cetermine if the regional and local ~ meteorological data are appropriate as bases for the applicant's evaluation of potential changes in normal and extreme values, severe weather phenomena, and air quality conditions restiting from station construction and operation. (This information may be cross referenced from Chapter 5.0 of the applicant's ER.)
| |
| (5) Analyze the proposed terrain modifications (e.g., removal of trees, leveling of ground, installation of lakes and ponds) resulting from station construction and predict the potential effects of these modifi-cations on local meteorological characteristics with respect to the adequacy of available data consid-cring these modifications.
| |
| (6) Detemiine the adequacy of data on regional climatological and local meteorological conditions and phenomena as bases for assessment of the effects on d..ign a0d siting of the station and heat-dissipation system and as bases for assessment of the impact on the atm ispheric environment resultil. hm station construction and operation.
| |
| (7) Review regional and local meteorological data for appropriateness as input to predictive mod for assessments of cooling system impacts on the atmospheric environment by considering the typ : snd frequencies of available meteorological measurements, the elevations at which measurements a ,
| |
| made, the selected cooling system design and the height of effluent release to the atmosphere.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.7 8 Au;,ust 1997
| |
| | |
| ['' Meteoroloniemi Input to Individual Dor.e Assessment V
| |
| When analyzing meteorological input to individual dose assessment, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Obtain the following infonnation from the ESRP reviewers listed below:
| |
| * ESRP 3.5-a description of release point characteristics (i.e., elevation above grade, inside vent or stack diameter, physical shape, flow rate, emuent temperature, exit velocity, release frequency, and duration and type of effluent) for each point of routine release of radioactive effluent to the atmosphere.
| |
| * ESRP 5.4.1-the locations of the nearest receptors (cow, goat, vegetable garden, residence, and site boundary)in each 22% degree sector.
| |
| (2) Compare the atmospheric transport and diffusion models used by the applicant for calculations of x/Q and D/Q to transport and diffusion modeling concepts (as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111) applicable to local topographic and meteorological characteristics and to the type and mode of release appropriate to the plant.
| |
| (3) Examine atmospheric transport and diffusion parameters for applicability to local topographic and (q
| |
| V s
| |
| meteorological characteristics by considering the experimental bases for these parameters with respect to the loca! conditions.
| |
| (4) Compam the meteorological data provided by the applicant for use in the atmospheric trarsport and difTusion modes for compatibility with the models used and verify the completeness and adequacy of '
| |
| the description oflocal atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics (as discussed in Regulatory Guides 1.23 and 1.111).
| |
| * Evaluate the meteorological data fbr appropriateness of heights of measurement of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stabinty
| |
| - Winds measured at the 10-m level and temperature dif.'erence measurements (as an indicator of atmospheric stability) between the 10 m level and height of the building or vent are acceptable for consideration of ground-level releases.
| |
| - For releases considered elevated,(1) winds reasonably representative of conditions at the height of release, and (2) temperature difference measurements reasonably representative of the atmospheric layer, into w hlch the effluent will be released, are acceptable.
| |
| * Examine mixing height data for considerations of restrictions to the vertical spread of the effluent.
| |
| (-
| |
| iV') August 1997 2.7 9 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) l
| |
| * Examine precipitation data for considerations of the effects of washout on estimates of atmospheric transport, diffusion, and deposition.
| |
| ($) Evaluate estimates of relative concentration (including consideration of radioactive decay during transport and depletion of radiciodines and particulates) and relative deposition (including the ef fects of wet deposition) used by the applicant for assessment of the indiv; dual doses resulting from routine releases of radioactive effluent to the atmosphere to verify that these estimates are complete and appropriate to local conditions. Depending on the level of confidence in the applicant's model and considering the extent, applicability, and representative nature of the available meteorological dita, the reviewer may make an independent analysis of relative concentration and relative deposition values at each receptor using the transport and dispersion models described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
| |
| Meteorologjcal Innut to Pooulation Dose Assessment When evaluating meteorological input to population dose assessment, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Verify that the release point characteristics are the same as those used for input to the individual dose assessments.
| |
| (2) Compare the atmospheric transport and diffusion models used by the applicant for calculations of relative concentration and relative deposition with transport and diffusion modeling concepts (as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111) applicable to regional (i.e., out to a distance of 80 km from the site) modeling.
| |
| * Give special consideration to topographic and meteorological characteristics (narrow, deep valleys, land sea [ lake) breeze regi mes, restricted mixing heights, fumigation conditions, and low level subsidence inversions of temperature) to ensure that they are applicable to the type and mode of releases from the plant.
| |
| = Examine the atmospheric transport and diffusion parameters for applicability to regional topographic and meteorological characteristics by considering the experimental bases for these parameters with respect to rtgional conditions.
| |
| (3) Compare the meteorological data provided by the applicant for use in the atmospheric transport and diffusion models for compatibility with the models used and verify the completeness and adequacy of the description of regional atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics as discussed in Regulatory Guides 1.23 and 1.111.
| |
| * Evaluate meteorological data for appropriateness of heights of measurements of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.7-10 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ,o
| |
| . Winds measured at the t 0-m level and temperature difference measurements to indicate (j
| |
| (
| |
| T atmospheric stability between the 10 m level and height of the building or vent are acceptable for consideration of ground level releases.
| |
| . For releases considered elevated, winds reasonably representative of conditions at the height of release and reasonable estimates of the temperature of the atmospheric layer into which the emuent will be released are acceptable.
| |
| . Exarnine mixing height data for considerations of restrictions to the vertical spread of the emuent.
| |
| . Examine precipitation data for considerations of the effects of washout on estimates of atmospheric transport and diffusion.
| |
| (4) Evaluate estimates of relative concentration (including consideration of radioactive decay during transport and depletion of radiolodines and particulates), and relative deposition used by the applicant for an assessment of the population doses for all individuals living within 80 km of the facility resulting from routine releases of radioactive emuent to the atmosphere to verify that these estimates are complete and appropriate to regional conditions. Depending on the level of confidence in the applicant's model and considering the extent, applicability, and representativeness of the available meteorological data, the reviewer may independently analyze relative concentration and p relative deposition values for 16 directions in segments of 0.81.6 km (0.51 mi),1.6 3.2 km i f (12 mi),3.2-4.8 km (2 3 ml),4.8 6.4 km (3 4 mi),6.4 8.0 km (4 5 mi),8.016 km (510 mi),
| |
| V 16 32 km (10 20 mi),32 48 km (20 30 mi),48-64 km (30-40 mi), and 64 80 km (40 50 mi) using the transport and diffusion models described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
| |
| Meteorologicalinput to Plant Accident Anessments When analyzing meteorological input to plant accident assessments, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Compare the atmospheric transport and diffusion models used by the applicant for calculations of.
| |
| X/ Q and D/Q for accident consequence assessments to state-of-the-art transport and diffusion modeling concepts (as described in Regulatory Guide 1.145) applicable to local topographic and meteo* alogical characteristics and to the type and mode of release appropriate to the plant.
| |
| (2) Examine atmospheric transport and diffusion parameters for applicability to local topographic and meteorological characteristics by considering the experimental bases for these parameters with respect to the local conditions. The release point characteristics should be the same as those used for input to the individual dose assessments (d}
| |
| ' August 1997 2.7 11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| i Regional and Local Air Ouality Characteristics When analyzing regional and local air quality characteristics, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Assess the description of the existing regional air quality for completeness and accuracy.
| |
| (2) Identify the alt pollutants for which there are non attainraent or maintenance areas in the region. ;
| |
| 1 (3) Determine the emissions expected from plant construction, refurbishment, and operation activities, as appropriate. Work force vehicular emissions should be estimated.
| |
| (4) Evaluate the impact o, missions on existing air quality.
| |
| (5) Determine if appropriate permits have been obtained.
| |
| Early Site Permit Reviews When conducting a meteorological review of an early site permit application, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Refer to 10 CFR 52, which speclSea the requirements and procedures applicable to the Commission's issuance of early site permits for approval of a site or sites for one or more nuclear power facilities separate from the filing of an application for a construction pennit (CP) or combined license (COL).
| |
| (2) Note that application for an early site permit must include the
| |
| + number
| |
| + type and thermal power levels of the facilities for which the site may be used
| |
| . boundaries of the site e proposed general location of each facility
| |
| + maximum radiological and thermal effluents from each facility will produce e types of cooling systems that may be associated with each facility
| |
| + meteorological characteristics of the proposed site.
| |
| The scope and level of detail needed for meteorological review of an early site permit application are the same as for review of a CP application under 10 CFR 51, except that the focus of the review is on the c'Tects of construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, which have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.7 12 August 1997
| |
| | |
| / IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS He depth and extent of the input to the environmental impact statunent (EIS) will be governed by the environmental characteristics of meteorology that could be affected by pl.mt construction and operaticn, and by the nature and magnitude of expected Irnpacts to the atmospheric environment. He following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| * a description of the general climate of the region, including types of air masses, synoptic features, general airflow patterns, and climatological normals of parameters such as temperature and precipitation e a discussion of the severe weather phenomena (e.g., tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, atmospheric stagnation episodes) experienced in the region with expected frequencies of occurrence and measured extremes of parameters such as temperature and precipitation e a description of the local airflow patterns and characteristics, using data collected from the onsite meteorological measurements program e a description of the atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics in the region (out to a distance ot'80 km (50 mi) from the site) and at the site and vicinity, which should include references to the diffusion models used and identification of the input data considered.
| |
| /7
| |
| ! I For reviews related for CP, operating licenso (OL), combined license (COL), and early site permit applications, the reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided and that NRC staff evaluation supports concluding statements of the following type to be included in the EIS:
| |
| * The staff has reviewed the available information on the regional and local climatology of the site.
| |
| Based on this review, the staff concludes that the climatological description is adequate to permit an evaluation of potential impacts on the atmospheric environment.
| |
| . He staff has reviewed the onsite meteorological data presented by the applicant. Ilased on this review, the staff concludes that the meteorological data provide an adequate basis for estimating atmospheric transport and diffusion for this environmental statement.
| |
| If the meteorological data are not adequate, an alternative statement similar to the following should be included followed by a list of the adjustments made:
| |
| . He staff has reviewed the onsite meteorological data presented by the applicant. Based on this review, the staff co -ludes that the meteorological c.ata do not provide an adequate basis for estimatir.g atmosp,.mc transport and diffusion for this EIS Therefore, the staff has applied the following conservatisms to relative concentration sad relative deposition estimates: ...
| |
| O 1
| |
| V) August 1997 2.7 13 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| * The staff has reviewed the atmospheric transport and diffusion models used to calculate relative concentrations and relative deposition for use in estimating doses from routine and accidental releases of radioactive efiluents to the atmosphere, llased on this review, the staff concludes that the relative concentration and relative deposition estimates are representative of the site and are acceptable for use in dose calculations.
| |
| For applications pursuant to 10 CFR 52 Subpar 1 C that reference an early site permit, the staff review focuses on whether the design of the facility falls within the parameters speciDed in the early site permit and any other signincant environmental issues not covered in any proceeding on the site or design. In I this case, the staff should include statements of the follo.ving type:
| |
| * The staff has reviewed the meteorological and climatological parameters speelned in the early site permit and the facility design. The staff concludes that the facility design falls within the sito parameters. l 1
| |
| e lhe staff has reviewed the climatological and meteorological characteristics of the site, the facility l design, and previous proceeding related to the site and design. On the basis of these reviews, the l staff concludes that all significant issues related to the atmosphere have been considered in previous proceedings, if the staffis unable to reach these conclusions, statements of the following type should be included followed by descriptions of the exceptions and conclusions regarding the exceptions:
| |
| + 1he staff has reviewed the meteorological and climatological parameters specified in the early site pennit and the facility design. The staff concludes that the facility design falls within the site parameters except....
| |
| * 1he staff has reviewed the climatological and meteorological characteristics of the site, the facility design, and previous proceeding related to the site and design. On the basis of these reviews, the stafTconcludes that all significant issues related to the atmosphere have been considered in previous proceedings except....
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specined portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1." Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Ci.terion 'As Low As is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents."
| |
| NUREG 1555(DRAFT) 2.7 14 August l's97 O
| |
| | |
| ,. - - - - .._ - - . . . - . - - . - . ~ . - . - - . _ - ,
| |
| 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory l
| |
| . Functions." j v '
| |
| ' 10 CFR 51.70,"DraR environmental impact statement--general."
| |
| 10 CFR $ 1.71, "DraR environmental impact statement--contents." ;
| |
| -t 10 CFR $2,! Early SI'.e Permits; Standard Design certifications; and Combined Licen.ses for Nuclear !
| |
| Power Plants."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.17," Contents of application." {
| |
| i c 10 CFR 52.18, " Standards for review of applications." j
| |
| 'i 10 CFR $2.81," Standards for review of applications."
| |
| l 10 CFR 100,10 " Factors to be considered when evaluating sites."
| |
| f i
| |
| 10 CFR 100.20, "Fectors to be considered when evaluating sites."
| |
| i
| |
| . Regulatory Guide i.IlI, Rev. l . I977. Methodtfor Estimating Atmospheric hansport andDispersion !
| |
| , ofGaneous Eguents in Routine Releasesfom Light Water-CooledReactors. l Regulatory Guide 1.23.1972. Onsite Mercomlogicalfmgrams. .I l
| |
| - Regulatory Guide 1.I45, Rev l. I983. Atmospheric Dispersion Modelsfor Potential Accident i
| |
| Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. ;
| |
| - Alaka, M. A.1968. " Climatology of Atlantic Tropical Storms and Hurricanes," ESSA Technical Report WB 6, Techniques Development Laboratory, Silver Spring Maryland.. (
| |
| l -
| |
| t Changery, M. J. 1982a. Historical htreme Windsfor the UnitedStates-Atlantic and GulfofMexico D
| |
| Coastlines. NUREG/CR 2839, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ;
| |
| Changery, M. .' 19826.' Historical htreme Windsfor the UnitedStates--Great Lakes andA4acent '
| |
| l=
| |
| l Regions.- NUREO/CR 2890, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| l u ,
| |
| u Cry, G. Wi 1965. " Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean," Technical Paper No. 55, U.S. l Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C. ;
| |
| : Geiger, R., R. H. Aron, and P. Todhunter.1995. 7he Climate Near the Gmund. Vieweg Publishing, ,
| |
| L : Wiesbaden. -
| |
| h Ls (August 1997 2.7 15 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) .
| |
| I 4
| |
| i u ._ . .. _ _ ____...~.u...________. _._ . _ .,__ u..____.-... ;- . __ _
| |
| | |
| Griffiths, J. F.1963. AppliedC//matology, Oxford University Press, New York, l
| |
| llanna, S. R., O. A. Briggs, and R. P. Ilosker, Jr.1982. Handbook on Atmospheric D![ fusion.
| |
| DOF/FIC 11223, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Ilolzworth, O. C.1972. " Mixing licights, Wind Speed, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution
| |
| 'throughout the Contiguous United States," AP 101, U.S. Department ofIlealth, Education and Welfare, Environmental Pa., ction Agency, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Iloster, C. R.1961. " Low Level inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States," Afonthly li'rather Rcvicw 89(9):319 339.
| |
| Iloster, C. R.1964. " Climatological Estimates of Diffusion Conditions in the United States,"Nuc/ car Sqfety, Vol. $ pp. 184 192.
| |
| Koeppe, C. E., and G. C. Delong. 1958. II'enther and Climate, McGraw Ilill llook Company, New York.
| |
| Oke, T. R.1978. Boundary Layer Climates. Methuen & Co., New York.
| |
| Rarnsdell, J. V.. and G. L. Andrews.1986. Tornado Climatologv ofthe Contiguous UnitedStates.
| |
| NUREG/CR 4461. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Ramsdell, J. V., J. M. Ilubbe, D. L. Elliott, and C. G. llolladay. 1987. Climatology offaireme if'inds in Southern Cal (fornia. NUREG/CR 4801, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Randerson, D. I984. Atmospheric Science and Power Production. DOPJFIC 2760I, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Simpson, R.11. and M. B. Lawrence.1971, " Atlantic Iturricane Frequencies Along the U.S. Coastline,"
| |
| NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR 58, Southern Region, Ne$nal Weather Service, Fort Worth, Texas.
| |
| Slade, D. (ed.). July 1968. " Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968," TID-24190. (Available from the National Technical Information Service, Spring 0 eld, Virginia.)
| |
| Turner, D. B. I994. lI'orkbook ofAtmospheric Dispersion Estimates: An Introduction to Dispersion Afodeling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
| |
| U.S. Department of Commerce,1969. Climatic Atlas ofthe UnitedStates, Environmental Data Service, Environmental Science Service Administration, Washington, D.C.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.7 16 August 1997
| |
| | |
| f t
| |
| U.S. Depnttment of Commerce. Local Climatological Data, AnnualSummary uIth Comparative Data, Environmental Data Service, published annually.
| |
| U.S. Department of Commerce, Storm Data, Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, published monthly.
| |
| U.S. Nuuear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Planfor the Review ofSqfety Analysis Reportsfor Nuclear Power Plants, Section 2.3.3. Appendix A "RecommendedFormatfor Hourly AfeteorologicalData to be Placedon Alagnetic Tape. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Water information Center,Inc. Climate ofthe States. Port Washington, New York.
| |
| (
| |
| m August 1997 2.7 17 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX A STANDARD FORMAT FOR HOURLY METEOROLOGICAL DATA When hourly meteorological data are submitted to the NRC, the data may be submitted on mutually agreed upon rnagnetic media. The media may be disks or magnetic tapes. The dr.ta should be in files that are of a size that are convenient for use and storage. Annual data files are acceptable.
| |
| Use of a standard format for submis:Jon of hourly meteorological data will facilitate data evaluation and dispersion analysis. The standard data format is similar to the format described in Appendix A of Standard Review Plan 2.3.3 (NRC 1987). The only differences are in the first two fields of the data records. The second field has been increased to pent,it specification of the year using four digits rather than two, and the first field has been reduced from six bytes to four bytes and is now specified as a character string rather than an integer. The fonnat for the remainder of the record is identical to the format in SRP 2.3.3.
| |
| At the beginning of each file, use the first five (5) records to give a tape description. Include plane name, location (latitude, longitude), dates of data, information explaining data contained in the "other" fields if they are used, height of measurements, and any additional information pertinent to identification of the tape. Make sure all five records are included, even if some are blank. Format for the first five records will be 160Al. Meteorological data format is (A4,14,13,14,25F5.1, F5.2,3F5.1). Table 2.71 shows the size and content of each field in the meteorological data records in the standard format. In additloa, it provides a form for recording supporting infonnation about the meteorological instrumentation.
| |
| All data should be given to the ter.th of a unit, except solar radiation, which should be given to a hundredth of' unit. This does not necessarily indicate the accuracy of the data (e.g., wind direction is usually given to the nearest degree). All nines in any field indicate a lost record (99999). All sevens in a wind direction field indicate calm (77777). If there are only two levels of data, use the upper and lower levels. If there is only one level, use the upper level.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.7- l 8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| .. - . . - .- . _ . - - --~.-.-- .. - . .
| |
| (~ TaWe 2.71. Hourly Meteorological Data -!
| |
| L}J LOCA110N: l DAW OF DATA kECORD: ;
| |
| i
| |
| , AL Identifier (can be anything)
| |
| . 1L Year
| |
| . 11. Julian Dey .
| |
| . 1L - Hour (on 24. hour clock) s ACCURACY Ell. Upper Measurements: Level = - meters
| |
| . ELL Wind Direction (degrees)
| |
| . fil Wind Speed (meter /sec)-
| |
| . ELL Sigmalheta(degrees)
| |
| . ELL AmbientTemperature('C)
| |
| . ELL Moisture: t
| |
| . fit Other: .
| |
| . Ill Intermediate Measurements: Level = meters fit Wind Direction (degrees)
| |
| . fit Wind Speed (meter /sec)
| |
| . ELL SigmaTheta(degrees)
| |
| . fit AmbientTempasture(*C)
| |
| . E1L Molsture:
| |
| . fit Other: ,
| |
| . ELL Lower Measurements: Level = meters
| |
| . ELL Wind Direction (degrees)
| |
| . fit Wind Speed (meter /sec)
| |
| .fiL SigmaTheta(degrees)
| |
| . ELL . Ambient Temperature ('C) .
| |
| .E i t M oisture:
| |
| .fiL Other: i e
| |
| 4
| |
| ' August 1997 : 2,7 19 NUREG.1555 (DRAFT).
| |
| -i
| |
| " m
| |
| , -m-i e aw- ,r--- -- -,,m,,yy--t ,,q w,-+ywe,.,9-w-- ., r wi .se-et,ec,%,ca,, ., m-gm- yw e-a,q- .* 0 ,--e 9q p,,- g
| |
| | |
| Tab:e 2.71. (contd)
| |
| . fit Temp. Diff. (Upper Lower)('C/100 meters)
| |
| . fit Temp. Diff. (Upper Intermediate)('C/100 meters)
| |
| . fit Temp. Diff. (Intermediate Lower)('C/100 meters)
| |
| .f1L Precipitation (mm)
| |
| .fil Solar Radiation (cal /cm'/ min)
| |
| .fiL Visibility (km) .
| |
| .fiL Other:
| |
| .fiL Other:
| |
| O
| |
| .* h Uh
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 O '#
| |
| /'. .N U.S. NUCLEAR REULATORY COMMISS REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 2.8 RELATED FEDER.tL PROJECT ACTIVITIES REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Program Generic issues and Environmental Projects Dranch Secondary-Nonc
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW uis environmental standard review plan (ESRP)(1) directs the staff s identification, description, and environmental assessment of Federal activities that n'e related to the proposed project, and (2) identifies the possible need for another Federal agency to participate in the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) as a cooperating agency.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan will be limited to directly related Federal project activities p that affect plant siting or transmission line routing, plant water supply, or the need for power. Actions related only to the granting of licenses, permits, or approvals by other Federal agencies should not be considered in this review because such activities typical!y have an independent environmental review.
| |
| When relevant activities are identified, the results of this review will form the basis for a, assessment of the interrelationship and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed project and the related Federal activity and the potential need for another agency to participate in the EIS process as a cooper-ating agency. This ESRP can be used for preparation of EISs for constn ction permits, operating licenses, early site permits, combined licenses, and license renewal applications.
| |
| Review Inter ~ aces ne reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 1.1 and 1.2. Ensure that the EIS reflects possible cumulative impacts of related Federal projects.
| |
| , August 1997 2.8 1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN m ,"l'.D""*"id,,*4*f.,$d'5.'ld.*i t* .r2,2*/,'*4* ,%**f.'d 'L'.",Mp'ide"YJ'."Lefn*.*ni.'N*i'5.""*ii".*iM"3 M
| |
| j; g.gg,g,.g;t'". *.,7a,.?'.atn w
| |
| ,.n i,W.t." .',.*.J.'i
| |
| ,,,.oi . ,@o.o. #.. cL.y*u .A?.-lp"#.#, u*-i.
| |
| s gg,=.g,g.g m ,. ..w. w - ..s ,. .. , # . .. . .... . ..,o,n o . .
| |
| 8.""" "".'d,m':MW:,*R*.,"J#,t*4.",1,f;"d i cTa!* """* ** *"*'*" "**'"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP Chanters 4.0 and 5.0. Ensure that ESRP 2.8 contains descriptive information in sufficient detail to support the impact assessments presented in ESRP Chapters 4.0 and $.0. Determine which sections are appropriate on the basis of the identified Federal activities' actions that have significant project-related impacts.
| |
| . ESRP Chanter 10.0. Ensure that the impacts associated with the identified Federal activities have been considered by the reviewers for ESRP Chapter 10.0.
| |
| He reviewer should also obtain informath a on cumulative environmental inputs of any related Federal projects, if there are related Federal projects, information from other ESRPs on the principal land use, hydrology, water uses and quality, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, socioeconomics, geology, and meteor-ology features of the site and vicinity needs to be obtained in sufficient detail to allow for an evaluation of cumulative irnpacts resulting from related Federal projects.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. He following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * a description of Federal actions associated with acquisition and/or use of the proposed site and transmission corridors or of any other offsite property nee !ed for the proposed project (from the environmental eport[ER])
| |
| e a description of planned Federal projects that will be required either to provide an adequate source of plant cooling water or to ensure an adequate supply of cooling water over the operatinF lifetime of the plant (from the ER)
| |
| . descriptions of any other planned Federal projects or activities that must be completed as a condition of plant constmetion or operation (from the ER)
| |
| + Federal agency plans or commitments that will result in significant new power purchases within the applicant's service area that have been used tojustify a need for power (from the ER and consultation with appropriate Federal agencies)
| |
| = descriptions of planned Federal projects that are contingent on plant construction and operation (from consultation with appropriate Federal agencies).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Accci,taace criteria for the review ofinformation on related Federal project acth ities and the possible need for one or more cooperating agencies in preparation of the EIS are based on the relevant requirements of the following regulations:
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 2.8 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| l
| |
| * 40 CFR 1508.25 and 10 CFR 51.14(b) with respect to the scope of an EIS and consideration of the cumulative impacts of connected, cumulative, and similar actions 1 l
| |
| * 40 CFR 1501.6,10 CFR 51.10(bX2), and t o CFR 51.14 with respect _ to the possible need for i
| |
| ; cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS !
| |
| $
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.29(aX7) with respect to the possible need to identify cooperating agencies. !
| |
| ' Data provided by the applicant will generally be adequate if future actions of other Federe agencies that
| |
| - are connected with, cumulative with, or similar to the NRC action are identified and described in suffi.
| |
| cient detail to enable an environmental assessment to be made.
| |
| ! i
| |
| . Tachalcal Rationale ne technical rationale for identifying related Federal project activities is discussed in the following paragraph: ;
| |
| l ne bases for the need for the information called for in this ESRP are 40 CFR 1508.25 and 40 CFR 1501.6. De Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) definition of the term " scope" at
| |
| -40 CFR 1508.25 calls for Federal agencier to consider the cumulative impacts of related actions that are connected, cumulailve, or similar when determining the appropriate scope for an EIS. De terms ,
| |
| , " connected,"" cumulative," and "similar" are defined in 40 CFR 1508.25(a). NRC has indicated that l
| |
| = lt will follow CEQ's definition of scope [10 CFR S t.14(b)). In some cases it may be necessary or .
| |
| desirable for another Federal agency to participate in preparation of the EIS when actions of the ,
| |
| agency are related to those of NRC. De CEQ regulations provide (at 40 CFR 1301.6) for cooper. -!
| |
| ating agencies in ce:tain instances in the preparation of an EIS. NRC has indicated that it will follow (with certain exceptions) the provisions of 40 CFR 1501.6 [10 CFR 51.10(bX2)). NRC defines the term "cooperuing agency"(in 10 CFR $1.14) as a Federal agency, other than the NRC, that has
| |
| : jurisdiction by law or special expertise for an environmental impact being considered by NRC in an environmental document for a proposed action that can significantly affect the quality of the ht: ar environment, ne definition also provides that in appropriate cases a State, local government ertty, :
| |
| or Native American tribe may become a cooperating agency by agreement with the Commission.
| |
| When reasonably significant impacts associated with actions of another agency are identified .
| |
| thruush the ER, the scoping procest, or otherwise, and these impacts are significant enough tojustify >
| |
| the participation of the agency (les) in the NRC EIS process, NRC staff should identify such potential .
| |
| . _ cooperating agency (ios) and determine appropriate writing assignments and schedules for prepara.
| |
| tion of the EIS [10 CFR St.29(aX7)).
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| ~
| |
| - When analyzing the related Federal project activities, the reviewer should take the followinc steps:
| |
| k August 1997 ? 2.83 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) <
| |
| l 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~. ._ _ -.-
| |
| , _ , . - - . . _ , , . _ , - ~ , . _-. . _ , - ,, ~ ,,.----.-- __
| |
| - _ mm m,.-_. .
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| (1) Identify the planned activities of other Federal agencies that are directly related to the proposed project (l.c., that either would not t e undertaken or would be of lesser scope if the project had not been proposed or is not approved). As noted in Section 1 (Areas of Review), above, activities of other Federal agencies related only to the granting oflicenses, permits, or approvals will not be considered in this review.
| |
| . When relevant Federal activities are identified, contact the EPA Office of Federal Acti"ities for assistance and regional and local representatives of Federal agencies to obtain relevant information.
| |
| . When no such Federal activities can be identified, terminate the review and state in ESRP 2.8 that the review identified no related Federal activities.
| |
| (2) Determine the specific relationships of each identified activity with the proposed project by categorizing them as
| |
| . activities that are requisites to project construction (e.g., sale or transfer of Federal land) e activities that justify some of the need for power (e.g., a planned Federal project that will depend on power to be supplied by the proposed project)
| |
| = a planned Federal project that will not or cannot be accomplished unless the plant is constructed.
| |
| (3) Determine the significance of any related Federal activity on the project by conducting a preliminary analysis of each identified Federal activity to determine in general terms the nature and extent of the environmental impacts that would be cumulative with those of the proposed project.
| |
| . When the reviewer determines that these impacts are minor, no further consideration of the activity is required.
| |
| . As a general rule, if the Federal agency responsible for the Federal activity has determined that preparation of an EIS is required, you may conclude that the impacts are of sufficient scope to merit further analysis of the activity to determine those impacts that would be cumulative with those of the proposed project.
| |
| (4) Consider whether the Federal agency should be a cooperating agency on the NRC EIS.
| |
| (5) If the environmental impacts of the related Federal activity could be significant, conduct a further analysis of each such activity to the extent necessary to identify those probable environmental impacts (and potential benefits) that could be expected as a result of construction and operation of the proposed project.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.8-4 August 1997 1
| |
| | |
| - - .~ - , - . - . - . _ - - . - - _ _.-. - . - - - _ .
| |
| w
| |
| !1,, . ' +i Limit the irapacts and benefits to be considered to those having a direct relationship with the
| |
| :kf) proposed _ project and those that will add to or subtract from an impact 'or benefit (e.g., land use, transmission corridor' clearing, and/or aquatic impacts) predicted for the proposed project.-
| |
| [
| |
| -
| |
| * Consider only those activities associated with the primary functions of the related activity (e.g.,-
| |
| constrolon and oparation of a Federal facility) and, except for unusual circumstances, do not address secondary effects (mq as induH Industrial / community growth).
| |
| P
| |
| :
| |
| * Provide this information o %ppror-late ESRP Chapter 4.0 and 5.0 reviewers for their con-sideration in determining the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and the related Federal activity.-
| |
| (6) Ensure that e all related Federal activities have been identified e their interrelationships with the proposed project have been described
| |
| = . all activities ha'ving potentially significant environmental impacts have been described in suffi-cient detail to permit a subsequent environmental impact analysis to determine the cumulative -
| |
| effects of these impacts with those of the proposed project. In particular, do the following:
| |
| - J Based on an overview of the proposed project activities, consultations with local and regional representatives of Federal agencies, and any input supplied by cooperating age'ncies, determine if all Federal activities have been identified and whether their interrelationships with the proposed project have been described.
| |
| - Based on your experience and on consultation with the appropriate ESRP Chapter 4.0 and .
| |
| 5.0 reviewers, determn.: which of the identified Federal activities wili have environmental impacts that would be cumulative with impacts of the proposed project and that are of suffi-cient magnitude to be considered in subsequent ESRP Chapter 4.0 and 5.0 assessments of i - cumulative impacts.-
| |
| > - Ensure that the Federal activities selected for consideration have been described in sufficient .
| |
| detail to permit an environmental impact asussment to be made.
| |
| h - make a preliminary determination as to whether any other Federal agency (or in some cases a ,
| |
| 4 State, regional, local, or affected Native American tribal agencies) should be contacted about their interest in becom'ng a cooperating agency on the NRC EIS.
| |
| i:
| |
| il . N
| |
| -b August 1997 2.8-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| L u
| |
| o '
| |
| : l. > .
| |
| G, , .
| |
| | |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS He depth'and extent of the input to the EIS will be governed by the nature of the related Federal activities and the extent to which the significant impacts of these activities (both beneficial and adverse) are cumulative with impacts of the proposed project. He foliowing information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| * a list of related Federal activities and their interrelationships with the proposed project, using the categories described in Section 111(2) of this ESRP .
| |
| 1
| |
| . Identification of the activitics that have no significant impacts and the staff's basis for this conclusion !
| |
| = for those activities having potentially significant environmental impacts that would be cumulative with those of the proposed project, a brief description of the overall activity and a sufliciently detailed description of those portions of the activity related to the proposed project as needed to provide the necessary background information to support the assessments of cumulative impacts in ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0.
| |
| 1 He reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided by the applicant (or in some ~
| |
| cases by a cooperating agency) or obtained by the reviewer to meet the relevant requirements and that )
| |
| the reviewer's evaluation of the informatio.. supports including the following type of statement in the !
| |
| EIS:
| |
| ne staff has reviewed the available information on related Federal activities and concludes that I the information is adequate to permit the identification and assessment of related Federal activi- ,
| |
| ties and the cumulative impacts of such activities with activities proposed by the applicant. ]
| |
| V. IMPI.EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR S t.10,'' Purpose and scope of subpart; application of regulations of Council on Environmental Quality."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.14. " Definitions."
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2.8-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| .- ~ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . , - . . _ . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . ~ . . ._. . _ _ _ .
| |
| -s i
| |
| .- ^
| |
| ... g
| |
| :; . 10 CFR 51,29, " Scoping-environmental impact statement." - .;
| |
| :.40 CFR 1501.6,"NEPA and Agency Planning: Cooperating Agencies." _ g, 40 CFR 1508.25," Terminology and Index: Scope." I c, -: ;
| |
| i h
| |
| i t
| |
| 4 e
| |
| u t
| |
| I
| |
| ! r 4
| |
| ?
| |
| i
| |
| )
| |
| { ..
| |
| s.
| |
| I i
| |
| 4 u
| |
| v p
| |
| Au" gust 1997 2.8-7 NUR' EG-1555 (DRAFT) n- ,
| |
| t* s . .
| |
| ' k ,: ' , -
| |
| * t- ,
| |
| -.'.-R r- '-
| |
| ..L-,.
| |
| . . , . . .,n.., ,.-,-..s-.a ~-r+~. n.-~-. ~-w -- - - .. -- - - , - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - -~~----c+ - * *<~ --' ~"**- -
| |
| | |
| NUREQ-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| ( /^\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| 's***** / REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.0 PLANT DESCRIPTION
| |
| ( REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Project Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the plant description portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material to be presented from the reviews conducted unider ESRPs 3.1 through 3.8.
| |
| )
| |
| Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA s
| |
| The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with tne intent of the following regulation:
| |
| e 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, and analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 3.0-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAIT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ,'"**""'*"'ed*,, i*"4:'d
| |
| ,n 2*re'L*"*.*i:A*7e':f/A'e"*J2"*1dfdoffm?nt.'M"l,e":*:iL"e'di"e*" u*o".. p.ri on O
| |
| \
| |
| C**b g e ".fn',2',;,*J"'";O*.,722W.,*"o,'"e*gd t g no required The environmental stan d
| |
| r gws*e i'!3"c*o'UntI*Wl"i%dia*-
| |
| plans are keyed to Preparation of EnWonmenta re ow plans wul be revised periodically, se oppropriate. to accommodate comments and to EW' n*"s#.?##"la'h?J,1'*o"u'.*uS'*w.TanJ*
| |
| A d
| |
| d.T.dc Tai * """* *"* ** ""*'"' "*'d*' 'Y
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Dere are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rgtionale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's plant description is described in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS ne reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. He paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 3.1 through 3.8. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an neceptable alternative fe- complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.0-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE31555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o/#\
| |
| i ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD I
| |
| ( *****
| |
| REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.1 ErrERNAL APPEARANCE AND PLANT LAYOUT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description of the planning, layout, and appearance of the proposed plant and existing station structures and any related offsite structures.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include (1) the layout, Irndscaping, and architectural features of the proposed project and any other existing station structures and (2) the aesthetic concepts and visual concerns that have been considered in the planning and design of the proposed project. This n should include related facilities such ac station access roads and railroads. This review should provide
| |
| (' input to other reviews dealing with evaluation of construction and operational impacts on land use and to other sections dealing with aesthetic considerations for plant attematives. This should include sufficient detail to permit reviewers to understand the significance of potential aesthetic and visual impacts and the aesthetic concepts used in the design to integrate the project into the surrounding environmental settings.
| |
| The plant layout and other figures should * :ferenced in the environmental impact statement (EIS) sec-tions when referring to the location of the plant or station structures.
| |
| ! Review Interfaces l The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers of infonnation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . DR?s 2.2.1 through 2.2.3. Review the station description and relate it to the site and vicinity.
| |
| l
| |
| . ESRPs 2.5.3. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3.1. 4.3.2. and 6.5.1. Provide the plant description, the site layout, and planned transmission corridors.
| |
| ! August 1997 3.1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNIW ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN d
| |
| e 'for*A*N"ON.5.#2.7 Yor" neur pU.Me"/hN.1u"rr*/nt:3A".".$.'tSY[$ " **"n p-t of n f.it'!M,;*a a we.,, ,:e;"i."*.,""*
| |
| an . ., a----t--
| |
| tan'Md ',"/J:y. s yw ~: 0.;c."c.'. era"!"l:;o*iao
| |
| - - --- o -
| |
| am .I e w plans will b. t.wis.d p.elodic.Ry, .. .ppropri.t., to .ccommod.t. comm.nt. end to 6 d 8:::mtadame.'"ati,T.*4" .*an.Wf,t;;d.T c* War ""' * ** ** ""*" "***'"'
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 3.4.1. Ensure that the level of descriptive information in this ESRP supports the cooling tower site descriptions of ESRP 3.4.1.
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.1 through 4 ' ' Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive information sufficient to sup-pon the land use asset ents of ESRPs 4.1.1 through 4.1.3.
| |
| * ESRP 4.4.1. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive information sufficient to support the assess- i ment of sociological impacts during construction evaluated in ESRP 4.4.1.
| |
| . ESRP 5.1. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive information sufficient to support the land-use assessment of ESRP 5.1.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.3.1.1. 5.3.1.2. and 5.3.2.1. Provide a description of the plant layout, specifically with respect to the main v'ater bodies and locations ofintakes and discharges.
| |
| . ESRP 5.3.3.1. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive information sufficient to support the visual impacts of the cooling tower plume (if applicable) in the assessment of heat discharge to the atmo-sphere as evaluated in ESRP 5.3.3.1.
| |
| . ESRP 5.8.1. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive information sufficient to support the socio-economic assessment of ESRP 5.8.1.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4.1. Provide a description of the proposed plant's external appearance and layout for com-parison of the aesthetic impacts and potential recreational benefits of each alternative system with those of the proposed system.
| |
| Ihta and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be raodified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * topographic maps of the sc i and vicinity (refer to ESRP 2.2) showing plant and station layout, tne exclusion area, site bound equid and gaseous release points (and their elevations), meteorological towers, the construction zoi.e, land to be cleared, waste disposal areas and other buildings and struc-tures (both temporary and permanent) associated with the project (from the environmental report
| |
| [ER})
| |
| . a description of the station, including proposed plans to seclude and screen the facilities and to architecturally integrate the buildings and landscaping into the environs (from the ER)
| |
| . aesthetic principles and concepts used in the plant design and layout (from the ER)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| _ __ ._. .g . . . ._ . .. . _ . - ,
| |
| y p 2 * (representative ground level photographs of the site on which major station features are super-5 g ; imposed.1%ese should be taken from'among the following typical vantage points when a visual" impact from that location can be expected (from the ER):
| |
| . r residential-
| |
| - - commercial-
| |
| . . L industrial
| |
| . . : educational-
| |
| ~
| |
| ' - transportation corridors (air, auto, rail, pedestrian) -
| |
| H cultural (recreational, historic, archaeological).-
| |
| r
| |
| * a low, obhque senal photograph of the site and vicinity on which major station features are super-imposed (from the ER)
| |
| * an architectural rendering of the proposed project to include landscaping and all major station fea-:
| |
| tures (from the ER).'
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ,
| |
| Aeapawe criteria for the description of the external appearance and plant layout are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| = 10 CFR 51.45 with respect to requirements of a description of the affected environment.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| ~
| |
| - * - RegulatoryGuide 4.2, Rev. 2, with respect to the location and orientation of the principal station structures.
| |
| Technical Rationale De technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's external appearance and plant layout description is
| |
| ' discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A description of the overall appearance of the facility as proposed by the applicant is needed to
| |
| - clarify the physical scope of the proposed project and for the assessment of visual impacts in ESRP o Chaptera 4.0 and 5.0.' The description of the external appearance of the plant and plant layout should -
| |
| f be in sufficient detail to form an adequate basis for staff analysis of various land-use and socio. -
| |
| ~
| |
| y economic impacts of the plant.-
| |
| S 6 .-
| |
| S .
| |
| August' 1997 3.1-3 . NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) b d
| |
| 7
| |
| | |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer should ensure that planning, layout, and external appearance information is adequate to serve as a basis for (1) assessing land-use impacts,(2) determining potential visual and aesthetic impacts to ' trounding environment, and (3) determining the extent to which aesthetics were considered in in. ing the proposed project with the surrounding environment.
| |
| When analyzing the external appearance and plant layout, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Review plant and station layout and external appearance data to the extent needed to prepare a description of the plant and station. This includes visiting the site to ensure that the major features of the site and station have been recorded and that the descriptive material to be used in the environ-mental impact statement (EIS) is correct.
| |
| (2) Determine the potential visibility of plant structures in relationship to locations oflocal facilities that might be affected in the site vicinity (e.g., large business establishments with a high degree of visitor use, recreation areas, other public-use facilities, residential areas, or any National Register properties).
| |
| * Let the extent of this analysis be governed by the potential for visual (aesthetic) impact.
| |
| . Consider seasonal effects (e.g., presence or absence of foliage) in determining potential visibility.
| |
| (3) Determine the relationship of the plant design and layout to the surrounding environment, including any aesthetic amenities of the site and vicinity.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The depth and extent of the input to the EIS should be govemed by aesthetic and land-use considerations that could be affected by station layout and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| . a summary description of the proposed project, including principal structures and other visible fea-tures (e.g., cooling towers, buildings, access roads, and intake and discharge structures) t.nd a state-ment of the aesthetic concepts used to integrate these structures into the surrounding environment
| |
| = the site and station layout
| |
| . aerial photograph (s) of the site on which major project features are superimposed
| |
| . where there are significant local facilities in the site vicinity (i.e., large business establishments with a high degree of visitor use, recreation areas, other public-use facilities, or National Register NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . .- - ~. .. .. _- . . - - - - - - . . . ._ -
| |
| f properties), one or more ground level photographs of the site taken from these facilities on which
| |
| '( L major plant features are superimposed.' These photographs should be representative of potential M visual impacts.
| |
| * -_o . OL
| |
| * = an architectural rendering of the plant, including landscaping.-
| |
| 'Ihese characteristics should be described in sumcient detail so that a decision can be reached regarding - i
| |
| . aesthetic environmental impacts. The reviewer should verify that :umcient information has been pro :
| |
| : vided and that the NRC staff evaluation supports a conclusion statement of the following type:- ;
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information and concludes that the description of extern:.i
| |
| ~
| |
| appearance and layout of the plant structures have boon covered in sumcient detail to permit an eval-untion of land-use and physical aspects of socioeconomic impacts.
| |
| ' V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for
| |
| - complying with specified portions of the regulations. l l
| |
| _VliREFERENCES i
| |
| 10 CFR S 1.45," Environmental report-general requirements."
| |
| - Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2.1976. Preparc m ofEnvironmentalReoortsfor Nuclear Power Stations. :
| |
| o -
| |
| i g
| |
| h' l
| |
| l i 1 f
| |
| H l \
| |
| \
| |
| l -- ,
| |
| i i
| |
| I\ ' August 19971 i3.15' NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) i I
| |
| l L ,
| |
| | |
| NUMO 1555 l U.S. NUCLJ.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION O/'~#
| |
| \ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ! REVIEW PLAN
| |
| \,***** .
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.2 REACTOR STEAM-ELECTRIC 5YSTEM REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES
| |
| , Primary-Generic issuc and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's description of the reactor and electric generating equipment. The scope of tne review directed by this plan includes the types and sizes of reac-tors and electrical generating equipment and their major performance parameters. This information should support subsequent environmental reviews that assess operational impacts and commitments of resources.
| |
| O t Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| o ESRP 3.4.2. Provide information on the reactor and plant system description and performance parameters as they pertain to the cooling system.
| |
| o ESRP 3.8. Provide data on the basic reactor, fuel, and irradiation level that are required by paragraph (a)) of 10 CPR 51.52.
| |
| ESRP 5.3.2. Provide a description of cooling system materials that could be transported to the aquatic environment, o ESRP 10.2. Assist in developing the list ofirreversibly committed materials to be used in the reactor steam-clectric system.
| |
| August 1997 3.2-I . NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmentd ' stenderd review* plane are prepared for the# dance of the office *""'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff T,WeeA*"eyt!I#' 14',"ulre3*inu' "*/'n#4' gLesa"r:tPyst e
| |
| 3 J
| |
| '"**""''*fe,,em
| |
| ;M i!!d?"eC"e*.."i@a:"*n"e!, taw.,*i"eTw'd;te"e or Nuclear Power Statione.
| |
| 0e','eClf,"i,adon.'ere nema, it"E,2l' e':3*,
| |
| Pubsehed environmental stenderd review reflect new information and experience. piene wm be ' revised periodiceny, se appropelete. to accommodate commente Commente and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Reguietory Comm6selon, office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, WesNngton, D.C. 20555.
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . the number of units and description of each reactor, including type, e.g., boiling water reactor (BWR), pressurized water reactor (pWR), high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), mr.nu-facturer, fuel assembly description, total cuantities of uranium, and percentage U-235 enrichment (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| . the planned average irradiation level of spent fuci, in megawatt days / ton (from the ER) e a description of the turbines and condensers. For 'he condensers, include tubing material and total heat transfer area (from the ER).
| |
| . the rated and design core thermal power, the rated and design gross electrical output, and the rated and design net electrical output (in megawatts). The rated power is defined as the power level at which each reactor will be operated iflicensed, and the design power is denned as the highest power level that would be permitted by plant design. He gross electrical output is the power level meas-ured at the output terminals of the generator and expressed in MWe. De net unit electrical output is equal to the gross electrical output minus the nominal service and auxiliary loads (from the ER).
| |
| . a simplified flow diagram for the reactor steam-clectric system (from the ER).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for evaluating the deset., Nn of the reactor and plant system are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| . 10 CFR 52.17 with respect to the number of units, type, and thermal power level associated with the proposed facility
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.52 with respect to the environmental effects that arise from the transportation of fuel and waste from the facility. Note: Evaluation of transportation issues per Table S-4 should make use of the design power levels if above 3800 MW and projected actual burn up rate rather than those identi-fled in Table S-4.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, with respect to the inclusion of information concerning the reactor and steam electric system.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.2 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ - - ~ - - ~ ~ - ~ - -- ~~- -
| |
| 3 7---
| |
| l _
| |
| F -
| |
| J _ o
| |
| ~
| |
| h, Tachaical Rationale s
| |
| (The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's reactor steam-electric system description is -
| |
| discussed in the following paragraph. .,
| |
| 1
| |
| " A description of the overall nuclear energy generating system being proposed is crucial background
| |
| ''g Iinformation to the evaluation of any associated environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
| |
| : project. The reactor type, number of units, thermal power level, and other factors influence the size i and _the performance 'of the facility and are required input to assessment of the environmental impacts '
| |
| ; of the plat.t operation, transportation of fuel and waste, and the irreversible and irretrievable commit-ment of materials.
| |
| , ~ 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES These review procedures are used for applications for earlysite' permits, construction permits, and com-n bined licenses.- Because the material t'o be reviewe' d is infonnational in nature, no specific analysis of the data is required. = Because this material is for description only, ensure that adequate information is avail-
| |
| 'able to meet the purpose and scope of this ESRP.
| |
| When rey! ewing the reactor steam electric system, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| 4 ' (1) Compare the proposed design parameters with those of similar operating plants and identify any fea-tures of the proposed system that represent a departure from previously reviewed plants.
| |
| . s
| |
| - (2) Identify the reactor steam electric system manufacturers and the basic design performance data. As
| |
| . a rule, if the data listed under " Data and Information Needs" above are provided, that objective will -
| |
| be met. '
| |
| , (3) Compare reactor design and performance data with the criteria of subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) of
| |
| = paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.52, and notify the reviewer for ESRP 3.8 of any departures from these criteria, j .
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS
| |
| - The input t_o the environmental impact statement (EIS) should include a summary description of the reac-l tor steam-electric system, a flow diagram, and a table of design and performance parameters. Aopen-
| |
| : dix A to this ESRP is an example of a reactor steam-electric system description for ESRP 3.2.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant
| |
| - requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the staft's
| |
| : EIS: l
| |
| = .
| |
| l X
| |
| { ,
| |
| _ [ August'1997 / 3.2 3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4 I
| |
| (
| |
| 1-4 i 4[ , ;/ i; - \
| |
| : g. .
| |
| ja =[ 4
| |
| . - = a . = - . . . .. . . . -- . . - . _ .
| |
| | |
| The stafThas reviewed the svailable infccmation on the reactor and plant system and concludes that the descriptive material of the reactor power system has been covered in sufficient detail for further stafTanalysis.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Ccinmis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51.52," Table S-4, Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.17," Contents of application."
| |
| Rey ' story Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| O NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| _ - . - - - - -- - _- ,. .. . ~ _ - . . .- - .. - -.
| |
| ~
| |
| [ !
| |
| A'PPENDIX A 1-SAMPLE FORMAT FOR ESRP 3.2 ? [
| |
| l De proposed plant will consist of and auxiliaries. The power source will be a reactor a supplied by . The operation of the reactor is illustrated in Figure . In the pri- !
| |
| mary loop, water under high pressure _ (so it cannot boil) is pumped through the reactor core where it is : ,
| |
| )
| |
| heated by contact with fuel rods containing uranium, ne heated water passes through the steam genera-tors where the heat is transferred to the secondary loop, and then returns to the core, in the steam genera-tors, water in the secondary loop is heated to boiling. This steam drives a turbine-generator system, is
| |
| ; liquefied in the condenser, and retums to the steam generators. The condenser is cooled by .
| |
| Approximately - m8 of- heat transfer surface is exposed to the cooling water. The _ y reactor has primary loops and secondary loop (s). De turbine-generator system will be manufactured by . is the architect-engineer.
| |
| - At design conditions, the p! ant will generate - MWe net electrical power and will reject ,
| |
| > MWt waste heat to the environment. More detailed operating parameters are listed below, ne initial fuelloading will be kg of enriched uranium dioxide pellets contained in tubular fuel rods.
| |
| ' Operating Parameters 4
| |
| . l Rated Conditions Design Conditions Core thermal power, MWt Core thermal power, MWt
| |
| - Gross electrical generation, MWe Gross electrical generation, MWe Station service requirement, MWe Station service requirement, MWe
| |
| : Net electrical octput, MWe Net electricci output, MWe
| |
| . Waste heat rejected, MWt Waste heat rejected, MWt Efficiency, % Efficiency, %
| |
| Fuel assemblies, number Fuel rods per assembly, number
| |
| : Initial enriched uranium loading, kg Initial enrichment range, %
| |
| Condenser heat transfer area, m 2 A : August 1997 -
| |
| 3.2 5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4
| |
| , ,, ,- , ;2 . . , , . . . .
| |
| -l
| |
| | |
| NURE2 T555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (m) x./
| |
| #,p...e%\
| |
| e :
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN N*****/ OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.3 PLANT WATER USE REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the plant water use descrir.1n portions of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material to be presented from the revitws conducted under ESRPs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
| |
| /' Review Interfaces
| |
| '\
| |
| None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.'
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| a 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 3.31 NUR5G 1555 (DRAFT) -
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3!r,M'avata?A*t,n.'Yme":::ia:T'a'a:'t:"-i., a
| |
| {t4,"=:c:"#,*.',121 w '?.t"? "",for,tt'."#"4:
| |
| 2,*/J'.a?p"i i:* 2.2mT. 7.*,*' T"' -
| |
| (A) Pub 5 n
| |
| g;7;gaa,yayayy,d Th. aviraa- at i t fapi ardWE''"Ye:''mc'atio*.it:;ta1o.
| |
| en
| |
| < k v o ia er a r *>aa a'savir a- at i
| |
| .lew piens wW be ,evised pe,lodiceHy. as opp,op, tate, to accommodate comments and to 8:=L"em'c' '.". n'?.# li"taa"m'"Jagd m. Td c 'Tsin* """* * " ""*'"' "**'"'
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet .he regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| . There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's plant water use description is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance c' material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| III. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne material to be prepared is informatior.al in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph fcr the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the materia to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. He paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented e.srlier and so be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPl FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those esses in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| i NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.32 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U.S. NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
| |
| v -
| |
| [,,,, ,
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFIOE OF NUCLEAH REACTOR REGULATION 3.3.1 WATER CONSUMPTION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's description of plant water use (e.g.,
| |
| circulating water system, sanitary waste system, radwaste and chemical waste systems, and service r r systems).
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan includes descriptions of the quantity of water required for plant operation, the amount of water consumed by the plant water systems, and the amount of water
| |
| ! v discharged to a water body. Variations in water requirements and consumptien on a temporal basis and as a function of plant operating modes should be included. Where water use for station operation is greater than plant water use, these uses should also be included 'Ihe review should be in sufficient detail to provide basic data for other reviews dealing widl the ,; valuation of plant operational impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should cbtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered oy the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| * ESRP 3.3.2. Provide data on plant or station water requirements in sufficient detail to support the analysis in ESRP 3.3.2.
| |
| . ESRP 3.4.1, Obtain descriptions of the plant cooling system and operational modes.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.4.2. 3.5. 3.6. 4.21. and 4.2.2. Provide plant water use data.
| |
| . August 1997 3.3.1-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) s USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff I roeponsible for environrnental reviews for nuclear puwer plants. These documents are made available to the public as part of the Commisalon'a poincy to inform the nuclear Industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and poucles.
| |
| [m\. Environmental stonderd review ns are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission's regulations and red. The environmental standard review plans are keyed to Preparation of Environmental g e gttwm noy
| |
| ,7a'e"n'";O'le=''a*"d/ld,le*te** """' "" '""'"d '"'*d'""' " "''**''"* '""****d""**"""'"ad '*
| |
| Comments and suggestions for improvement wW be considered and should be sont to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Comm6ssion. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington. D.C. 20555. l l
| |
| | |
| . ESRPs 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.3. and 6.6. Provide plant or station water-use data requirements in sufficient detail to support the assessments given in those sections.
| |
| * ESRP 9.4.1. Provide plant water consumption data as needed for analyses and evaluations of plant or component alternatives.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The data should be in sufTicient detail to trace the flow of water from the water supply sources to the points of discharge, indicating quantities consumed at each point of consumption as a function of plant operating conditions. The following data and information should usually be obtained:
| |
| e a narrative description of the various plant water systems, their interconnections, and their I operational interdependence and coordination (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| e a water use diagram for the plant (Rosaler 1994) showing flow rates to and from the various water systems (e.g., circulating water system, sanitary system, radwaste and chemical waste systems, service water systems), points of consumption, and source and discharge locations (from the ER)
| |
| . for the water use diagram required (above), the data and narrative description for maximum water consumption, water consumption during periods of minimum water availability, and average operation by month and by plant operating status (from the ER)
| |
| . a description of other station water uses (i.e., all facilities not associated with the proposed plant) showing flow rates to and from the facility, average water consumption, and maximum water consumption (from the ER).
| |
| l l
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA l
| |
| Acceptance criteria for the review of proposed plant water use are based on the relevant requirements of l the following: l
| |
| . 33 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits
| |
| * 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, with respect to conditions, limitations, and restrictions on construction activities
| |
| * 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection
| |
| * 40 CFR 122 with respect to NPDES permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.3.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| e 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or
| |
| .p) i, v.
| |
| above a sole source aquifer
| |
| . State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| . Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will censider the assessment in its determination of toe magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant, expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| . Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Departmrnt of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case) granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the States role in regulating water rights.
| |
| I
| |
| ()' . Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of plant water use is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the plant water consumption is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PRC=CEDURES ESRP 3.3.i is intended to give a brief description of the water use in plant systems and the principal subsystems. The reviewer's analysis should be c!osely linked with the reviews listed in the Review Interfaces section of this ESRP to establish the plant water-use characteristics of concern to those reviews. Details of the principal subsystems are described in ESRPs 3.4.2,3.5, and 3.6. Therefore, the reviewer of ESRP 3.3.1 should concentratt. on the description of principal flow paths from the sources of fw
| |
| ( )\ August 1997 3.3.1-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| _- -. _ - _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - -_-_ _ ____
| |
| | |
| - - _ _ - - _ -~~
| |
| l ih t detailed now patterns within each watet through each subsystem to the receiving water h bodies lyzingw t ou water subsystem. With this in mind, the reviewer should do the following w en ana consumptions:
| |
| s balance computations i l
| |
| * Analyze the now diagrams of plant water systems by performing s mp e masi hd to ascertain whether the reported How rates (waterd source w t needs, and discharge Cows) are consistent for each plant operatLg mo e.
| |
| ilability, and average
| |
| * Consider periods of maximum water consumption, minimum water ava operation by month.
| |
| iated with operation of the
| |
| * Determine if there are other station facilities with water uses not assoc proposed plant and should include these uses in the analysis.
| |
| IV. EVAIBATION FINDINGS ntalimpact i
| |
| The following information from this ESRP should usually be included in the statement (EIS):
| |
| h h each major plant water system
| |
| . a description of the flow path of water from the water sources s servicewater t roug (e.g., heat dissipation system, sanitary h h system, path (e.g., ccoling radwaste towter and chemica systems) to the points of discharge, including consumption for eac suc evaporation) fl f maximum water consump-
| |
| = a now diagram to assist in tracing the Dow path and the rates of ow oril bility, and tion, water con umption during periods of minimum id dwater ava and in narrative a tabular month. Details of seasonal and other operating variations may be prov e forms.
| |
| = as appropriate, descriptions of other station water requirements.
| |
| d with the relevant The reviewer should verify that suf0cient f information has been provided in requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type o stateme ld that charac-Based oa the applicant's description l of the plant water consumption, th terization of the plant consumption is valid and adequate to eva uate t e struction. ,.furbishment, and operation on the affected environment.
| |
| V,1MPIEMENT ATION ith the t ble The method described herein will be used by the s alternative for complying with speciDed portions of the regulations.
| |
| August 1997 3.3.1 4 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| A VI. REFE3tENCES 33 CFR 322,"Pennits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 33 CFR 330, Appendix A," Nationwide Permit and Conditions."
| |
| 40 CFR 6, Appendix A," Statement of Procedures s 1 Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: De NPDES Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,92 1911, Supreme Court of the United States,510 U.S.1037; i14 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| Rosaler, R. (ed.) 1994. Standard Handbook ofPlant Engineering, Second Edition, McGraw Hill, New York.
| |
| a
| |
| .I.
| |
| August 1997 3.3.15 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NURE2-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n /'ee,oh ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD U '
| |
| N j REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.3.2 WATERTREATMENT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW nis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staft's description of the treatment needed for the plant water streams identified in ESRP 3.3.1 using the water supplies described in ESRPs 2.3.1 and 2.3.3. The scope of the review directed by this plan includes a description of water-treatment processes for both intake and recirculating systems and identification and quantification of the chemicals used. The descriptions to be provided by this review should be of sufficient detail to permit subsequent assessment end evaluation of specific impacts of plant water treatment and provide a basis for ESRP 3.6.
| |
| t t'
| |
| Review Interfaces ne reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 2.3.1 and 2.3.3. Obtain descriptions of the hydrology and the water quality of the water supplies to the plant.
| |
| * ESRP 3.3.1. Obtain descriptions of the water consumption in the plant water streams.
| |
| * ESRPs 3.6.1 and 3.62. Ensure that details of water-treatment systems and treatment processes are adequate to support the descriptions of nonradioactive waste systems.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.2.2 and 5.2 2. Provide descriptions of water-treatment systems and processes to be used to assess water-use impacts of construction and operation.
| |
| August 1997 3.3.2-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmental standed review plane we propwed to, the e of the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff Mo'Jo'ngj*lo,m in","Je"t,'1"Jit ''
| |
| r
| |
| (
| |
| Lidas.tstaen. ie n. egt"e'd."Winm,%
| |
| Reports for Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| e,"ste:2li"e'A*;f "o J 1"*e,*J ,%*"*:r'ry',e fevea t!'e*,"e
| |
| '\ environmental w plane wB be revloed pedodcolly. as appropriate. to scenrnmodate commente and to 8:=l"s'.: "o'hoisal"areJ'a ,T.".'J' " Nred,0*.d,.ird c to"4' !* """* '"* "5 ""*'"' "**"'*"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 5.3.2.1 Obtain the descriptions of the cooling system discharge process.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4.2. Provide descriptions of water-treatment systems that may be used in any comparison or evaluation of alternative water-treatment systems.
| |
| Data and Informatinn Needs The kinds of data and infor. nation needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude and complexity of the systems described herein. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . a description and purpose of water treatment systems used in the plant (from the environmental report (ER])
| |
| e identification, quantities, and points of addition of chemicals and additives to be used by each system (from the ER) e operating cycles for each water-treatment system for normal modes of plant operation (e.g., full power operation, shutdown / refueling, and startup)(from the ER).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of water treatment processes are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 40 CFR 122 with respect to NPDES permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges
| |
| = 40 CFR 165 with respect to chemicals and biocides used for treating water
| |
| * 40 CFR 403 with respect to effluent limitations e 40 CFR 423 with respect to effluent limitations on existing and new pomt sources
| |
| . State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights
| |
| = WASit 1355, Nuclear Power Facility Performance Criteriafor Making EnvironmentalImpact Assessments, December l974.
| |
| 33.2 2 August 1997 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| p Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as i follows:
| |
| . Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider attematives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost 1 balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| . Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case) granted the states additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the states role in regulating water rights.
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water-quality issues.
| |
| s Technical Rationalg (V ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's water treatment description is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the plant water treatment system is essential for the .
| |
| evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES He reviewer's analysis of water treatment should be closely linked with the impact assessment review of ESRPs 4.2 and 5.2 to establish which water-treatment rystems and processes have a potential for environmental impact. With this in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps when analyzing the proposed water-treatment rystems, to the extent needed to prepare a description of the purpose and nature of each system:
| |
| Note: The principal types of treatment systems that should be described include those necessary to condition (1) the ir.take water for noncooling-system use within the plant, and (2) water used in the plant cooling system. Chemicals used in these systems should be described.
| |
| A August 1997 3.3.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (1) include a brief description of operating procedures, including plant operational and seasonal variations (AWWA 1990).
| |
| (2) Further define each treatment system in terms of the purpose of the proposed processes and the chemicals required.
| |
| (3) Identify the proposed use of chemicals. Only the systems that result in a waste discharge need to be analyzed in detail, and the reviewer should emphasize the systems that have a potential for requiring an NPDES permit.
| |
| (4) Verify that
| |
| . all water streams identified in ESRP 3.3.1 have been considered
| |
| . all chemicals (identification and quantities) to be used have been considered or described
| |
| . the status of NPDES permits and consultations with NPDES administrative agencies have been discussed
| |
| . the proposed systems have been described in sufficient detail to permit assessment of environmental impacts resulting from their operation.
| |
| (5) Ensure that the water-trea*. ment information is adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the impacts of station construction and operation on water 'n ..
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS As input to the EIS, the reviewer should provide a concise description of the proposed water-treatment systems that results in waste discharge and include a tabulation of chemicals m be added by quantity ar.d frequency of addition. Proposed systems that do not result in waste discharges should be identified, but not described in detail, Unresolvoi differences between the staff's analysis and the applicant's proposed operation of any water treatment systems should be noted.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements, and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the environmental impact statement (EIS):
| |
| Based on the applicant's description of the water treatment systems, the staff concludes that characterization of the plants various water treatment systems is valid and adequate to evaluate
| |
| ~
| |
| the impacts of the plant construction and operaon on the affected environment.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.3.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I, .-
| |
| 1 g
| |
| : V. IMPIJAfRNTATION J
| |
| 0- The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation'of conformance with the '
| |
| -M Commission's regulati:ms, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable
| |
| ' ahernative for complying with specifal portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES ,
| |
| : 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Proy.,iis: The NPDES Pollution Elimination System." ~ ,
| |
| * 40 CFR 165," Regulations for the Acceptance of Certair. iesticides and Recommended Procedures for the Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers." .
| |
| 40 CFR 403," General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution."
| |
| 140 CFR 423," Stream Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. _ l9%. Preparation ofEnvironmentalReportsfor Nuclear Powr Stations.
| |
| - American Water Works Association (AWWA)' .1990. Water Quality and Treatment,4th Edition,
| |
| .- McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
| |
| O g ; . Jefferson County PUD #1 ' s. Department v ofEcology,92-1911, Supreme Court of the United States,510
| |
| -_ U.S.' 1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| WASH 1355, Nuclear Power Facility Performance Criteria for Making Environmental Impact J Assessments, U.S. Nuclear Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. (December 1974).
| |
| L i l
| |
| 1 i
| |
| l
| |
| !s s
| |
| N -- August 1997 3.3.25 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| L h;
| |
| | |
| i NURE04555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM18slON C , O, ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| *****) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.4 COOLING SYSTEM REVIEW RESPONSilllLITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Project 11 ranch Secondary-None
| |
| ' l. AREAS OF PIVIEW nis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the cooling system description portions of the environmental hnpact statement (EIS). De scope of the paragraph covered by this plan is to introduce the material to be presented from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.
| |
| Review Interfaces a None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Enviror.. mental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCF CRITERIA He reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consister.t with the intent ofic following re;ulation:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparatiori of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain langage.
| |
| August 1997 3.41 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDAk"iiEhVIEW PLAN "d2.".etu,'",md ' f4'127.'2&J:m"J.T!a* "
| |
| nv If**""*f w*.m*- ,. ... . h.m--.m,,r4p* r.'2%m, "u co*-as d*L"' .=.=p.,5, gg ,,g.a. v
| |
| .a.. m.n=. .. '2 gggspy,. . .. w ..w w v. .. ,w .. . ..mm i. .-. .n i.
| |
| 8:13:Lh si '.", ,t;n", li*"J' o". Jr.'C",o.'I"d de E&" """* ** " * ""** "***'"'
| |
| _ _ _______z_E---_-_--_--------------
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and spmific criteria necessary to meet the segulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * nere are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Ratinnale ne technical rat'onale for evaluating the applicant's cooling system description is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the +cacer with respect to the relevance of the mr.terisl to the overall organization and gr.als of the EIS add clarity to the presentatbn.
| |
| 111. AtVIEW PROCED"AES nc material to be prepare ' is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDIH(iS
| |
| * Re reviewer ofinfonnation covered by this ESRP should prepare at leat one introductory paragraph for the EIS. He paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the revicwers of information covered by ESRPs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. He paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be ) ersented later in the EIS.
| |
| V, lhiPIFMENTATION He method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified ponions of the regulations, VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREO-1555 (DRAFT) 3.4 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURED.1655 L
| |
| )
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O /. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,*****/ REVIEW PLAN '
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
| |
| 3.
| |
| | |
| ==4.1 DESCRIPTION==
| |
| AND OPERATIONALMODES REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Envirormental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of a description of the proposed plant cooling system and its operational modes. The scope of the review directed by this plan should include a general description of the proposed cooling system and a more detailed identification and description of the anticipated modes of operation of the cooling system.
| |
| The description to be provided by this review should be in sufficient detail to permit subsequent stati
| |
| 'f assessment and evaluation of specific impacts of the cooling system as a function of primary and
| |
| \
| |
| alternative cooling system operational rnodes.
| |
| Reviewer Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 1.2. Contact the reviewer for this ESRP to determine the status of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.3. Obtain baseline water temperature information including monthly variation and stratification for the body of water used for cooling intake and discharge.
| |
| 1 August 1997 3.4.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '"*"""'d M",M." !." ? Mir%"a*t,,,*.' .",:2.":".1".JT!"J" "*"
| |
| O P*kia,iM:,2',"4*
| |
| ,'W."1':f.",f**a: '
| |
| 3
| |
| () 4 ta et 07.0.", g,E'"'",,:",a".2,3 p'7 mo" m *.-a.a,w=,,,,y,,,2;;,-ia.a.. m ..w
| |
| * *a* - 'da*"a"" 'aa' ~ "v" a "*"
| |
| i.* *.sv... c,+ =....-e, ara.4= -a.ai. .a i.
| |
| L 8"""'"""EF.J ial'W,9""N::14;;:f.fcWs s" """""' " "*'*" "***"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 2.7. Provide descriptions of the cooling system and relevant components for use in determining potential impacts of heat dissipation.
| |
| . ESRP 3.3.1. Provide descriptions of the plant cooling system and operational modes.
| |
| . ESRP 3.4.2. Provide the characteristicuf the various operational modes of the cooling system in sufficient detail to suppon the cool!ng system component description.
| |
| . ESRP 3.6.1, Obtain information on blocides or other chemicals anticipated to be used to control slime and algae in the cooling system.
| |
| * ESRP 4.2.2. Provide information regarding pro,jected water needs of the cooling system.
| |
| * ESEP 111. Provide information specific to operational aspects of cooling system siting.
| |
| . ESRPs f.2.1 and 5.2.2. Provide cooling system characteristics in sufficient detail to support the assessment ofimpacts to water use.
| |
| * ESRP 5.3.1.1. 5.3.1.2a,t 53.2.1. Provide descriptions of the cooling system.
| |
| * ESRP 5.3.4. Provide a description of the cooling system, its operational modes and components, including estimated noise levels.
| |
| * ESRP 6.1. Provide thermal aspects of the cooling system of the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRPs 6.5.1 and 6.5.2. Provide a description of the cooling system and its operation modes to support evaluation of monitoring programs.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts, ne following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| + a system description (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| e descriptions of anticipated operational modes and the estimated periods of time that the system will operate in each mode (from the ER) e for each anticipated operational mode, quantities of heat generated, dissipated to the atmosphere, and released in liquid discharges (from the ER)
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.4.1 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| ),
| |
| e for each w # ^' modo, water source and quantities of water withdrawn, consumed, and !
| |
| discharged (from tlw ER) e the status of the NPDES (from ESRP 1.2). j l
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA I
| |
| Acceptance criteria for the review of the cooling system for potent d environmental impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the following I
| |
| * 10 CFR 52.17 (aXI Xv) with respect to early site permits related to the type of cooling systems, j i intakes, and outflows that may be associated with the facility )
| |
| * 10 CFR $0.34 with respect to a description and analysis of the structure, systo;ns, and components of n the facility. l 1
| |
| . Aegulatory positions andspec fiic cr ter i ia necessary to meeth t e regu at lions identified above are as follows: . .
| |
| . Regulatory Oulde 4.2, Rev. 2, addresses the inclusion ofinformation about the reactor and steam-electric system.
| |
| 4 Tachalcal Ratlanala De technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of the proposed cooling system and its operational modes is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| ne cooling systan presents a major source ofinteraction with the environment and of possible
| |
| , .mpacts, ne environmental impacts caused as a result of operation of the cooling system at a ;
| |
| nuclear power plant depend largely on the type of cooling system and system alternatives, it'such exist, to accommodate load changes or adverse conditions. A thorough description of the system and the proposed operational modes allows an objective examination of the potential impacts to the environment. His section is descriptive in nature, ne description of the external appearance of the cooling system and its operational modes should be in sumclent detail to fonn an adequate base for staff analysis of the potential impacts ofits construction and operation or refurbishment.
| |
| r 1 August 1997 3.4.13 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5 e
| |
| _ _ , _ - _ _ . . . . - , _ . . _ . _ . - . . . _ ~ , _ _ - _ . . _ . , . - _ . . , _ . . - _ , . . _ - , - - ,
| |
| | |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES For the review of the cooling system description and operational modes, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Ensure that sufHcient information on plant operational modes is available to define cooling system performance for each identified mode of operation.
| |
| (2) Verify that plant water consumption and flow rate data are consistent with the water.use analysis prepared by the reviewer for ESRP 3.3.1.
| |
| (3)' Analyze the overall cooling system design for the following:
| |
| e compatibility with the water use descriptions of ESRP 3.3.1
| |
| * Internal consistency
| |
| + consistency with good engineering design (4) Identify and describe nonemergency modes of operation, including the following (as applicable):
| |
| + design normal, with estimated monthly maximum, average, and minimum values of the operating parameters
| |
| * heat treatment (thermal bio-control)
| |
| + de-icing
| |
| * reduced intake flow (pump outage) e aft design heat dissipation system operation.
| |
| (5) Consider the following operating parameters for each mode of operation:
| |
| e intake flow rates e discharge flow rates
| |
| . circulating water (condenser) flow rates e other major plant system flow rates
| |
| * temper 2ture rise across the condenser
| |
| . temperature rise across heu exchangers in the service water systems a heat-dissipation system discharge temperaturca
| |
| + chemical concentration factors for major cooling system components e frequency and duration of operation for each mode.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFY) 3.4.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ( - IV. EVALUATION FINDBIOS .
| |
| i
| |
| (* The depth and extent of the input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) will be governed by the !
| |
| characteristics of the cooling system and plant primary and altemotive operational modes and by the ' l nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The following information should usually be included in . !
| |
| the EIS: l e ' narrative description of the cooling system
| |
| * description of anticipated operational modes. For each mode, provide the important characteristics ,
| |
| analyzed (e.g., frequency and duration, discharge temperature, water consumption, and chemical concentration factor).
| |
| e cooling system status with respect to FWPCA certification and NPDES permits. l The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in steordance with the needs of l
| |
| - this ESRP and that the evaluation supports the following type of concluding statement:
| |
| : f. l The staff has rev.iewed the available information regarding the cooling system performance and ;
| |
| modes of opwation and concludes that it is adequately de,enbod for use in analyses of the resulting i environmental effects, ,
| |
| i V. IMPLEMENTATION i 1he method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the ,
| |
| Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable t alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES !
| |
| 10 CFR 50.34, " Contents of application; technical information." :
| |
| , i 10 CFR 52.17. " Contents of application."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reports)br Nuclear Powr Stations.
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean g Water Act).
| |
| l C .
| |
| d : August 1997 l 3 A,1 5 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| I
| |
| -t a . .~ . ~ - - . ---- . - - , _ . - _ . - - . - - . . . . . -
| |
| | |
| ~. . - - - - _ _ _ _ . . - . ..
| |
| i NUREG 1555
| |
| : g. .
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD !
| |
| (~)
| |
| " '[%g REVIEW PLAN
| |
| \,* *5V *** OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.4.2 COMPONENT DESCRIlTIONS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW His environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of descriptions of the proposed intake, discharge, and heat dissipation system design and performance characteristics. 'Inc scope of the review directed by this plan should include (1) intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation systent design data; and (2) performance characteristics of these systems for the operational modes identified by the reviewer for ESRP 3.4.1.
| |
| D i nis review should pmvide input to other reviews dealing with analysis and assessment of construction i (A
| |
| and operational impacts of cooling system components and to other sections that deal with design and operational alternatives and benefit cost analysis.
| |
| i Review Interfagra The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 211. Obtain a description of cooling lakes or ponds and site specific water supply data.
| |
| . ESRP 2.7. Obtain a description of site-specific meteorological data and provide a description of the
| |
| . cooling system.
| |
| . ESRP 32,. Obtr.in the reactor and plant system description and performance paramesers as they pertain to the cooling system.
| |
| August 1997 3.4.21 NUlIO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENYlRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN P'**"'*"'d,*M'.".' 't,Mt.t,L*'id,!."3,d*"Y,,:!a2.L*.' M%":*: :11.W*" "*.".. ,-i ot c h*=" Jar2,2'J2'!.*C"."a.#,%'e.a7nd,4, g =a,5, ,,,
| |
| 1 .
| |
| ~," '' d T7&'"t:*J,t.e.'c".=#.A".,q8.
| |
| .o s.v.e
| |
| * a,# ,oi (v} g g , g ,,,w, g y ,. .. t4 ,..i... ,i-s. ,... .,,, ,,i .. . ..m m a . . . ..
| |
| L"'3:L"Eidaart,*ii.*."a.%".,N.':Cd.t e*Ydui"*""* d
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 3.3.1. Consult with the reviewer of this ESRP on the projected water consumption of the cooling system. -
| |
| + sRP 3.4.1. Obtain a description of the heat disopation system operational modes, e ESRPs 4.1.1. 412. and 4.3.2. Ensure that the reviewers for these ESF Ps have sufficient cooling system design data to permit analysis and assessment of cooling system construction impacts.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.2. 5.3.3.2. and 5.8.1. Ensure that design and operating characteristics of the cooling eystem components are adequate for the reviewers for these ESRPs to use to predict and assess environmental impacts of the proposed cooling system.
| |
| . ESRP 5.715.3.1.1. and 5.3.2.1. Provide a description of the intake and discharge parameters of the cooling systern.
| |
| . ESRP 5.3.4. Provide information on the cooling system components and operational modes including the estimated noise levels.
| |
| . ESRPs 6.1 and 6.3. Provide a description of the cooling system of the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRPs 9.4.1 and 9.4.2. Ensure that ESRP 3.4.2 contains sufTicient descriptive detail to serve as the basis for a comparison of alternative intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation systems.
| |
| Data and Infonnation Needed The kinds of data and information required will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following data or information are usually obtained:
| |
| * For intake systems include a drawing of the intake structure showing the relationship of the structure to the water surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline (from the environmental report (ER))
| |
| - the location of the intake with respect to the outfall(from thr ER)
| |
| - a description of cooling water pumping facility (from the ER) a description of the trash racks, traveling screens, trash baskets, and fish return devices (from the ER) performance characteristics (e.g., flow rates, intake velocities) for the operational modes identified by the reviewer for ESRP 3.4.1 (from the ER)
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.4.2 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| f
| |
| \
| |
| - performance characteristics for specific intake-related functions such as de-icing, trash rack clearing, screen washing, trash basket removal, or fish remm system operation (from the ER)
| |
| - the location and description of components for the addition of chemicals (e.g., corrosion inhibitors, antifouling agents) to the intake system (from the ER).
| |
| * For discharge systems include
| |
| - drawings of the outfall structure showing its location in the receiving water body, relationship to water surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline (from the ER) a description of discharge canal or discharge lines (from the ER) performance characteristics (e.g., discharge flow rates, discharge velocities, discharge tempera-tures, and temperature differentials) for the operational modes identified by the reviewer for ESRP 3.4.1 (ftom the ER)
| |
| - descriptions of specific discharge-related components (e.g., diffusers, fish barriers)(from the .
| |
| ER)
| |
| + For hut dissipation systems include bv
| |
| - the location of heat-dissipation system components relative to other site features (from the ER)
| |
| - the design details of heat-dissipation system components a%cting system performance, including those listed in Table 3.4.2 1
| |
| - heat dissipation system performance characteristics for the operational modes identified by the reviewer for ESRP 3.4.1, including those listed in Table 3.4.2 2
| |
| - site-specific meteorological data (from ESRP 2.7)
| |
| - site-specific water supply data (from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| - heat-dissipation system performance analyses based on the manufacturer's design data and site-specific meteorological and hydrological data (from the ER).
| |
| ( August 1997 3.4.23 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| .__._.....m..._____,m________mm___.____.___m_._._ ___ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._______ _ . _ ,_
| |
| | |
| i Tabie 3.4.2-1. Design Details of Heat Dissipation System Components Component Design Details j l
| |
| Cooling towers (from the ER) Type i Con 0guration l Materials of construction Number and arrangement Rated heat dissipation capacity Cooling lakes and ponds (from ESRP 2.3.1) Surface area Volume Bathymetry Spray ponds or canals (from the ER) Arrangement and configuration of spray modules Pond or canal geometry Surface area and water volume Condenser licat transfer area and materials of construction (from ESRP 3.2)
| |
| Antifouling treatment (from the ER)
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria ..,. the review of the cooling system components are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| . 10 CFR 50.34 with respect to the need for a description of the components of the facility.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specinc criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| + Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, with respect to providing a description of the applicant's planned cooling system components.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of the components of the proposed cooling system is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Detailed drawings and descriptions of the characteristics of the cooling system should be available for analysis to review the applicant's cooling system component design and performance character-istics so that the environmental assessment of construction, refurbishment, and operational impacts may be evaluated later.
| |
| NUREG ISSS (DRAFT) 3.4.2 4 August 1997 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| Table 3.4.2 2. Performance Characteristics of the Heat Dissipation System Conoponent Dealga Details Cooling towers (from the ER) Input and discharge flow rates and temperatures for monthly average meteorological conditions Wet bulb temperature, approach to wet bulb, and range Performance curves (estimates if final design is not established)
| |
| Air flow Power consumption Estimated noise levels DriA rate and drop size Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER) Flow rates (through condenser)
| |
| Flow through times Flow pattern Monthly average water temperatures (mean for entire lake or pond, inlet (from condenser), outlet (to
| |
| . condenser])
| |
| Surface elevation (means, maximum, minimum)
| |
| ( Spray ponds or canals (from the ER) Flow rates (through condenser)
| |
| \ Flow through times Flow pattern Monthly average water temperatures (inlet (from condenscr), outlet (to condenser])
| |
| Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum)
| |
| Spray system operating parameters (e.g., power i consumption, drop sin)
| |
| Once through systems (from the ER) Condenser flow rate Temperature differential across condenser Time-of passage through system (including intake and discharge system passage times) 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES he reviewer's analysis of the intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation system component descriptions should be closely linked with the assessment of construction and operational impacts directed by ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0. De intent of this analysis is to identify and describe the design and performance characteristics of the proposed cooling components that can be expected to cause environmental impacts as a result of component construction or operation. De characteristics generally considered are listed
| |
| \
| |
| ; v. , u,/ August 1997 3.4.2-5 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) i
| |
| : 1. .
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| under " Data and Information Needs" in this ESRP. Each cooling system component should be analyzed, and the reviewer should prepare descriptions of the design and performance characteristics that are generally expected to result in environmental impacts (e.g., intake configuration, flow velocity through traveling screens, cooling tower drift). The review should be based on the cooling system components i described in the applicant's ER and should consider component performance for the operational modes described by the reviewer for ESRP 3.4.1. With this in mind, the reviewer should do the fc!!owing:
| |
| (1) For all systems, evaluate intake and discharge temperatures and the temperature rise across the condenser.
| |
| I (2) For cooling towers, determine average discharge temperatures for each month of the year using cooling tower performance curves. The average discharge temperature will be calculated by using l the average wet bulb temperature for the month. l (3) For spray systems, analyze the applicant's estimates of average monthly discharge temperatures. The depth and extent of this analysis should depend on the seriousness of the predicted impacts of the heated effluent on the receiving body of water and the level of confidence in the applicant's model.
| |
| (4) In the cases where auxiliary systems are employed to further cool the blowdown discharged from the main cooling system, determine the final discharge temperature.
| |
| (5) Consult with the appropriate ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 reviewers to determine additional cooling system component design or performance characteristics to be analyzed and described.
| |
| (6) Compare the cooling system descriptions with those of similar operating plants and identify design or operating features of the proposed cooling system that represent a major departure from previously reviewed systems.
| |
| (7) Determine if the cooling system component descriptions are consistent, accurate, and given in sumcient detail to serve the needs of the reviews ofintake, discharge, and heat dissipation system impacts.
| |
| (8) Ensure that
| |
| + descriptions of the intake, heat dissipation, and discharge systems are sufliciently complete to serve the purposes of the evaluations described by the appropriate ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 including any special descriptive informaden needed to evaluate compliance with applicable regulations,(e.g., noise, Clean Water Act).
| |
| * the predicted operational characteristics (e.g., flow rates and velocities) are consistent with system design NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.4.2-6 August 1997
| |
| * the proposed systems r.re consistent with good eng*meering practice
| |
| * unusual system designs are identified. !
| |
| (9) Verify all significant performance characteristics and, if necessary, may conduct id:; d" !
| |
| analyses to ensure that performance characteristics are .eccurately described. The following are i examples of such analyses:
| |
| + intake system flow rates, flow velocities, and velocity distributions ,,
| |
| * - cooling tower performance (e.g., approach to wet bulb temperrture, drift rate and droplet size, noise-level contours). l
| |
| + cooling pond performance (e.g., capacity, mean temperature) i l
| |
| * spray system performance 1
| |
| + discharge system performance (e.g., flow velocity).
| |
| IV.- EVALf.'AT10N FINDINGS g
| |
| ne depth and extent of the irput to the environmental impact statement (EIS) will be governed by the characteristics of the intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation systems, and by the nature and magnitude of ;
| |
| the expected terrestrial and aquatic impacts in the site vicinity, ne following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| r
| |
| * narrative description of the intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation systems e sketches of intake, discharge, and heat dissipation components
| |
| * detailed drawings ofimportant subsystems (e.g., perforalmd pipe assemblies)
| |
| + tables and graphs ofimportant performance characteristics of the intake, dischar.ge, and heat-dissipation systems when these parameters will t.e used (and referenced) by t'ie appropriate ESRP Chapter 5.0 reviewers, ne reviewer should verify that sufficient' descriptions of cooling system components have been provided for the staff to evaluate the environmental impact of the cooling system and to support the following type of statement that should be included in the EIS: ,
| |
| ne staff has reviewed the available information including descriptions of the characteristics of the >
| |
| intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation systems, and concludes that the information has been presented in sufficient detail for staff analysl:.
| |
| August 1997 3A.2 7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4
| |
| | |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of confonnance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 50.34, " Contents of application, technical information."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, P.ev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmentalReportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean Water Act).
| |
| O NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.4.28 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM188lON !
| |
| p [,,,,h ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD !
| |
| *****)REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.5 RADIOACTIVE-WASTE MANAGEMENTSYSTEM REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES j Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW "Ihis environmental st mdard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs review, analysis, and evaluation of !
| |
| the applicant's design of radioactive waste-management and emuent control systems. The scope of the !
| |
| I review should include (1) a determination of the expected quantity of radioactive materials released annually in liquid and gaseous emuents (source terms) resulting from normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, and (2) a determination of the capability of the proposed j p radioactive-waste management systems to control and maintain such releases of radioactive materials in i emuents to "as low as reasonably achievable"(ALARA) levels in accordance with the requirement of 10 CFR 50.34a.
| |
| Egylew Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to reviewers ofinformatio:. s cred by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| I
| |
| * ESRP 2.7. Provide descriptions of potential release points for radioactive effluents for use in ctmospheric transport and diffusion calculations.
| |
| l
| |
| * ESRP 3.3.1, Obtain plant water-use data.
| |
| e ESRP 5.4. Pmvide tables listing the calculated annual releases of radioactive material in liquid and gaseous emuents and a statement that the radioactive-waste-management and emuent-control l systems as proposed or as modified have the capability to control and maintain releases of August 1997 3.5-1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN e "8 "'"*"$'E7noE*M.D."tI,'n''uSlUp'o"w'Ypf$l"Yd.'Nrt*nti *' U*." ""*EN'i@pMe"n put of e 11%, ". t.' "3,C'd*4.""W ,'rf#.
| |
| ;g.ggy;;g, in .n!,tM7
| |
| .i,oom ni. no i'
| |
| 7.'.,',.7e%."r,,fy.2,i.n.v
| |
| !.rf.*Laf.'i c'.Aum. oi. r,.*"'',T" ofi of e
| |
| ,r,a,,,g g = w,.gi y,,7 pi.o. .. w ,..i a so..a .r .. w. .. . ... oo . ..,o, oi. .
| |
| n"#C',a". 2t':f2.'."n'2lit,'i"*,"4' i,N "d'"d.W'c'?fn!*
| |
| oei """* '"5 '*"'*" "**'"Y
| |
| | |
| radioactive materials in emuents to meet the design ob,lectives of 10 CFR $0, Appendix 1, and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a. Note: For applications for early site permits, the reviewer of ESRP 3.5 should provide the reviewer of ESRP 5.4 with tables listing the estimated annual releases of ra5oactive materials in liquid and gaseous emuents.
| |
| * E RP 5.4.2. Obtain the calculated maximum individual and population doses for comparison with the design objective guidelines of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1.
| |
| * ESRP 512. Provide a list of potential sources of mixed waste from operations.
| |
| * ESRP 6.2. Provide the sites of expected radiological emuent emission?.
| |
| * jnterface with Environmental Project Manmoer (EPML Notify the EPM ifit appears that the pro-posed radioactive waste management and emuent control systems will not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, so that a consultation with the applicant may be arranged to address this concern.
| |
| Data and Information Needs
| |
| 'the following dsta or informatior, should usually be obtained:
| |
| * a description of the liquid and gaseous radioactive-waste management and emuent-control systems (from the environmental repon [ER])
| |
| * process and instrumentation diagrams and system process flow diagrams of the !!qrld and gaseous radioactive-waste management and etTluent control systems (upon request from the applicant)
| |
| * Identification of sources of radioactive liquid and gaseous waste material within the plant (from the ER)
| |
| * identification of principal release points for radioactive materials to the environment (from the ER)
| |
| * identification of direct radiation sources stored onsite out-of plant as solid waste (e.g., independent fuel storage)
| |
| * Information requested in the following Appendices of Regulatory Guide 1.112 (from the ER):
| |
| - Appendix A: " Data Needed for Radioactive Source Term Calculations for Boiling Water Reactors"
| |
| - Appendix B: " Data Needed for Radioactive Source Term Calculations for Pressurized Water Reactors" NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.5 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I e calculated maximum Individual and population doses (from the review of ESRP 5.4) ;
| |
| * obtained the components and the parameters considered in the benefit cost balance along with the dollar / person sievert reduction (from the licensee). Note: Thir benefit cost balance requirmnent may not apply to_ applicants whose construction permit application was tendered betwoon January 2, ;
| |
| 1971, and June 3,1976. , j i
| |
| * for early site permit reviews, additional information from the applicant to further define the radio-logical effluent information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(aXIXiv). Information on specific radionuclides anticipated to be released is needed to allow the ESRP 5.4 reviewer to perform the necessary evaluations.- ,
| |
| - 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the analysis of radioactive waste management systems are based on the relevant requirmnents of the following: t
| |
| = 10 CFR 20 with respect to requirements for waste disposal and doses to the public from those wastes
| |
| * 10 CFR 50 with respect to the guidelines for emuent releases based on maximum individual dose and population done
| |
| * 10 CFR 50.34a with respect to emuent releases
| |
| * 40 CFR 190 with respect to standards set to limit the release of radioactive mater als from power reactors.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are provided in the rollowing:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 1.112 with respect to detennining the releases of radioactive emuents from power reactors -
| |
| * NUREG 0016 with respect to determining the releases of radioactive effluents from a boiling water reactor (BWR)
| |
| * - NUREG 0017 with respect to determining tlw releases of radioactive effluews from a pressurized. ,
| |
| water reactor (PWR)
| |
| .
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 with respect to determining the benefit-cost of waste management systems.
| |
| O V August 1997 3.53 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ?
| |
| *--=-# , , - - , - -,-w=m-,-.- - ew- e--w - U r, -- - . < ..w*-, * --.- ,'. n.4--.--- v- - - - , ee e.e.. --en,* c---mw',.c',4,eiv e-c w ,m-,
| |
| | |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationnie for evaluating the applicant's radioactive waste management system is discussed ,
| |
| in the following paragraph:
| |
| All light water cooled reactors release small quantities of radioactive materials to the environment.
| |
| De criteria for these releases are addressed in 10 CFR $0, Appendix 1, and additional requirements are in 10 CFR 20, Subpart K, and the concentration release limits are in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B.
| |
| Radioactive-waste-management and emuent control systems are to be designed to minimize the I radioactive material releases from reactors to be ALARA. Evaluation of the releases against the j requirements in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, and 10 CFR 20 provide validation that radioactive waste- ;
| |
| management systems are adequate to protect the environment and minimir 'ects of radiation to the public.
| |
| ]
| |
| i 111. REVIEW, PROCEDURES i ne detailed analysis and evaluation of the radioactive waste management and ef0uent control systems and the capability of these systems to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20, Subparts D and K; !
| |
| 10 CFR $0, Appendix I; and 40 CFR 190 should be pre *ented in the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER). De SER should be prepared prior to the environmental review, and the sch dules for SER analysis, evaluation, and conclusions should be compatible with the environmental review schedules. No !
| |
| additional analysis should be needed and the reviewer should proceed to the Evaluation Findings section i of this ESRP.
| |
| When the environmental review precedes the SER, the following analysis should be performed to the level f detail necessary to support the staffinput to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He nevn.wer should make full use of data available from any safety review activity relative to design and performance of the radioactive waste management and emuent control systems.
| |
| The reviewer should analyze the proposed radioactive waste management and emuent control systems, process and instrumentation diagrams, and system process flow diagrams to determine sources of waste, points of collection of wnste, flow paths through the systems (including all bypasses), the treatment provided, and the points of release of emuer:ts to the environment. Using this information, the reviewer should calculate the quantity of radioactive materials released annually in emuents (source term) during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, ne reviewer should use the parameters and calculational techniques described in NUREG 0016 or NUREG 0017, as appropriate, to make these calculations. If the applicant has provided a source term that is consistent with these parameters and calculational techniques, the reviewer should accept it and should not perform a separate calculation, ne results of this analysis should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.4 for calculation of the maximum individual and population doses expected to result from these emuent quantities. ne reviewer should evaluate the tabulated parameters and components considend in the benent-cost balance, along with the dollar / person sievert reduction.
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 3.5-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 7.. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ .
| |
| ll
| |
| \
| |
| i De reviewer should use the following evsluation procedure:
| |
| i (1) laitially, evaluees the proposed radioactive weste management and emuent-control systems to ensure that they are adequately described and provide reasonable assurance of performing the j fbaction as specified.
| |
| l (2) Ensure that the souros twms provided to the revieww for ESRP 5.4 correctly identify the radioactive ;
| |
| meewiels (and their please points) released annually in emoents during normal opwation. [
| |
| i
| |
| < (3) Compare the maximally exposed indlyidual doses calculated by the mvlewer for ESRP 5.4 with the design objectives described in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, to determine if these objectives have been met. Ifit is determined that the proposed radioactive wa s management and emuent control '
| |
| , systems will not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, the revieww should consult with the applicant to obtain the applicant's commitment to include additional tmatment equipment and i effluent-control measures pursuant to Section 2.d of Appendix 1 that will provide reasonable assur-ance of conformance with the applicable regulations his consultation should be through the EPM
| |
| ' and reflect appropriate NRC management procedures.
| |
| . (4) If additional equipment or centrol measures are neded, repeat the analysis and evaluatica proco-dures of this ESRP, and when necessary, request additional does calculations from the reviewer for ;
| |
| ESRP 5.4, until the reviewer concludes that the doses calculated from the source terms au consistent with the design objectives in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1.' At this point you may conclude that the pm-posed radioactive waste management and emuent control systems have the capability to control and
| |
| ( maintain releases of radioactive materials in emuents to meet the design objectivw of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR 50 and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a.
| |
| IV EVALUATION FINDINGS Als evaluation applies to applications for construction permits and operating licenses. When the revieww has concluded that the proposed radioactive waste management and emuent-control systems meet the requiremone of 10 CFR 50.34a, the following input to the EIS should be used:
| |
| no Code ' o f Fedwal Regulations,10 CFR 50.34a, requires that an applicant for a nuclear power reactor construction permit include a preliminary description of the design of equipment that will be installed to keep levels of radloactive material in emuents to umestricted areas ALARA. Dat phrase takes into account the state of technology and the economics ofimprovement in relation to
| |
| ; benefits to the public health and safety and other societal and socioeconon'ic considerations and in relation to the use of nuclear enway in the public interest. 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, provides numerical guidance on design objectives for light water cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive matwiels in emuents released to unrestricted arus be kept ALARA.
| |
| l To meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a, the staff has found acceptable the pieliminary designs ,
| |
| of redweste systems and emuent control measures provided by the applicant for keeping levels of :
| |
| . August 1997 3.5 5 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| L4 ......J._.i,. ..m, ___m.,... , . , .- __._m_...,,,a., , , . , . _ _ . , _ _ . . _ _ , , . _ , _, _,, _,. _ _ , _ , . ,
| |
| | |
| radioactive materials in emuents to unrestricted areas ALARA within the sequirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1. In addition. G staff has reviewed and found reasonable the estimate provided by the applicant of the quantity of each principal radionuclido expected to be released annually to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous emuents produced from normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences.
| |
| The staffs detailed evaluation of the radioactive-waste-management systems and the capability of these systems to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, are presented in Chapter 11 of the SER. De quantities of radioactive material calculated by the staff to be released annually from the plant in liquid and gaseous emuents are presented in this EIS (and are also presented in Chapter 11 of the SER), with the calculated maximum individual and population doses that are expected to result from these emuent quantitles.
| |
| This evaluation applies to applications for construction permits, operating licenses, and early site permits. At the time of the operating license review, the applicant will be required to submit Technical Specifications that will establish release rates for radioactive rnaterial in liquid and gaseous emuents and that provide for the routine monitoring and measurement of all principal release points to ensure that the plant will operate in conformance with the requirements of in CFR 50, Appendix 1, and other applicable Federal regulations.
| |
| De reviewer should provide appropriate references to the applicant's ER in the above input.
| |
| V. IMPIEMENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 20," Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
| |
| 10 CFR 20 Subpart D," Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of Se Public."
| |
| 10 CFR 20, Subpart K," Waste Disposal."
| |
| 10 CFR 20, Appendix B," Annual Limits on Intake (Alls) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Emuent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage."
| |
| 10 O'R 50," Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.56 August 1997
| |
| .s
| |
| | |
| L l
| |
| I I
| |
| 'H 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1," Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for j Cps'- to Most the Crherion 'As I.ow As is Reasonably AchievabW for Radioactive Material in !
| |
| Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Emuents." !
| |
| 10 CFR 50.34a," Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in j omvents-auclear power reactors." !
| |
| L 10 CFR 52.17, Tontents of application." l
| |
| '- 40 CFR 190, " Environmental Radiation Prt4setion Standards for Nuclear Power Operations." l Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev.1. I977. Methods)6r Estimating Atmospheric hansport tadDlapersion i
| |
| " ofGeneow Eptwnts in Routine Releasesfom Light Water-CooledReactors.
| |
| .- I Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reports)6r Nuclear Power Stations. :
| |
| i
| |
| . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1976. Calculation ofReleases o/ Radioactive Materials in Ganeous and Liquid Egunts$vm Bolling uoter twactors (BWR-GALE Code)," NUREG-00l6, {
| |
| Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Calculation ofReleases ofRadioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Eguntsfom Pmsurised noter reactors (PWR-GALE Code), NUREG 0017, Washlagton, D.C.
| |
| e t
| |
| i 4
| |
| 4 i
| |
| _ f"). 'l V ~ August 1997 3.5 7 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) i
| |
| -i
| |
| . y i -- v . r y , r ,,,-i . -----,c 5 c:..-- . ...y....,~, ..-y-,,-
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n [ g\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD !
| |
| ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAN REACTOR REGULATION 3.6 NONRADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-Nonc
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEE nis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the nonradioactive waste system description portions of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material to be presented from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 3.6.1,3.6.2, and 3.6.3.
| |
| p Review Interfaces k
| |
| None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager,
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA De reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| * 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparr.tbn of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| l August 1997 3.6-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REYlEW PLAN d
| |
| 5"""'""*"'e.,""?.,'2?.F,ra Ehm,=- m2.da'.",jgt't"*fs&M*.' ma,m" 23.?aW."W --
| |
| ,iot
| |
| : o :::
| |
| g,m,3,3,@.=1a. .m ...g.y, p. m.u.mi.n Etia w p 'y g.og 3g,. ,i.o. .n. .. w ,.,i .. . .,,i .. .. u. ,,,,u . . . .
| |
| ! 2""*""h RM"d:ittic.f.,N::Cd T'c re!!* .
| |
| d
| |
| +
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * nere Me no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Ratlanale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's nonradioactive waste system is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne material to be prepared la informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUAT10N FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. De paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 3.6.1,3.6.2, and 3.6.3. The paragraph (s) should list the types of information to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. FIFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.6 2 August 1997 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o ''"% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD ;
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3A.1 EFFLUENTS CONTAINING CHEMICALS OR BIOCIDES RINIEW RESPONSIBILITIES '
| |
| Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Sicondary-None
| |
| .1 AREAS OF REVIEW nis environmental standard review plan (ES!?P) directs the staffs description of the nonradioactive waste systems and the chemical and blocidal characteristics of each nonradioactive waste stream dis-charged from the plant, ne secpe of the review directed by this plan incit' des the identification and quantification of each chemical or blocide added to the receiving water by any discharge stream, as well as substances added by corrosion and crosion, and includes a comparison of the discharged quantitles ;
| |
| and concentrations with applicable effluent limitations and standards. Naturally occurring substances O changed in form or comentrated by plant operations should also be described. He information devel-oped in this review will be used in the staff's subsequent evaluation of environmental impacts and com-i pliance with applicable water quality standards.
| |
| Review Interfaces ne reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| e ESRP 2.3.3. Obtain descriptions of the baseline water quality of the water supplies to the proposed plant,
| |
| . ESRP 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Obtain expected plant water use (i.e., water supplies, consumption, and treat.
| |
| ment with process chemicals).
| |
| August 1997 3.6.1-1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN ;
| |
| '"* " ' d
| |
| 'Ed '" ' "
| |
| * o) hT.""""."'.*d,t"Wo"o,,".,2f#:.'t,'ld'~p"g.*
| |
| % : 2 *!,. W ** ""*
| |
| ggyj,,,.g;r., "6 w oi ,, . ,y p. ..
| |
| ::iJ. .".*. 'ct.v"u"i. YJ.'.*a*.L"$,*.'h2."
| |
| e, m , g ,no a
| |
| ;V ,. .
| |
| , g,y ,* g a g e is . . w ,.w.w w v. .,,,, * ..io . w.. . i.
| |
| 8*"o",".'.".'Ao'h.da"atio", n".*c"o'# "J:Cd dd "'d"
| |
| : o. 'i? e ra!* """* ** "*
| |
| . , . "**'''"Y
| |
| | |
| . ESRIL13J.. Obtain descriptions of the cooling system of the proposed plant (including the concen-tration factor on a seasonal basis for evaporative cooling systems).
| |
| . ESRP 512. Ensure that all waste streams entering the cooling system discharge have been identi-fled and that information adequate to determine the environmental impac; of these waste streams has been provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.3.2.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.615.21. 5.21311. 6 5 2. and 6.6. Ensure that this section contains suflicient descrip-tive detail to support the descriptions and assessments in these ESRPs.
| |
| Data and Information Necds
| |
| %e kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the pott.atial impact. The following data or infonnation should usually be obtained:
| |
| . descriptions of nonradioactive effluent treatment facilities except those covered in ESRPs 3.3.2, 3.6.2, and 3.6.3 (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| e average, maximum, and seasonal variatior.s of principal constituents ofintake and receiving waters and any minor or trace materials that may be of environmental relevance (from ESRP 2.3.3)
| |
| . a list of chemicals processed through each system (e.g., corrosion inhibitors, antifouling agents)
| |
| (from ESRP 3.3.2), and total amounts used per year, frequency of use, and concentrations of these chemicals or their products in each waste stream (from the ER)
| |
| . the concentration factor on a seasonal basis for evaporative cooling systems (from ESRP 3.4.2)
| |
| . the average and maximum concentation of natural materials in emuent streams (from ESRP 2.3.3)
| |
| . the operating cycles for each emuent treatment system for normal modes of plant operation (e.g., full power operation, shutdown / refueling, startup)(from the ER).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for review of waste emuents are based on the relevant requirements of the followii.3-
| |
| . 40 CFR 122 with respect to the National Poilutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for discharges including stonn water discharges e 40 CFR 147 with respect to restrictions or waste disposal
| |
| . 40 CFR 165 with respect to liquid effluents 3.6.12 August 1997 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| i e ~ 40 CPR 403 with respect to emuent standards ,
| |
| C- + 40 CFR 423 with respect to emuent limitations on existing and new point sources
| |
| * State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| i
| |
| .- Resulatory positions and specific criteria necessan to meet the regulations identified above are as l
| |
| followsi
| |
| * Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a !
| |
| substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental Impacts of :
| |
| the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider ahernatives to the i proposed action that are available for reducing the advwee impacts, if an environmental assessment j of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment !
| |
| E in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost t
| |
| balance. .When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant ,
| |
| expertise) will establish its own impact determination. ,
| |
| e Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| The regulatory position necessary to meet this objective requires documentation ofconsultations with NPDES authority.
| |
| . TechnicalRationals
| |
| 'the technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's nonradioactive waste systems containing chemicals and blocides is as follows:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the chemical and blocido emoonts is essential for the eval- 3 untion of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or '
| |
| refurMahment.
| |
| : 11. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer's analysis of nonradio;.ctive emuent systems containing chemicals or blocides should be ;
| |
| closely linked with the impact assessment review for ESRPs 5.3.2 and 5.5 to establish the waste weam chara:teristics that are most likely to result in environmental impacts. With this in mind, the reviewer should do the following: '
| |
| (1) Estabikh that the information nsassary for rubsequent impact analyses is available.
| |
| g:--
| |
| l'; A '
| |
| 1
| |
| . August 1997 '
| |
| 3.6.13 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) a >
| |
| t f.
| |
| t r
| |
| {
| |
| m -
| |
| y s
| |
| , , , , . _ . _ 4 . . . .- -,.~ . - .. . _ _ , - . -
| |
| | |
| (2) Review each system emuent stream to determine that treatment processes, points of chemical l addit:ons or alterations, How characteristics, maximum and average concentrations of added and )
| |
| ambient water constituents, and point of discharge are identified. l (3) Review the applicant's calculations of concentrations in the emuent streams.
| |
| (4) Consider any separate discharge system such as for sludge disposal.
| |
| (5) Consider the concentrations and flow of the treated low volume wastes (e.g., demineralizer wastes or boiler slowdowns) before dilution by high volume streams.
| |
| (6) Coi. sider any waste system not described in ESRPs 3.3.2,3.6.2, or 3.6.3 in this section (e.g., waste treatment / disposal ponds and clarifiers).
| |
| (7) Consider site related problems concerning water quality or special plant operating conditions (e.g.,
| |
| low oxygen levels, high concentration of nutrients, toxic materials, and high concentration factors within the plant), paying particular attention to the treatment of blocide residues.
| |
| (8) Ensure t!.ct the emuent information is adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the impacts of plant oper . tion resulting from the expected performance of the systems.
| |
| (9) In evaluating the adequacy of this material, consult the applicable standards and guides for this environmental review (see Acceptance Criteria in this ESRP). Ensure that Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies appropriate to the objectives of this environ.
| |
| mental review have been consulted and that the provisions of any applicable Memoranda of Under-standing with the NRC have been considered. Also ensure that compliance with applicable Fed-eral, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal standards have been determined.
| |
| Note: For wastes discharged to surface waters, issuance of a NPDES pennit provides determina.
| |
| tion of compliance.
| |
| (10) Evaluate the descriptions of the treatment systems and their emuent streams to determine that
| |
| + all identified waste streams have been considered
| |
| * all discharged chemicals r.nd blocides have been considered
| |
| * unusual procedures or site-specific problems that could result in unusual environmental impacts are identified.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS
| |
| 'Ihe discussion in the environmental impact statement (EIS) should be brief and make optimal use of tables and figures to describe the proposed emuent systems , The reviewer should include a description NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.6.1 4 August 1997
| |
| [
| |
| | |
| (C -
| |
| 9
| |
| + .
| |
| :1 g
| |
| ,?
| |
| O of all emuent systems not covered in ESRPs 3.3.2,3.6.2, or16.3; the types of treatment; and the meh '
| |
| C ods used for dispo.ing of the emuents. 'Ihe reviewer should make reference to the water-use diagram f included in ESRP 3.3.1. The reviewer should identify the conveyance system carrying emuents to the receiving water bodies and should identify any points of discharge not identified in ESRP 3.3.2. . ;
| |
| ; Average and maximum chemical' concentrations in the plant emuent shoula be presented with average -
| |
| ~
| |
| : and maximum levels of these substances in the receiving waters, he reviewer should compare these . ,
| |
| levels with applicable effluent limitat_ ions and water quality standards? The table should include annual '
| |
| quantities of chemicals to be discharged.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant I requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statemerit to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Based on the applicant's description of the waste systems for nonradioactive wastes containing
| |
| * ; chemicals or blocides, the staff concludes that characterization of the anticipated waste volumes .
| |
| and treatment processes is valid and adequate to support the assessments in other seulons and adequate to' determine whether the treatment is capable of meeting emuent and receiving water quality criteria.
| |
| 4 V. IMPLEMENTATION He meth6d described herein _will be used by the staffin its evaluttion of conformance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant poposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination Systems."
| |
| 40 CFR 147," State Underground Injection Control Programs."
| |
| l 40 CFR 165," Regulations for the Acceptance of Certain Pesticides and Recommended Procedures for
| |
| ; the Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers."
| |
| 1 T _
| |
| : 40 CFit 403," General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution."
| |
| ! s 40 CFR 423," Steam Electric Po ver Generating Point Source Category."-
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| I I-
| |
| ; l i:
| |
| i TAugust 1997 - 3.6.1-5 hdREG-ISSS (DRAFT) l: o l
| |
| J 4 y
| |
| ! u -- - - . . . - , u~ .- - - , . - .
| |
| | |
| [ NURE2-15F5 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O [,,,N. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| %,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3.6.2 SANITARY SYSTEM EFFLUENTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs consideration of sanitary emuent systems to identify anticipated volumes generated during construction and operation and to describe the treatment systems to be employed, lhls information is needed to determine the impact of discharging these efiluents to the environment.
| |
| f The scope of the review directed by this plan includes consideration of the nature and quantity of sanitary waste contribution ai treatment facilities.
| |
| (.
| |
| Review Interfaces
| |
| [
| |
| The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input te the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| * ESRP 3.3.1. Obtain expected plant water use and descriptions of the plant water treatment processes.
| |
| Ff?.P 3.6.3. Provide a list of effluents covered in this ESRP to ensure that those effluents are not discussed in ESRP 3.6.3.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.2.2 and 4.3.2. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive material in sufficient detail to support the assessment of the impacts of sanitary systern effluent discharges during plant construction in ESRPs 4.2.2 and 4.3.2.
| |
| August 1997 3.6.2-1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ."p.nemi. tYenY.nmen I,.D.*i7Do'."wIp@ih .' ,.' ad.W.R .'tWh T c.
| |
| 7y' M. go ggm**T4,g.*;r ,g .n ?.,Tr.#.o.r.a
| |
| *o aw 7'.,*,*.=,.:.1.m'*';*r.M.,.i.tc"s.a v , .w.o 4 i ,. e.*:tf, pm.,,g_ .. - ~ .. .. r... .__ ._ ,.
| |
| 8:":il"ah ia '.",itn",li'4" .*1"cCdd,.fc'TBn!* """ """* "*""*'''"'
| |
| * ESRPs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. Ensure that this ESRP contains descriptive material in sufficisnt detail to support the assessment of the impacts of sanitary system effluent discharges during plant operation in ESRP 5.5.
| |
| l
| |
| * ESRP 6.6. Ensure that adequate descriptive material is provided in this ESRP to support the description of the efiluent water quality monitoring program in ESRP 6.6.
| |
| Data and information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitudo of the potential impact. Th:
| |
| following data of information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * a description of the systems (both temporary and permanent) to be provided (from the environmental report (ER])
| |
| e anticipated quantity and characteristics of treated effluents
| |
| * the t.itimate disposal of treated effluents (from the ER) e staailtds for the proposed sanitary system effluent:,
| |
| e the NPDES permit (if available).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITEBJA Acceptance criteria for review of sanitary system effluents are based on the relevant requirements of the f Ilowing:
| |
| * 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection
| |
| * 40 CFR 122 with respect to NPDES permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges
| |
| . 40 CFR 133 with respect to sanitary effluents e 40 CFR 165 with respect to regulations for the peceptance of certain pesticides and recommended procedures for the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide containers
| |
| * 40 CFR 403 with respect to sanitary wastes
| |
| * 40 CFR 423 with respect to effluent limitations on existing and new point sources NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.6.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ,m State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| lj N
| |
| 1 +
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| . Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducir.g the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost balance, When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expcrtise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| * Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In JefTerson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Departm?.nt of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case) granted the states additional authority to limit hydrological alterations be) ' the states role in regulating water rights.
| |
| * Regulatory Gu!de 4.2 contains guidance on the fonnat and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| The regulatory position necessary to meet this objective requires documentation of consultations with NPDES authority.
| |
| Iechnical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's waste systems for sanitary effluents is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the sanitary system effluents is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES When reviewing sanitary effluent systems, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Describe the sanitary treatment / disposal syrtem effluent characteristics and quantities, system capacity, unit loading factors, impact of storm water runoff, and predicted quality.
| |
| O
| |
| \
| |
| b') . August 1997 3.6.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (2) Determine the characteristics, including point of discharge or place of ultimate disposal of any separate discharge system such as sludge disposal.
| |
| (3) Compare the pollutant release levels with applicable Federal and State emuent limitations and water quality standards.
| |
| (4) Ensure that the sanitary system emuent information is adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the impacts of plant construction and operation resulting from the expected performance of the system.
| |
| (a) In evaluatiag the adequacy of this material, consult the applicable standards and guides for this environmental review.
| |
| (b) Ensure that the requirements of Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies appropriate to the objectives of this environmental review, have been considered, and that the system as proposed is capable of meeting these requirements.
| |
| (5) Ensure that the proposed systems are adequate and the proposed system operating procedures are consistent with good engineering practice and with the degree of waste treatment needed.
| |
| IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS Ac input to the envi-onmental impact statement (EIS) should consist of a brief description of the proposed sanitary waste treatment system and the method for ultimate disposal of treated wastes. A description of expected effluent quality from the treatment system should be provided.
| |
| The depth and extent of the input to the EIS will be govemed by the purpose of the review. The following information should usually be included from ESRP 3.6.2:
| |
| * brief description of the proposed sanitary effluent treatment 4ystem and the method for ultimate disposal of treated effluents e a description of expected effluent quality from the treatment system a a review of status of consultations with appropriate NPDES permitting agency.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Based on the applicants description of the sanitary waste systems, the staff concludes that characteri-zation of the anticipated sanitary waste volumes and treatment processes is valid and adequate to evaluate the impacts of discharging sanitary wastes (during plant costruction and operation) on the affected environment (i.e., determining whether the treatment will meet effluent standards and receiving water quality criteria).
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.6.2-4 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| 1 1
| |
| i O LV. IMPLEMENTATION b 1he method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable ~ ,
| |
| i alternative for complying with specified portions of the :rgulations,
| |
| )VI. REFERENCES 40 CFR 6, Appendix A," Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 133," Secondary Treatment Regulations."
| |
| 40 CFR 165," Regulations for the Acceptance of Certain Pesticides and Rommmended Procedures for the Disposal and Stcrage of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers."
| |
| 40 CFR 403," General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution."
| |
| 40 CFR 423, " Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. . I976. Preparcibn ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,92-1911, Supreme Court of the United States,510
| |
| - U.S.1037; i14 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 1994)
| |
| J
| |
| 'l (s August 1997 3.6.25 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| T
| |
| :u_____ -
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 J U
| |
| i q [N
| |
| ***** .S. REVIEWNUCLEAR PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REGULA 3.6.3 OTHER EFFLUENTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None ii I. AREAS OF REVIEW
| |
| ' This environmental standaril review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description of miscellaneous gaseous,
| |
| - liquid, and solid emuents not included in ESRPs 3.6.1 and 3.6.2. The reviewer should include a description of these wastes ar.d their proposed treatment and disposal methods. The scope of the review directed by this plan should ir clude identification and quantification of these miscellaneous emissions and emuents in sufficient detail to permit subsequent staff analysis and assessments of potential environmental impacts.
| |
| \'
| |
| Review Interfggs The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 3.6.1 and ifi.2. Obtain lists of wastes considered in those sections (i.e., nonradioactive
| |
| . wastes containing chemicals and biocides, and sanitary system wastes).
| |
| . ESRPs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. Ensure that this ESRP contains enough descriptive material to support the assessment of the impacts of discharges from the waste systems f "other" wastes during plant operation in ESRP 5.5.
| |
| August 1997 3.6.31 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRf; ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN f liIn n r@an.as.
| |
| :=".m::me.=.m w ,c,i,y AYd.s*,5iEeYm"nu.a.w*dE"wI[~
| |
| ~
| |
| , LW"'~w' ~"v anm
| |
| -~
| |
| v*NY.r. m Q w = _ w, w ~ ~~* *
| |
| -- .~. .
| |
| * '= ~
| |
| - ". "*'"~~**
| |
| 8*".""L".d,M'#2".*Jfh:"fw"r"J' o l,tWWidc*ron!" """* * ** ""'*" "**'""'
| |
| | |
| /
| |
| Data and Information Needa ne kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site-and station specific factors, and the deeree of detail should be modified accordirg to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. De foi,owing data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * estimates of gaseous effluents (e.g., from diesel engines, gas turbines, heating plants, incinerators) released during plant operation, the location and elevation of release points, the frequency of their release and their treatment before release, and the total quantity of SO,, NO,, hydrocarbons, and suspended particulate to be discharged annually (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| . applicable Federal, State, and tribal regional standards concerning atmospheric emissions from consultatien with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies.
| |
| + information concerning nonradioactive wastes not considered in ESRPs 3.6.1 and 3.6.2. Examples include laboratory wastes, storm drainage, trash, hazardous wastes, and debris from bars or screens on the cooling water intake. The description should include estimates of the quantities of wastes, their pollutant concentrations at points of release as appropriate to the system, and other relevant data (from the ER).
| |
| + procedures for any offsite disposal of wastes (from the ER)
| |
| = procedures by which all ef0uents will be treated, controlled, and discharged to meet State and EPA effluent limitation guidelines and new source perforn ance standards (from the ER).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of the effluents of the proposed plant sites are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with rr.spect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection
| |
| * 40 CFR 122 with respect to NPDES permit coaditions for discharges including storm water discharges a 40 CFR 147 with respect to effluent disposal limitation
| |
| = 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole source aquifer
| |
| * 40 CFR 165 with respect to regulations for the acceptance of certain pesticides and recommended procedures for the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide containers NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.6.3-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| F r~N i 40 CFR 227 with respect to criteria for evaluating environmental impacts
| |
| : . 40 CFR 423 with terpect to effluent limitations on existing and new point sources
| |
| * State and Native American tribal water law.s and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| . Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Wa' r Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost g balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in cordunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| . flecause water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Department of Ecology (United States Supreme Court Case), the United States Supreme Court
| |
| [s
| |
| \
| |
| ' granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the States' role in regulating water rights.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's nonrsdioactive waste systems for miscellaneous gaseous, liquid, and solid effluents is as follows:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of all effluents is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| !!I. REVIEW PROCEDURES The description of these miscellaneous sources of nonradioactive wastes should be closely linked with the impact assessment review for ESRPs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 to es+ablish the nonradioactive waste charac-teristh that are most likely to result in environmental impacts. With this in mind, the reviewer should do the followir,g:
| |
| /7
| |
| .k August 1997 3.6.33 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (1) Establish that the information : essary for subsequent impact analysis and comparison with regulatory standards is available od consider the manner of proposed waste trectment and control.
| |
| (2) Describe the procedures for effluent handling and disposal.
| |
| (3) Compare the proposed effluent systems with standard designs to determine the adequacy of the system (e.g., equipment to remove oil from storm drainage).
| |
| (4) Consider the handling of hazardous or toxic materials.
| |
| (5) 'ompare atmospheric emissions with applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native Arcrican tribal standards.
| |
| (6) Identify any unusual site related conditions (e.g., air quality standards) that would affect treatment or release of miscellaneous nonradioactive wastes.
| |
| (7) Ensure that the descriptions of miscellaneous effluents and treatment systems are adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the impacts of these discharges during plant construction and operation.
| |
| (8) Ensure that the requirements of Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies appropriate to the objectives of this enviroamental review :. ave been considered.
| |
| (9) Evaluate the descriptions of miscellaneous wastes and waste systems to determine that
| |
| . comparison of amounts and concentrations of waste discharges have been made with appropriate standards and criteria e all waste streams and discharged wastes not considered in ESRPs 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 have been considered
| |
| . proposed procedures are consistent with good engineering practice and are consistent with the degree 5f waste treatment needed
| |
| . unusual procedures or site-specific problems that could result in unusual environmental impacts are identified. ,
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINO9 Input from this ESRP to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should be limited to a bnef discussion of the waste sources in this category, treatment systems for the waste sources, methods of disposal, and quantities or concentrations of pollutants disposed. Compliance with applicable standards should be noted.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 3.6.3-4 August 1997 9
| |
| : a. - - _ _ ._ ,. _.,
| |
| | |
| / ~\ 'Ihe frequency and duration of operation of auxiliary boilers and diesel powered generators should be
| |
| (
| |
| noted. Atmospheric emissions from these sources may be presented in a table listing applicable standards of performance.
| |
| i The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Based on the applicant's description of the "other" effluents, the staff concludes that characterization of the anticipated waste volumes and treatment processes is valid and adequate to evaluate the impacts of other emuents (during plant construction and operation) on the affected environment (e.g., determining whether the treatment will meet effluent standards and receiving water quality criteria).
| |
| V, IMPIFMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commirsion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| -VI. REFERENCES 40 CFR 6, Appendix A," Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| \
| |
| 40 CFR 122. " EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 147," State Underground Injection Control Programs."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."
| |
| 40 CFR 165," Regulations for the Acceptance of Certain Pesticides and Recommended Procedures for die Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers."
| |
| 40 CFR 227," Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of Material."
| |
| 40 CFR 423," Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."
| |
| Acgulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| O
| |
| \J '
| |
| August 1997 3.6.3-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| (
| |
| = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ___ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| w
| |
| , NURE21555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| ( J ;,f % *-y
| |
| ~
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| %, * *
| |
| * 7 # REVIEW PLAN '
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION <
| |
| . 3.7 POWERTRANSMISSION SYSTEMS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES ' \
| |
| Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch
| |
| ' Secondary---Nonc
| |
| : 1. f.REAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff s description of the design characteris- .
| |
| tics of the proposed power transmission system, The scope of the review directed by this plan should include the transmission system from the plant switchyard to its connections with existing systems, including lines, corridors,* towers, access roads, substations, and communication stations. This review should provide input to other reviews dealing with evaluation of construction and operational impacts fN associated with land use and ecosystems and to other ESRPs that deal with consideration of attematives.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obte 8.r.put from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 1.2. Consult with the reviewer of ESRP 1.2 to determine if the applicant has requested Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) approval for construction of the transmission towers if the tower (s) extend more than 61 m (200 ft) above the ground.
| |
| (a) For thr curposes of these ESRPs," corridors" are defined as transmission l'ne routes of variable width, depending on the nature of the application. When an applicant has proposed precisely described and located rights-of-way," corridor" and "right of way" are synonymous. When an applicant's rights-of-way are not precisely defined, corridors are more general routes of sufficient width to contain the eventual rights-of-way.
| |
| August 1997 3.7-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN fJ OtwD*
| |
| _ ,_ = _,. e.
| |
| nmN.ne. eME=NdE.UMM
| |
| .:.2',",:all*
| |
| a m ,.,.,m"","*':",. _
| |
| 1
| |
| -2 2 T. y,y. F ;nt.'."m*W".''.8, "umlel.'.T.
| |
| . a m ...
| |
| .. r.
| |
| .v.s.wD.
| |
| _=
| |
| p.t .f g.mm.m.. g g ,fa g em.m be,gggb. nt to the u.s. Muc.i.= neemiwy .
| |
| 1 1
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| e ESRP 2 2 2. Obtain land-use data as needed to support descriptions oitransmission corridors and offsite areas.
| |
| . ESRP 2.5.3. Provide the locations of planned transmission corrid.srs.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.1. 4.3.1.2. 4.3.214.4.3. 51. 31 and S.fL1 Ensure thst ESRP 3.7 contains descriptive information in sufficient detail to support the assessmerits related to power transmission in the listed sections.
| |
| * ESRPs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Provide inforination on the power transmissioni corridor as it relates to construction activities.
| |
| . ESRP 4.4.1. Provide e detailed description of any power transmission system construction associated with the proposed plant that physically impacts the region including visual aesthetics.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.616.5.1. and 6.5.2. Provide the physical characteristics of the power transmission system and maintenance procedures necessary for determining environmental impacts to the aquatic ecosystems and provide any additional information pertinent to ecciogical monitoring programs to the reviewers for ESRPs 6.5.1 and 6.5.2.
| |
| . ESRP 5.6.3. Provide information about the basic electrical design parameters, the basic structural parameters, and the maximum electric field gradient (s) and edge of right-of-way field gradients in kV/m.
| |
| * ESRP 9.2.1. Provide infermation on the power t:c.nsmission system that is relevant to the evaluation of altematives to the proposed action that do not require new generating capacity.
| |
| * ESRP 9.4.3. Provide background information on the proposed transmission system siting and design for the evaluation of power transmission system alternatives.
| |
| Data and Information Needs
| |
| 'lle kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| a basic electrical design parameters, including transmission design voltage or voltages, line capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing between phases, minimura conductor clearances to ground, maximum predicted electric field strength (s) at I m above ground, the predicted electric fielo strength (s) rst the edge of the right-of way in kilovolts per meter (kV/m), and the design bases for these values (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| * - predicted noise levels resulting from transmission system operation (from the ER)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.7-2 August 1997 O
| |
| -__-_.m__
| |
| | |
| ,I
| |
| * basic structural design parameters, including illustrations and descriptions of towers, conduc'. ors, and
| |
| \.) other structures, with dimensions, materials, color, and finish (from the ER) .
| |
| . - topographic maps (15-minute scale as a rule) or aerial photographs shawing the proposed corridor or I corridors and all existing major high voltage corridors in the region. The applicant should provide ,
| |
| siting data for all potential corridors identified by the applicant.
| |
| . lengths, wid'hs, and area of rights of way, including modification and/or use of existing rights-of-way and other facilities for the proposed project (from the ER) a general methods of construction (e.g., tower foundations, stringing, location of access roads, span length, and clesring of rights-of way)(from the ER) ,
| |
| * when available, tower and substation locations (from the ER).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of power transmission line siting are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| 40 CFR 6.203 with respect to descriptions of size, location, land requirements, and operation and maintenance requirements of auxiliary structures such as transmission lines V . 10 CFR S t.53(c)(3)(li) with respect to assessing impacts of transmission systems not meeting National Electric Safety Code (NESC).
| |
| Pegulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above ai$ as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, in which the level of detailed description for the construction and maintenance of these structures and their rights-of-way are identified
| |
| . NESC (1981) with respect to shock hazards
| |
| . Applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal standards, guideline [
| |
| and requirements.
| |
| q Techn! cal Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's power transmission system is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| O August 1997 3.7-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| - A descr:ption and characterization of the proposed transmission system is necessary to evaluate the
| |
| - environmental impacts associsted with the system. Restrictions on property use in the proposed power transmission line corridor and sensitive habitats in its proposed path must be understood so that the impacts can be fully considered. Additionally, the design parameters of the system and the resulting field strengths and noise levels expected to be associated with power transmission provide ,
| |
| useful information in addressing the significance of potential impacts.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer's analysis of the proposed power transmission system should be closely linked with the impact ast:ssment review described within ESRPs 4.1,4.3.1.2,4.3.2.2,4.4.3,5.1.3,5.6, and 5.8.3 to establish the general power transmission system characteristics that are most likeiy to affect these reviews.
| |
| Because this plan is primarily for description, the information can usually be obtained from the ER or from responses to questions asked of the applicant. When an applicant has identified a specific corridor or corridors as the proposed transmission line route or routes, only those corridors need to be considered in this review. (Alternative corridors should be considered by the reviewer for the environmental . impact statement (EIS) section on Alternative Transmission Systems,) If no specific corridors are identified, the reviewer should consider in this review all potential co;ridors identified by the applicant.
| |
| IV EVALUATION FINDINGS Evaluating the adequacy of this material requires the reviewer to determine that (1) data on the power O
| |
| transmission system are sufficient to describe the systems and provide qualitative and quantitative infor-mation necessary to assess potential impacts to land use, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and man; and (2) Federal, State, regional, and local regulations, and affected Native American tribal requirements applicable to transmission system design, construction, operation and refurbishment have been considered.
| |
| The following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| * the route of the proposed power transmission system
| |
| .' proposed tower types and range of dimensions (including those needed for unusual situations such as long water crossing), span lengths, rights-of way lengths and widths, and areas of rights-of way.
| |
| Tower locations for sensitive (e.g., historic) areas.
| |
| a the voltage, line capacity, conductor configuration, minimum conductor to-ground clearance, maxi-mum predicted electrical field strengths I m above ground and at the edge of the rights of way, and predicted noise levels at the edge of the rights-of-way
| |
| . the location of other facilities such as substations.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.7-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 4 f *!he reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant --
| |
| sequirements and that the evaluation supposts the following type of statement to be included in the staff's EIS: ,
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information and concludes that information on power transmis-sion systems has been presented in sufficient detail for staff analysis. ,
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION
| |
| < Tks method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of confamance with the Comminion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51.53, "Supplenient to environmental report."
| |
| 40 CFR 6.203," Body of EISs."
| |
| < y ,% tory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparatton of Environmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| i
| |
| [
| |
| National ElectricalSqfety Code (NESC). 1981. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.,
| |
| . New York.
| |
| t 4
| |
| 4 4
| |
| e!-
| |
| 4 eg -
| |
| August 1997 3.7-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l I
| |
| y
| |
| ,...I
| |
| | |
| t NURE21555 y
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
| |
| O J ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD )
| |
| #'% REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAT3ON I
| |
| h 3.8 TRAN'a 'ORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch
| |
| . Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs review and analysis of the proposeo means of transporting radioactive materials. The scope of the review directed by this plan will be limited g to those design and operational parameters specified in 10 CFR 5 .52(a).
| |
| i
| |
| \ Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 3.2. Obtain input on the reactor type and rated core thermal power, the fuel assembly descrip-tion, and the average irradiation level of irradiated fuel.
| |
| . FSRP 5.4.2. Advise the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.2 that Table S-4 of 10 CFR S t.52(c) will be used to describe the environmental impacts of transportation, or will ensure that sufficient information is provided to support an independent analysis of these impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 7.3. Advise the reviewer for ESRP 7.3 that Table S-4 will be used t describe the environ-mental impacts of transportation accidents, or will ensure that sufficient information is provided to support an independent analysis of these impacts.
| |
| August 1997 3.8-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmental atenderd " reviewge -e propered for thogdence of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff insCommi.A*",*g".cJ'#fnfo, 7'e'L"e"e*,'1L%"v"end #,Les *" y.!""vg*
| |
| 2%"r- '#2'!s'*r$',32." '"' *'
| |
| L L (mj g"jgnegn*a""e*d."ic'en'"Jl2 O liXen"e'J.".''* "o -e fir,ed JK'e'e%it/I,5f-.
| |
| r,e, 4 Publithed environmernal standard review teflect new information end empev6ence, plans wal be revloed perlot5ceEy, es appropelete, to accommodate comments and to k f9 cia of [c~4eer eque Weehingte C 6 x
| |
| | |
| Data and Infcnantlnn Naade The following data should usually be obtained:
| |
| . reactor type and rated core thermal power (from ESRP 3.2) e fuel assembly description (from ESRP 3.2) i e average irradiation level ofirradiated fuel (from ESRP 3.2)
| |
| * onsite irradiated fuel storage facility capacity and minimum fuel storage time between removal from I the reactor and transportation offsite (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| = ' treatment and packaging prxedures for radioactive wastes other than irradiated fuel (from the ER)
| |
| = transportation system to be used fo fresh fuel other radioactive wastes, and if applicable, irradiated fuel.
| |
| . estimated transportation distance from the plant to the facility to which irradiated fuel will most )
| |
| likely be sent, if applicable (from the ER). i II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA i Acceptance critoria for the description of the transportation of radioactive materials are based on the O
| |
| relevant requirements of the following ,
| |
| l a 10 CFR 51.52 with respect to the design and operational parameters related to the transportation of fuel and waste to and from the reactor.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations i6ntified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's proposed means for transporting radioactive materials is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| The proposed method for the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes .o and from the facility needs to be described so that impacts from transportation can be appropriately analyzed in other sec-tions of the ESRP, The regulations in 10 CFR 51.52 give the environmental impacts that result given a specific reactor core thermal power level, type of fuel, average irradiation of fuel, and specific NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.8-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 1 3 para notors on packaging and shipping. If the description of the transportation falls within the
| |
| [C spe ;ific parameters given in paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.52, then Table S-4 can be used to determine thr environmental impact, otherwise further analysis is required. Rus, a description of the param-cr ers surrounding the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes is necessary.
| |
| IM. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewers analysis cf the data and information is required to support the reviewers evaluation for conformance with 10 CFR S t.52(a)(see Evaluation Findings in this ESRP). De analysis should consist of assembling the data listed in the procedures below and verifying their accuracy. The reviewer may consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 3.2 and 3.5 to verify the data.
| |
| De reviewer should conduct the analysis as folle 3:
| |
| s(1) Compare the verified data (listed under Data and Information Needs above) with the following criteria:
| |
| * reactor type - light water-cooled (LWR) e rated core thermal power level - 3800 MW maximum. (See ESRP 3.2 for a definition of
| |
| " rated.")
| |
| = fuel assemblies - zircaloy fuel rods, sintered low-enrichment uranium dioxide (maximum 4% by weight of U 235) pellets e average irradiation level ofirradiated fuel- 33,000 megawatt-days per metric ton maximum e onsite storage of irradiated fuel - minimum of 90 days between removal from the reactor and shipment o!Tsite. (He reviewer should consider the proposed fuel storage facility capacity in evaluating this criterion.)
| |
| e radioactive wastes other than fuel - packaged as solid waste prior to offsite shipment. (The reviewer should consider the proposed solid waste treatment and packaging procedures in eval-uating this criterion.)
| |
| e new fuel shipment to the plant - by truck
| |
| * irradiated fuel shipments offsite - by truck, rail, or b rge a other radioactive waste shipme.its offsite - by truck or rail.
| |
| (2) When the above criteria are met, conclude that the environmrital impacts oitransportation of fuel and radioactive wastes are rep esented by the values given in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, and i
| |
| 'V August 1997 3.8-3 NUREC-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| instruct the reviewers for ESRPs 5.4.2 and 7.2 to adopt this table as representing the environmental impacts of radioactive materials transportation.
| |
| (3) When the fuel is enriched greater than 4% by weight of U 235 (as given in 10 CFR S t.52(a)(2) to a maximum of 5 wt%, and when the fuel bumup is greater than 33,000 megawatt days per metric ton (as given in 10 CFR $1.52(a)(3) to a maximum of 60,000 megawatt-days per metric ton, it has been shown that the environmental cost contributions are either unchanged or may in fact be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 (Baker et al.1988; 53 FR 30355). 'Ihe reviewer should instruct the reviewers for ESRPs 5.4.2 and 7.3 to adopt this table as representing the environmental impacts of radioactive materials transportation.
| |
| (4) When any n the above criteria are not met, expand the analysis of the required data to the level nec-essary to provide sufficient data to support a subsequent impact analysis that would supplement the impact data of Table S-4. The reviewer should notify the reviewers for ESRPs 5.4.2 and 7.3 that Table S-4 cannot be used and that a supplemental impact assessment will be required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS When the reviewer determines that the environmental impacts of transportation can be met by use of Table S-4, a brief input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared summarizing the data of Section 111, item (1) of this ESRP. The input should note that these data are within the scope of 10 CFR S t.52(a), and that ESRPs 5.4.2 and 7.3 will address the impacts of radioactive material transpor-tation by reference to Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52(c). When Table S-4 cannot be used, the reviewer should provide, as input to the EIS, a descrip;on of those proposed designs or procedures that do not meet the criteria of Section 111, item (1) of this ESRP. This material should be provided in sufficient detail to support a subsequent impact assessment by the reviewers for ESRPs 5.4.2 and 7.3.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENuES 10 CFR 51.52," Environmental effects cf transportation of fuel and waste."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, " Environmental Impact of *ransporteion of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor."
| |
| Baker, D. A., W. 3. Bailey, and C. E. Beyer. 1988. A.tsessment ofthe Use ofExtended Burnup Fuel in Lightwater Power Reactors. NUREG/CR-5009, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 3.8-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . - - - - - . - - . . ~
| |
| c l
| |
| } U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (WRC). 1975. EnvironmentalSwvey of Transportation of,
| |
| 'O Radioactive Materials to andfom Nuclear Powr Plants, NUREG.75/038, Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Carolina Power & Light Co. Shearon Harris
| |
| - Nuclear Power Plant Utility; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
| |
| - 53 FederalRegister (August i1,1988).
| |
| F O .
| |
| e
| |
| *
| |
| * ep sh 6
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| I L NURE2-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f) [ h ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION -
| |
| 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION OR REFURBISHMENT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None L AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmantal impact statement (EIS) that describes the environmental I
| |
| impacts of construction and refurbishment. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 4.1 through 4.6.
| |
| . Review Interfaces i
| |
| \s None.
| |
| !- Data and Information Needs o 'Ihe reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITCRIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| = 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| ' August 1997 4.0"1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN e of the office of Nuclew Reactor Regulation aff Environmental etendard reviewy we propwed " tw tho
| |
| ,dJ ? '42':e':a;on o ."'""'
| |
| .'"eTem*.". dea *"g**"7y" r,fonn
| |
| .".**ae~ne"%*'.e.n io not eca"E:''en**"'o*n."n"e"anA'/* e": fe7e rd'at:Pi,#e"v"e.p*" *:f,.".":r (nV) Reporte for Nuoteer Power Stations, en*onmental w plane wEl be revloed pedodcelly, no appropdete, to accorrynodete commente and to 8""**"f""$f'n"et':f*J*"*' R2lfe", "*4 *"' '*J3Cd.Tc' tofd* """* ** ** ""'*" "*'"'''"'
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulatians identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Dere are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.'
| |
| Technical PAtionale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of the potential environmental impacts of construction or refurbishment is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| . Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the materiel to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDUJLES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covend by ESRPs 4.1 through 4.6. The paragraph (s) should list se types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environment)1 impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.0 2 August 1997 1( _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - -
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O (,#, %) ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.1 LAND USEIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONS1BILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Project Branch Secondary-None 1, AREAS OF REVIEW nh environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the enviroismental impact statement (EIS) that describes the land use impacts of construction and refurbishment. He scope of the paragraph covered by this plan htroduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 4.1.1 through 4.1.3.
| |
| Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Thu itviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| _ 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 4.1 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| , USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN i Td'.* O ' m.4cN*$N.
| |
| N#
| |
| (~
| |
| s O,ie a a , ,, .nweMw".D
| |
| .A.Cv:2
| |
| , e"" " "1~ "a" *ik"nuc$.-
| |
| . wI[T.:e.wa"c'"** C
| |
| ;n"c.'.A,-i.r.a m y = g y,. ..w. - v... e.i....-.,-a. .
| |
| g=;,y pa,, i. egg-g,yc*ga,& t.~ u.a. =ew -v l
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| i Technical Ratinnale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of pctential land-use impacts is l discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 4.1.1 through 4.1.3. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation '
| |
| I to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION I
| |
| The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| I s l NunEG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE31555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O [,,,\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION o
| |
| 4.1.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES /
| |
| Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-- Engineering Structural and Geotechnical Branch 1.- AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs assessment of direct impacts of construction or refurbishment on land use of the site and vicinity.N The scope of the review directed by this plan includes analysis and evaluation of construction or refurbishment activities in surricient uetail to determine the significance of potential land-use impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process (e.g., consideration of attemative designs or practices that would mitigate adverse environmental impacts). The scope of the review directed by this plan should be
| |
| \ limited to consideration of potential land use impacts on the site and in the site vicinity, and will not include transmission line and access corridor impacts. These should be considered in ESRP 4.1.2.
| |
| Review Interfacts The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated: ,
| |
| . ESRPs 2.2.1. 2.3.1. 2.8. 3.1. and 4.2.2, Obtain input to aid the assessment of direct impacts of -
| |
| construction or refurbishment on land use of the site and vicinity.
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.3. Provide a list of construction impacts that could affect historic / archaeological sites.
| |
| (a) " Site" and " vicinity" are defined in ESRP 2.2.1.
| |
| August 1997 4.1.1-1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Ec.=c s vi.w g . g f., t .t.ff C, FEg.t gg.e.g, :r a z.y::en-:,~,s. *v- 4.gggth,ogo,f_Nucl
| |
| ,va.. :L'F.4*,:
| |
| . ~ i g = g g f i,. ~ , . a ..to . . . - . - to 8"".'"'.".",*om:f*'a.'.3,tm.7,*" Pm:#;;:#.ro' dmFJ"*""* ** ** ""'-' "**"*
| |
| | |
| (!
| |
| 3 ESRPn 4.3 and 4.4. Provide information on land-use impacts at the site and its vicinity that should be considered for potential ecological or socioeconomic impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 4.6. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff recommendations of practices to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction.
| |
| . . ESRP 6.5.1. Provide a list of any construction activities that should be part of the applicant's monitoring program.
| |
| * ESRP 61 Provide a discussion of any deficiencies in the site preparation and construction monitoring program that should be corrected by additional monitoring provisions.
| |
| * ESRPn 9.3 and 9.4. If the proposed land-use changes are determined to be adverse and should be avoided, inform the reviewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 so they may consider attemative plant designs or locations that would avoid the impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 10.L Provide a summary of the unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of changes in land use during construction.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments ofland-use resources that will occur during construction.
| |
| . ESRP 10.4. Provide a productivity assessment for such land, if the land co:nmitted for site construc-tion meets the statutory definition of prime or unique, with a relative value rating that places it within the top half ofland within the local governmentjurisdiction, or with a capability classification ofI or 11 (see the " Review Procedures" in this ESRP).
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the m.icipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * maps showing land use categories within the site boundary. Land-use categories should be consistent with those defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1997)(from ESRP 2.2.1).
| |
| a land areas (hectares) devoted to major uses within the site boundary (from ESRP 2.2.1)
| |
| . maps showing major land uses in the, site vicinity (from ESRP 2.2.1)
| |
| * land areas (hectares) devoted to major uses in the site vicinity (from ESRP 2.2.1)
| |
| = highways, railroads, and utility rights-of way that cross the site and vicinity (from ESRP 2.2.1)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.1-2 August 1997 O
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| * 1 special land uses, such as recreation, within the site and vicinity (fwm ESRP 2.2.1)
| |
| ~\ _
| |
| e E. ~ mineral rescurces adjacent to or within the~ site boundary presently being exploited or of known
| |
| " commercial value (from ESRP 2.2.1):
| |
| -
| |
| * Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal land use plans for the site and -
| |
| t vicinity (from ESRP 2.1)
| |
| . land use impacts of any related Federal action that may have cumulatively sisnificant impacts with - 4 the construction activities at the site and in the vicinity proposed by the applicant (from ESRP 2.8) !
| |
| e area and location ofland in the site and vicinity that will be disturbed by construction on either a long term or shon term basis (from ESRP 3.1) -
| |
| e construction activities to be located in floodplainM or wetlandsN (from ESRPs 2.3.1 and 4.2.2) e information from the U.S. Departinent of Agri/ulture's Natural Rasourvis Conservation Service (NRCS) on the relative value of the proposed site ifit involves farmland
| |
| ?
| |
| - in the case of a construction permit (CP), operating license (OL), early site permit, or combined license (COL) application withdrawal or termination request, a description of proposed site restoration and management actions. Some examples are recontouring or grading, r mment s landscaping, revegetation of disturbed areas, restoration of stream flows, estsblishmeta of recreational areas, and other specific actions (from the environmental report (ER) and on request from the applicant).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Accepu.nce criteria for the review of land-use impacts at the site of the nuclear power station and in its .
| |
| vicinity are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to analysis requirements to be ir.cluded in draft environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared byNRC
| |
| . - 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), with respect to discussion in EISs prepared by NRC of possible conflicts
| |
| , between alternatives and the objectives of applicable land-use plans
| |
| . guidance and regulianents for particular land types shown in Table 4.1.1 1.
| |
| - (a) 'Ihe term " floodplain" is defined at 10 CFR 72.3.
| |
| O b) The term " wetland" is defined in Executive Order 11990.
| |
| (August 1997 4.1.1-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| = - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| I Table 4.1.1-1. Federal Sources to be Consulted for Various Special Land Types Land Type Sources to be Consulted Coastal Zones 1. Co4stal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451 1464)
| |
| : 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulations impleraenting the Coastal Zone Management Act (15 CFR 923)
| |
| Farmland 1. Farmland Protection Policy Act(7 USC 4201)
| |
| : 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations implementing the Farmland Protection Policy Act(7 CFR 658)
| |
| : 3. Louncil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) memorandum on " Analysis of impacts on Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands in implementing the Nat!onal Environmental Policy Act"(45 FR 59189)
| |
| Floodplains 1. ExeIcutive Order 11988," Floodplain Management"(42 FR 26951)
| |
| : 2. U.S. Water Resources Council," Floodplain Management Guidelines" (40 FR 6030)
| |
| Wetlands 1.
| |
| Executive Order 11990," Protection of Wetlands"(42 FR 26961) a$ amended by Executive Order 12608 (52 FR 34617)
| |
| Wild and Scenic 1. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271 1287)
| |
| Rivers 1. CEQ memorandum on "Pmeedures for Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory"(45 FR 59191 59192)
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 4.7 with respect to land use considerations rendering a proposed site unsuitable for a nuclear power station.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of potential land use impacts to the site and vicinity is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| The NRC's regulations implemeting NEPA provide that NRC EISs are to include a section discuss-ing the environmental consequesives of alternatives (10 CFR 51, Appendix A[7]). The section is to include a discussion of"possible conflicts between the alternatives and the objectives of Federal, State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Native American tribal) land-use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned." In addition, the regulations provide that due consid-eration is to be given in an EIS to compliance with applicable zoning and land use regulations
| |
| [10 CFR S t.71(d)].
| |
| :lUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| .~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _. . _ . - _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
| |
| i l
| |
| i
| |
| . Guidance on (1) what constitutes a land use plan or policy, and (2) how an agency should handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives ofland-use plans are addressed by the CEQ .
| |
| in Question 23 of" Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy ,
| |
| Act Regulations"(CEQ 1981). With regard to what constitutes a land use plan or policy, CEQ states j on page 19033 that 4 .i
| |
| ~
| |
| the term "lanJ use plans" includes all types of formally adopted documents for land use !
| |
| pla unns, moning, and related regulatory requirements. Local general plans are included, even though they are subject to future change. Proposed plans should also be addres.ed if
| |
| . they have been formally proposed by the appropriate government body in a written (wm, and - ,
| |
| are being actively pursued by ofHeials of the jurisdiction. Staged plans, which must go through phases of development ... sould also be included even though they are incomplete. ;
| |
| . With negard to how an ar,ency should handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the -
| |
| objectives ofland use plans, CEQ states on page 18033 that -
| |
| : the agency should first inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential ,
| |
| conflicts. If thors would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could arise in the future ;
| |
| when the plans are finished ... the ?!S must acl nowledge and describe the extent of ,
| |
| those conflicts, if there are any possibilities of resolving 'he confilets, these should be explained as well.- ne EIS should also evaluate the seriousness of the impact of the proposal on the land use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the proposal will '
| |
| impair the effectiveness ofland use control mechanisms for the area. Comments from ofHcials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and answered in the EIS.
| |
| Guidance in NRC's Reguistory Guide 4.7 provides procedures for evaluating land use impacts where
| |
| . there are either no conflicts between the applicant's proposed facility and the objectives of i
| |
| Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of proposed location on a reservation,
| |
| - Native Amen,an tribal) land use plans and the Federal sources shown in Table 4.1.1 1 (plus comparable State sources), or
| |
| . - if there are or are likely to be conflicts, the exte at of the conflicts, the possibilities of resolving the conflicts, and the seriousness of the impact of the applicant's pioposal on land.
| |
| use plans and policies and the effectiveness ofland use control mechanisms for the area can
| |
| ,,. be adequately ovaluated and discussed in the EIS or oaer environmental document.
| |
| - 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES ir Because limited portions ofland use impa' cts are covered in ESRP 4.1.3," Historic / Archaeological Sites"; ESRP 4.3.1,"Tenestrial Ecosystems"; and ESRP 4.4," Socioeconomic impacts"; this ESRP will-August 1997? 4.1.15 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)-
| |
| L ,
| |
| _ e - _ _ -
| |
| 4.- ..l. ~ , . 0 , ., .,..,.,.,,.,_4. G ,. , ..ym _E - n ,.m., M ., m 4. m.i .,. .~mAm-%,.._m.,,,- . . - , +--.m,,-c -, e
| |
| | |
| I be limited to those direct physical changes and restrictions on land use at the site and vicinity due to plant construction. For each of these, the impact analysis should include consideration of the potential changes in land use as a result of the siting decision and the direct physical impacts on the site and v,einity as a result of construction activities.
| |
| The reviewer should direct the analysis toward conclusions with respect to the following:
| |
| e long term restrictions ofland use resulting from the licensing action and long term physical changes in land use of the site and vicinity l
| |
| . short term physical change in land use of the site and vicinity and the applicant's plans for mitigation of adverse impacts e construction impacts or the geologic environment.
| |
| Procedures to guide the process for each of these areas of concern are addressed as follows:
| |
| (1) Eyaluatine t nne Term Restrictions of find Use Resultino from the Licentine Actinn and Inna.
| |
| Term Physical Chansen in f 2nd T'-e of the Site and Vicinity:
| |
| (a) Identify changes in land use . . will occur as a consequence of the licensing action.
| |
| Consider land use change in the context of the amount and qualhy ofland affected after l 1
| |
| proposed measures, if any, have been implemented.
| |
| + Review restrictions on the use of farm land, recreational areas, housing areas, and other similar areas.
| |
| . Consider any restrictions or modifications oflands classified as floodplain, wetlands, or coastal zone.
| |
| (b) If appropriate, analyze the degree of change and its acceptability by comparing specific cases with existing standards, guides, regulations, or legislation; or to Federal, State, regional, local and affected Native American tribal land use plans and zoning ordinances, consulting with these sources and ensuring contasti.."cy with them where required or desirsble.
| |
| * Refer to the Federal sources listed in Table 4.1.1 1 (and comparable State sources applicable to the applicant's proposed site) for particular types ofland. ,
| |
| e if there are no relevant standards, guides, regulations, legislation, or land use plans, analyre the severity of the impact without these aids.
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.16 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (c) Analyas the restriction on the use ofland such as farmland or forests in the context of the
| |
| -( amount and quality of the land in the vicinity of the plant.
| |
| * Removal ofless than 2% of such land, or up to 500 hectares, generally has minor effects, particularly if the land la not unique or otherwise distinguisind.
| |
| * When larger ind areas are to be committed for u proposed nuclear station (e.g., greater than 500 hectarm) or if the revieww for ESRP 2.2.1 indicates that the proposed land areas are uniqu or otherwise distinguished, furthw analysis is needed to determine the quality of the land.
| |
| j 1has are three indica ofland quality that may be used for guidance. The first is the !
| |
| definitions of prime and unique fannland in the Farmland Protection Policy Act on 1981. !
| |
| The second is the land relative value reting prepared by the NRCS. The third and oldest ,
| |
| index is the land capability classir, cation system first published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Klingebiel and Montgomwy 1961). The indices are further defined as follows: l 1
| |
| Prime and Unique Farmland. The terms " prime farmland" and " unique farmland" are I defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. Prime faimland is defined to be j i
| |
| land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for i producing food, fwd, fiber, forage, oilseed, and othw agricultural crops with l minimum inputs of fuel, futil!ar, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil !
| |
| wosion, as detamined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Prime farmland includes land that possesses the above charactwistics but is being used currently to produce livestock and timber, it does not include land already in or committed to urban developmmit or watw storage. ,
| |
| Unique farmland is defined in the Act to be land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high. ,
| |
| value food and fiber crops, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, it has the speclat combinailon of soli quality, location, growing season, and ,
| |
| moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yleIds of specific crops when treated and managed according to .
| |
| acceptable farming methods. Example of such crops include citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranbwries, fruits, and vegetables.
| |
| Relative Value Rating. The NRCS will compute a relative value rating for a tract ofland upon request from a Federal agency. Procedures are described at 7 CFR 658.4(a,b) and
| |
| - 658.5(a). The reting is based on a variety of data, including soll potertial, proJuctivity i t
| |
| i August 1997_- 4.1.17 ' NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| I - - . - - . - . . . - - . - ~ . - - . - . . . . _ . . . . - . . . . . . . _ - . - - . - .-~.- l
| |
| | |
| l ratings, and land capability classifications (see below). The reviewer of ESRP 4.1.1 should normally request that NRCS prepare a relative value rating for a proposed site i involving farmland.
| |
| . Land Capability Classification. This classification places land in one of eight categories ;
| |
| based on soil characteristics (Klingeblel ed Montgomery 1961). The eight classifica-tions are listed in Table 4.1.1 2. Land in espability Classes I and il is usually the most productive and, therefore, should be subject to the most detailed analysis when it is to be committed. Commitment of land in Classes 111 through Vill is less important.
| |
| Table 4.1.12. Land Capability Classes Land l Capability Class Description
| |
| : 1. Soils have few limitations that restrict their use.
| |
| : 11. Soils have some limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices.
| |
| 111. Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation practices, or both.
| |
| IV. Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both.
| |
| V. Soils have littic or no erosion hazards but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use largely to intensive pasture or range, woodland, or wildllfe food or cover. Limitations can include wet soll, stones, or shallow bedrock.
| |
| VI. Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife food or cover.
| |
| VII. Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and limit their use largely to grazing, woodland, or wildlife.
| |
| Vill. Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude thel.r use for commercial plant production and restrict their ut.e to recreation, wildlife, water supply, or to aesthetic purposes.
| |
| (d) If the land at the p:oposed site (1) meets the statutory definition of prime or unique,(2) has a relative value rating placing it within the top halfin terms of agricultural production in the local government jurisdiction, or (3) has a land capability classification of f or II, assess the productivity of the land to provide input to the benefit cost balance in ESRP 10.4.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.1 8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| n l I
| |
| T
| |
| * Consider a State's published docunwnts on agricultural statistics, including crop and animal production statistics and land areas by county.
| |
| l e Consuk with State and local agricultural, soil conservation, and cooperative extension agencies to complete this assessment.- ;
| |
| (2) h8v=!= the N Tarm phv a t .i cu- la i u una l Plans for Mitigatlan of Advarne impacts: l (a) Consider mitigation measures for adverse impacts. Matters to be assessed include earth leveling,
| |
| ~ revegetation, landscaping, cleanup and disposal of debris, erosion control structures, landi r management pieuces, stabilization of spoil piles, and stabilization of dikes on cooling lakes. ;
| |
| l(b) Consider staff practices for applications to withdraw or terminate a license or license application
| |
| - after site work has been cW4 it has been staff practice to follow the site redress proco-dures and practices used in the withdrawal applications for CP extension and for OLs submitted -
| |
| by Consumers Power Co. to NRC for its Midland Plant, Units I and 2 (Atomic Sefety and .
| |
| Licensing Board 1986). These procedures included (1) preparation of and compliance with a site !
| |
| ~ stabilization plan by the applicant,(2) an inspection and evaluation report prepamd by NRC after ;
| |
| the applicant's completion of site stabilization activities, and (3) preparation of an environmental .
| |
| assessment by NRC based on the inspection report.
| |
| (3) Aa Iv=la= the c===:6 I==* nn the naala=le Envk=="'
| |
| (a) Consuh with the staff safety evaluation reviewers for geology (ESRP 2.6) for an evaluation of
| |
| . the impact of station construction on the geologic environment and for appropriate licensing conditions.
| |
| (b) Determine wisether construction of the plant would prevent the exploitation at the prorsed site or in the vicinity of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, coal, oil, natural gas, or ores) of .
| |
| - commercial value.
| |
| i
| |
| - (c) Determine if any such mineral extraction is currently in mocess or is planned, and the extent to which plant construction will affect such operations.
| |
| (d) Consult with the staffs safety evaluation reviewers for geology foc assistance in this review and - !
| |
| for an analysis of any other impacts of plant construct lon on the geologic environment.
| |
| IV. EVALUXnON FINDINGS Evaluation of each identified impact resultiin one of the following three possible determinations, which
| |
| 'should be' addressed as indicated:
| |
| l August 1997 4.1.1-9 . NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) b
| |
| .._o!._,,,, ._..~,,_,-% ....u,. ..e,., ,, . -s, _ ,..,m.m.. , _ . . . ~,.m.,.,--,..,_., _ , , , _ , . , . , . - , m. . . . - , , , . '
| |
| | |
| * & impact h minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement in the environmental impact statement of the following type:
| |
| De staff has reviewed the available information on the land use impacts c,f construction and refurbishment. Based on tl is review, tne staff concludes lat there are no significant environmental impacts.
| |
| * ne impact is adverse but can be mitigated by spec @c design orprocedure mod $ cations tha, the reviewer has ident@ed and determined to bepractical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager (epm) and the reviewers for ESRP 9.4 for veri 0 cation that the reviewer's conclusions are prac ical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance.
| |
| De reviewer should prepare a list c f verified modifications and potential measures and controls to lirnit the corresponding impact. nt se lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.
| |
| * ne impact is adverse, cannot be suct essfully mitigated, andis ofsuch magnitude that it should be avolded. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform tne reviewers for ESRP 9.4 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is required. De reviewer should participate in any such analysis and evaluation of attemstiver that would avoid the impact and that could be considered pra:tical. If no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer should provide this information to tM re viewer for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| De following general criteria should apply to the various license tnd permit applications:
| |
| * If a redress plan has not been approved in advance, in the case of a CP, OL, early site permit, or COL application withdraw or termine. tion request, the applicant should provide a plan for site redress and the mitigation of adverse impsets. De reviewer should assess this plan with the objective of determining either that it is adequate as proposed or that chsnges will be needed. The technical feasib!!ity and the benefit. cost of any recommended changes should also be considered. Costly actions that would yield only minor enviromnental benefits should not be recommended.
| |
| * If the amount ofland to be committed is on the order of 500 hectares or less and does not invoive land that (1) meets the statutory definition of prime or unique,(2) has a relative value rating placing it within the top halfin terms of agricultural production in the local government jurisdiction, or (3) has a land capability classification ofl or 11, or has special resources that will be affected, it may be concluded that the expected impacts of construction on land use are not of major significance and there are no land use changes that would influence the decision on a constmetion permit.
| |
| * If the amount ofland to be committed is on the order of 500 to 5000 hectares and does not involve land that (1) meets the statutory definition of prime or unique, (2) has a relative value rating placing it within the top halfin terms of agricultural production in the local government jurisdiction, or (3) has a land capability classification ofI or 11, it may be concluded that the expected land use changes could be adverse, and alternative means to mitigate the impact should be considered. De reviewer should ensure that potential means to mitigate the impact have been considered, that any NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.1 10 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| (nv) recommended means have been verified by the project manager and the reviewers for ESRP 93, and that the verified recommer.dations have been provided to the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.
| |
| * If the amount ofland to be committed is in excess of 5000 hectares, or if the land (1) meets the statutory definition of prime or uniq r,(2) has a relative value rating placing it within the top halfin terms of agricultural production in the local govemment jurisdiction, or (3) has a land capability classification ofI or 11, it may be concluded that the expected land use changes are sufficiently adverse to require mitigation or the consideration of alternatives to avoid the impact, if this con-clusion is reached, the reviewer should ensure that potential means to mitigate the impact have been consideied, that any recommended means have been verified by the EPM and the reviewers for ESRP 9.3 and that the verified recommendations have been provided to the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.
| |
| If mitigation is not practical, the reviewer should supply detailed supporting information to the reviewers of ESRP 9.4, and assist them in determining if appropriate alternatives to avoid the impact can be identitled. When no alternatives that could be imposed as conditions to the construction permit can be identified, a detailed summary of the land use changes and their impacts should be provided to the reviewer of ESRP 10.1.
| |
| The review performed under this ESRP should document the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of major direct land use consequences of the proposed construction project or refurbishment activity; (2) presentation of the basis of staff analysis of the project; and (3) presentation of stafTconclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding land use.
| |
| O I Public disclosures may be accomplished by presenting a brief description of the proposed construction or iefurbishment activities within the site and vicinity and a discussion of the land use changes resulting from these activities. This section should be understandable to a nontechnical reader. Extensive descriptive material may be incorporated by reference and need not be duplicated in the EIS.
| |
| The staffs analysis may be presented in a narrative summary by highlighting important aspects of the impacts resulting from potential land-use changes. The discussion should include identification of important effects and mitigating actions. Minor issues should receive minor treatment. Important or disputed issues should be discussed in detail.
| |
| The safety evaluation reviewers for geclogy should provide any necessary input to the EIS with regard to the impact of construction on the geologic environment.
| |
| [, )
| |
| \
| |
| August 1997 4.1.1 11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| VI. REFEIENCES 7 CFR 658,"U.S. Department of Agriculture Regulations implementing the Farmland Protection Policy Act."
| |
| 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7)," Environmental Cc, sequences and Mitigating Actions."
| |
| 10 CFR $1.71,"Dran environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| 10 CFR 72.3, ' Definitions."
| |
| 15 CFR 923 " National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Regulations implementing the Coastal Zone Management Act."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev.1. I975. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard.1986. "In the Matter of Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)," 24 NRC 834.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 1464.
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) memorandum on " Analysis ofImpacts on Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act," 45 Federal Register $9189 (1980).
| |
| Cotmcil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) memorandum on " Procedures for Interagency Consultation to Avold or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory," 45 Federal Register 59191
| |
| $9192 (1980).
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).1981. " Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act liegulations," 46 Federal Register 18026-18037 (1981).
| |
| Executive Order 11988," Floodplain Management," 42 Federal Register (1977).
| |
| Executive Order i 1990," Protection of Wetlands," 42 Federal Register 26951 (1977), as amended by Executive, Order 12608,52 Federal Register 34617 (1987).
| |
| Farmland Protection Policy Act, as amended,7 USC 4201 et seq.
| |
| Klingeblel, A. A., and P.11. Montgomery.1961. Land Capability Class (fication, U.S. Department of Agriculture llandbook 210, Washington, D.C.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.1 12 August 1997-
| |
| | |
| . . .. ..- . - - . .. ~.-. . . - . . - - _ . . - -_ - . _ . . _ _-. .
| |
| -i m i U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).1997. "USGS Land Um and Land Covw Deta," USGS Swvey Earth l Renowces Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
| |
| U.S. Watw Renowces Council. " Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O.11988," ;
| |
| 40 FederalRegister 6030(l978). ;
| |
| i
| |
| -Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,16 USC 1271 et seq.
| |
| t t
| |
| i a
| |
| b 4
| |
| i I
| |
| D
| |
| - August 1997. 4.1.113: NUREO 1555 (DRAIT)
| |
| - - +
| |
| . - . - . . - .n,.- ,. , ,, .n,>, - - - . . . - ,., , - . . ..-.~,---n --.---.-.n,- .- , , , , , . . , - - , - - - . . , ~ , , - .~.-,----...n, --
| |
| . e,,~,
| |
| | |
| . - . - ._ . ._. . . - ~ .
| |
| NURE21555 1
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl8810N O /^\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| / REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.1.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFFSITE AREAS REVIEW RESPONSIBILmES Primary-Program Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-Engineering Structural and Geotechnical Branch I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs assessment of direct impacts of construction on land use within the transmission line and access corridors and other offsite areas. He scope of the review directed by this plan should include analysis and evaluation of construction activities in sufficient detail to determine the significance of potential land.mc impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. All corridors, including those within the site t and vicinity, and all offsite areas should be considered. Where necessary, the reviewer should l \ recommend consideration of alternative routing, location, or construction practices that would mitigate adverse environmental impacts, j Review Interfaces De reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 2.2.2. 2.3. 2.4.1. 2.6. 2.8. and 4.2.2. Obtain information to aid the assessment of construction impacts on land use within the transmission line and access corridors and other offsite areu.
| |
| l
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.3. Provide a list of consWction impacts that could affect historic / archeological sit s.
| |
| . Section ESRP 4.3.1. Provide a list of construction impacts that could affect terrestrial ecosystems.
| |
| August 1997 4.1.21 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ~
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN L . ,s ot f..,2'"*Ad."*,.ff *,f.'.t*,,,.".f."unt.'RM"g' i
| |
| ""**""'"'d.,'4*"Co't?",2*.%L*".:f4".'#, s "g* WAP,"1.n&. -. cci
| |
| ~
| |
| d '* '
| |
| t*
| |
| l (J s
| |
| gl'*=",,3'O,' *4'#J,.$"""",h,. ."o*.oo g , g,, g , _ " "" 2 h '" . 6 i ,- *.o ois g = w 3 g. j,4,. .n .. .s,... .,*i... .. . .
| |
| d 8"""*"" "AF.v idaitL""'*"' *''N.CT'c At'st* """* ** "' ***'"'
| |
| | |
| e Section ESRP 4.3.2. Provide a list of construction impacts that could affect aquatic ecosystems, e Section ESRP 4.4.1. Provide a list of construction impacts (e.g., noise, dust) having socioeconomic consequences that are physical in nature.
| |
| * ESRP 4.4.2. Provide information on land-use impacts within the transmission line and access corridors and other offsite areas that should be considered for potential social and economic impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 4.6. Provide a 1:st of ape nt commitments and practices to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction.
| |
| . ESRP 5.1.2. Provide a summa t ofland use impacts of construction.
| |
| * ESRP 611. Provide a list of any construction activities that should be part of the applicant's monitoring program.
| |
| . ESRP 6.7. Provide a discussion of any deficiencies in the construction monitoring program that should be corrected by additional monitoring provisions.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4.3. If the proposed land-use changes are determined to be adverse and should be avoided, the reviewer for ESRP 9.4.3 should consider alternative transmission corridors and/or offsite areas that would avoid the impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide the unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of changes in land use during construction.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a brief summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments ofland use resources that will occur during construction.
| |
| . Interface with Environmental Project Manager. Consult with the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) to verify any proposed modifications to transmission corridors and offsite areas are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed wi!! be affected by site- and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anti;ipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * proposed routes for corridort, including access roads, that will be used for construction of transmission lines from the station site to an interconnecting point or points on the existing high-voltage transmission systems (from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| NUREO IS$5 (URAFT) 4.1.22 August 1997
| |
| | |
| f^\ + proposed routes of access corridors (e.g., roads and raib onds) to serve the proposed project (from
| |
| [
| |
| ESRP 2.2.2) e land use restrictions, if any, contained in any casements (from ESRP 2.2.2) e corridor lengths, widths, and areas (from ESRP 2.2.2) e land use within the corridors using U.S. Geologics.1 Survey categories (USGS 1997). Dese Iptions should be provided in terms of corridor segments having predominantly similar land use types (frore ESRP 2.2.2).
| |
| . if specific corridors have not been established and only bands are given, a description of the land use within the band using USGS categories (USGS 1997). Descriptions should be provided in terms of corridor segments having predominantly similar land use types (from ESRP 2.2.2).
| |
| . identification of offsite areas by land use, size, and location (from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| * Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal land-use plans (from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| * highways, railroads,2nd utility rights-of way that will be crossed by transmission lines and access corridors (from the environmental report (ER) and site visit)
| |
| . a description of construction techniques and the associated impact on land use (from the ER)
| |
| . the area and location of land within the corridors and offsite areas that will be disturbed by construction on either a long term or short term basis (from the ER) ,
| |
| e planned control actions during construction that will restrict land use in the corridors and offsite areas (from the ER) e land use impacts of any related Federal action which ma y have cumulatively significant impacts with the applicant's proposed activities in the corridors and o.Tsite areas (from ESRP 2.8) e in the case of a construction permit (CP), operating lice isc (OL), early site permit, or combined license (COL) application withdrawal or termination re tuest, a description of proposed restoration and management actions within tae conidors and offsite areas should be addressed in the redress plan. Some examples are recontouring or grading, permanent landscaping, revegetation of disturbed nicas, and establishment of recreational areas (from the ER and on request from the applicant).
| |
| i" '\
| |
| )
| |
| August 1997 4.1.23 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| i i
| |
| !!, ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review ofland-use impacts at the site of transmission corridors and offsite areas are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to analysis requirements to be included in draft environmental impr.ct statements (EISs) prepared by NRC 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), with respect to discussion in EISs prepared by NRC of possible connicts between alternatives and the objectives of applicable land use plans
| |
| . riuldance and requirements for particular land types shown in Table 4.1.21, Regulatory positions and specine criteria necessary to meet the regulations identined above are provided in
| |
| . There are no conflicts between de applicar.t's proposed transmission corridors and offsite areas and the objectives of Federal, State, regional, and local (and in the case of proposed location on a reservation, Native American tribe) land use plans and the Federal sources shown in Table 4.1.2-1 (plus comparable State tources).
| |
| . If there are or are likely to be conflicts, the extent of the conflicts, the possibilities of resolving the conflicts, and the seriousness of the impact of the applicant's proposal on land use plans and policies and the effectiveness ofland-use control mechanisms for the area can be adequately evaluated and discussed in the EIS or other environmental document.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential impacts to the transmission corridors and offsite areas is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| NRC's regulations implementing NEPA provide that NRC Fiss are to include a section discussing the environmental consequences of alternatives (10 CFR 51, Appendix A[7]). The section is to '
| |
| include a discussion of"possible conflicts between the alternatives and the objectives of Federal, State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Native American tribe) land-use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned." In addition, the regulations provide that due consideration is to be given in an EIS ta compliance with applicable zoning and land-use regulations (10 CFR S t.71[d!).
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFr) 4.1.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| A Table 4.1.21. Federal Sources to be Consulted for Various Special Land Types Land Type Sources to to Consulted I Coastal Zones 1. Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451 1464)
| |
| : 2. NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulations implementing the Coastal Zone Management Act (15 CFR 923)
| |
| Farmland I. Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC 4201)
| |
| : 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations implementing the Farneland Protection Polley Act (7 CFR 658)
| |
| : 3. CEQ memorandum on " Analysis ofimpacts on Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act"(45 FR 59189)
| |
| Floodplains* 1. Executive Order 11988," Floodplain Management"(42 FR 269$1)
| |
| : 2. U.S. Water Resources Ccuncil," Floodplain Management Guidelines" (40 FR 6030)
| |
| WetlandsN 1. Executive Order 11990," Protection of Wetlands"(42 FR 26961) as amended by Executive Order 12608 ($2 FR 34617)
| |
| Wild and Scenic Rivers 1. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act(16 USC 1271 1287)
| |
| : 2. CEQ memorandum on " Procedures for Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory"(45 FR 5919159192)
| |
| V (a) De term " floodplain" is defined in 10 CFR 72.3.
| |
| (b) The term " wetland"is defined in Executive Order 11990.
| |
| Guidance on (1) what constitutes a land use plan or policy and (2) how an agency should handle potential conflicts between a proposr1 and the objectives ofland use plans are addressed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)in Question 23 of" Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations"(CEQ 1981). With regard to what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, CEQ states on page 18033 that the term " land use plans" includes all types of formally adopted documents for land uso planning, zoning, and related regulatory reqbirements. Local general plans are included, even though they are subject to future change. Proposed plans should also be addressed if they have been formally proposed by the appropriate government body in a written form, and are being actively pursued by officists of the jurisdiction Staged pir.ns, whict. must go through phases of development ... should also be included even though they are incomplete.
| |
| I
| |
| \
| |
| August 1997 4.1.25 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l I
| |
| With regard to how an agency should handle potential con 0icts between a proposal and the l object!ves ofiand use plans, CEQ states on page 18033 that the agency should first inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential conalets, if there would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could arise in the future when the plans ai. finished ... the EIS must ackr.cwledge and describe the extent of those conflicts. if there are any possibilities of resolvirm the conflicts, these should be explained as well. The EIS should also evaluate the seriousness of the impact of the proposal on the land use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the prc,posal will impair the effectiveness ofland use control mechanisms for the area. Comments from officials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and answered in the EIS.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES Limited portions ofland use impacts are covered in ESRPs 4.1.3,4.3.1, and 4.4; therefore, this section will be limited to direct physical changes and restriction on land use in the corridors and offsite areas due to construction. For each of these, the impact analysis should include consideration of the direct physical land use impacts that occur in the corridors and offsite areas due to construction activities.
| |
| He reviewer should direct the analysis toward conclusions with respect to the following:
| |
| * long-term physical changes in land use of the corridors and offsite areas e short term changes in !and use of the corridors and offsite areas and the applicant's plans for mitigation of adverse impacts
| |
| . :onstmetion impacts on the geologic environment.
| |
| Procedures to guide the process for each of these areas of concern are addressed as follows:
| |
| (1) Esalua'8ng Lonn Term Physleal Channes in I.and Use of the Corridors and Offsite A tgA1:
| |
| (a) Consider land use changes in the context of the amount and quality ofland affected aller mitigating measures, if any, have been implemented.
| |
| * Review restrictions imposed by the presence of transmission lines on use of farm land, recreational areas, housing areas, and other similar areas.
| |
| (b) If appropriate, analyze the degree of change and its acceptability by comparing specific cases with existing standards, guides, regulations, or legislation or to Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal land-use plans and zoning ordinances, consultbg with these sources and ensuring consistency with them where required or desirable.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAIT) 4.1.26 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| [
| |
| * E Refer to the Federal sources listed in Table 4.1.2 1 (and comparable State souses applicable to the applicant's proposed transmission line corridors and offsite areas) for particular types l
| |
| - ofland.
| |
| t e if there are no relevant standards, guides, replations, legislation, or land use plans, analyze the seywity of the impact without them, j (c) Analyse the restrictions on use ofland such as farm land or forests in the context of the amount >
| |
| and quality of the land genwally available in the re; ion as compared with that chenyd due to the
| |
| : corridors and offsite areas, recognizing that the use of some of the land of the corridors may not be changed from its' current use:
| |
| * modification of use for the amount ofland usually used for transmission corridors and offsite .
| |
| areas genwally has minor e& cts, if the land is not unique or otherwise distinguished.
| |
| (d) If the land to be changed due to the corridors and offsite areas (1) meets the statutory definition of prime or unique, or (2) has a relative value rating placing it within the top half in terms of agricultural production in the local government j'irlsdiction, or (3) has a land capability classification of I or !!, (see " Land Capability Classifications" under " Review Procedures" in ESRP 4.1.1), assess the productivity of the land to determine the need for mitigation or avoidence of any predicted impact.
| |
| ) (2) Analvela= tha Elmet-Term r'l-- In I ==A Una of tb CorrIAars and Ofhina Areas ==A the Ann!!c==e's Plans for Mitle= elan of Adverne l=naeta-(a) Consider mitigation measures for adverse impacts. Matters to be reviewed include revegetation, ,
| |
| = landscaping, cleanup and disposal of debris, erosion control, land management practices, and use ;
| |
| . of chemicals.
| |
| L (b) Consider staff practices for applications to withdraw or terminate a license or liwnse application I afser siie work has been conducted it has been staff practice to follow the site redress procedures and practices used in the withdrawal applications for CP extension and for OLs submitted by Consumers Power Co. to NRC for its Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Atomic Safety i- . and Licensing Board 1986), These procedures include (1) preparation of and compliance with a l'
| |
| : j. - site stabilization plan by the applicant,(2) an inspection and evaluation report prepared by NRC I; after the applicant's completion of site stabilization activhies, and (3) preparation of an - ,
| |
| ' environmental assessment by NRC based on the inspection report.
| |
| (3) Analyzing the Construction impacts on the Geologic Environment: {
| |
| (a) Consult with the safety evaluation reviewers for geology for an analysis of the potential impacts . .
| |
| L of ceiikior and offsite area construction on the geologic environment. l LAugust 1997.' 4.1.27 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) t g
| |
| e r-,,, eu-,-+-- ,,.w-, .- m.-e. , , , . - , ,,y ,-- ,, .--_. .-~ . , w# . , , - -
| |
| 4m.- ,w4,... . _ . ..,... - . ..-,.mr ...n
| |
| | |
| 'Ihe following general criteria should apply to the various license and permit applications:
| |
| * If a redress plan has not been approved in advance, in the case of a CP, OL, early site pennit, or COL application withdrawal or termination request, the applicant should provide a plan for redress and the mitigation of adverse impacts. The reviewer should assess this plan with the objective of determining either that it is adequate as proposed or that changes will be needed. Technical feasibility and the benefit cost of any identined changes should also be considered. Costly actions that would yield only minor environmental benefits should be avoided. 1
| |
| * If construction of the corridors or offsite areas will cause only small changes in the land use of publicly dedicated areas; urban development; land meeting the statutory definition of prime or unique, having a relative value rating placing it within the top halfin terms of ;
| |
| agricultural production in the local governtver,t jurisdiction, or having a land capability !
| |
| classification of f or II,(see Section ill of F5RP 4.1.1); or other specially significant land ;
| |
| uses, it may be concluded that the expected impacts on land use are not of major signincance )
| |
| and tha' there are no land use considerations that would influence the decision on issuance of I a construction permit. l I
| |
| . If certain s . wents (each on the order of 2 km or less) of the corridors are proposed to pass )
| |
| through puonely dedicated areas, urban development, land meeting the statutory definition of prime or unique, having a relative value rating placing it within the top halfin terms of agricultural production in the local government jurisdiction, or having a land capability J classification ofI or 11 (see " Review Procedures" in ESRP 4.1.1); or other specially ]
| |
| significant areas, but the remainder of the corridor meets the specifications in the paragraph I above, it may be concluded that these segments could have impacts that would suggest either actions to mitigate the impact or segment realignment to avoid the impact. If either of these conclusions is reached, the reviewer should prepare a full description of the problem areas !
| |
| and mitigating actions or alternative alignments that should be considered.
| |
| * If construction of a corridor as proposed would (1) require realignment (as in the paragraph above) in numerous locations (on the order of 5 or more),(2) traverse more than several kilometers of dedicated public lands or housing areas, or (3) cause more than a small change to land meeting the statutory definition of prime or unique, having a relative value rating placing it within the top half in terms of agricultural production in the local government jurisdiction, or having a land capability classification of I or II (see " Review Procedures" in ESRP 4.1.1); the expected impacts of construction of this corridor warrants consideration of an alternative corridor to avoid the impacts. This finding should be reported together with supporting technical information concerning the selection of alternative ro tes.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.28 August 1997 I
| |
| | |
| ( IV, EVALUATION I'INDINGS V
| |
| Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following three possible determinations:
| |
| * The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the f eviewer should include a statement in the environmental impact statement of the following type:
| |
| He staff has reviewed the available information on the land use impacts on transmission corridors and offsite areas from construction and refurbishment activities. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts.
| |
| 4
| |
| * The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by specific design orprocedure mod @ cations that the reviewer has identified and determined to bepractical. For these cases, the reviewer ihould consuk with the EPM and the reviewer for ESRP 9.4.3 for verification that the reviewer's identified modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance. De re viewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. Rese lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be avolded. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewer for ESRP 9.4.3 that an enalysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is required. The
| |
| /' reviewer should participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the
| |
| {]) impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternativa can be identified, the reviewer should provide this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| He review performed under this ESRP should also achieve the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of major direct land-use consequences of the proposed construction project,(2) presentation of the basis of stafranalysis of the project, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions and conditions regarding land use.
| |
| Public disclosures may be accomplished by presenting a brief description of the proposed construction activities within transmission lines and access corridors and other offsite areas and a discussion of the land use changes resulting from these activities. His section should be understandable to a nontechnical reader. Extensive descriptive material may be incorporated by reference and need not be duplicated in the EIS.
| |
| He staffs analysis may be presented in a narrative summary by highlighting haportant aspects of the impacts resulting from potential land use changes. He discussion should include identification of important effects and mitigating actions. He relative importance ofimpacts is conveyed to the reader through the degree of emphasis chosen. Minor issues should receive minor treatment. Important or disputed issues should be disussed in detail.
| |
| August 1997 4.1.29 NUREG 1$$$ (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| The safety ev.luation reviewer for geology should provide any necessary input to the EIS with regard to the impact of construction on the geologic envi,anment.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant pror .e 3s an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 7 CFR 658,"U.S. Department of Agriculture Regulations implementing the Farmland Protection Policy Act."
| |
| 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory functions."
| |
| 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, item 7. " Environmental consequences and mitigating actions."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71, " Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| 10 CFR 72.3,'' Definitions."
| |
| 15 CFR 923 " National Oceanic and Atinospheric Administration Regulations implementing the Coastal Zone Management Act."
| |
| Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.1986. "In the Matter of Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2)," 24 NRC 834.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) memorandum on " Analysis ofimpacts on Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands in implememing the National Environ nental Policy Act," 45 Federal Regist r 59189 (1980).
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) memorandum on " Procedures for Interagt.ncy Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory," 45 Federal Register 59191-59192 (1980).
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).1981. " Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations," 46 Federal Register 1802618037.
| |
| Executive Order 11988," Floodplain Management" 42 Federal Register 26951.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.2-10 August 1997 O
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| t u
| |
| j h
| |
| O Executive Order 11990, " Protection of Wetlands" 42 Federal Register 26961.
| |
| Farmland Protection Policy Act, m amended,7 USC 4201 et seq. ;
| |
| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. "USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data," USGS Survey Earth Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
| |
| i U.S. Water Resnurces Council. " Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O.11988," ,
| |
| 40 FederalRe . ster 6030 (l978). '
| |
| Wild en .ic Rivers Act,16 USC 1271 et seq.
| |
| 9 I
| |
| v P
| |
| 1 h
| |
| i
| |
| : i. ,
| |
| ~ August 1997 ' 4.1.2-11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NUREG.1555 1
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O ,[,' i ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| %,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
| |
| )
| |
| 4.1.3 HISTORIC PROPERTIES REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW Dis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staf1's assessment of potential impacts of proposed project construction activities on historic properties in the site and vicinity, along transmission corridors, and offsite areas.111storic properties include districts, sites, buildings, structures, er objects of historical, archaeological, architectural, or tradit;onal cultural significance (U.S. Department of the Interior 1990 a, b).
| |
| l ( De scope of the review directed by this plan should include consideration of the impact of construction I
| |
| activities on historic properties and the adequacy of proposed methods to mitigate any adverse impacts on these resources.
| |
| i l ne review should be of sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to predict and assess potential impacts and to determine how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the
| |
| ! reviewer should consider alternative locations, designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate predicted adverse impacts.
| |
| l Review Interfaces l
| |
| l The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the l following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| l l
| |
| * ESRP 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. and 3.7. Receive location and proposed site description.
| |
| l August 1997 4.1.31 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN M ::mmew&aputof med."ev E 4 T.
| |
| O Ew cs . ; ;a.s.~,; M . = . m B. ,#[en*.nmmitwe
| |
| .m,=-- - M /t!,'"EElI,'."wU [ g g p*e.cfm$l.'
| |
| () ~ ~* a- a* a
| |
| .n. ,.w
| |
| ---" - aaa''na - d g .,g_., wgy,. .ay. r.,,i . . . . ,4 s.
| |
| 1""""'" %.2,ab,W.""'."e"d,N.".'.dd,c",lf,.t c"13tu' d "a". u.s. u.- n .y
| |
| * ESRP 4.6. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff evaluations of practices to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction, including any actions required to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects and procedures for recovery of data that the applicant must undertake.
| |
| . ESRP 5.1.3. Provide a list of the potential impacts on historic properties that will extend throughout the operating lifetime of the plant, e ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4. If the proposed construction activities are predicted to result in adverse impacts to historic properties that should be avoided, ask the reviewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 to consider attemative plant designs, locations, or construction activities.
| |
| * ESRP 10.1. Provide a list of the unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed construction activity.
| |
| * ESRP 10.2. Provide a brief summary of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of historic and cultural resources that result from the proposed construction activity.
| |
| Data and Information Needed
| |
| %e kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station-specific factors and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact, ne following dr.ta or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * a description and National Register evaluation of historic properties within the site boundary, transmission or access corridors, or offsite areas (from ESRP 2.5.3)
| |
| + a description and National Register evaluation of historic properties that are within 15 km (9 mi) of the proposed site or within 2 km (1 mi) of proposed transmission corridors, acess corridors, and offsite areas (from ESRP 2.5.3) e the State Ilistoric Preservation Officer's (S11PO's) comments on the impact of the proposed project on important historic properties (from consultation with State agencies and Native American tribes)
| |
| * State Laws and Plans for Historic Preservation (from the environmental report [ER) and consultation with State and Native American tribal agencies) e the applicant's procedures for identifying the potential for human remains to occur in the project aren, and for complying with provisions of the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations (NAGPRA) in the event of an inadvertent discovery.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.32 August 1997 l !
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| -c11. ACCEPTANCE CRMRIA j l
| |
| ~ Acceptance criteria for the review of historic properties that could be impacted by proposed constmotion l
| |
| are based on the relevant requirements of the following: -
| |
| + + 36 CFR 300 with respect to the process by which a Federal agency meets its requirements under [
| |
| Sections 106 and 110 of thc National Historic Prowrvation'Act (NHPA) to ensure that agency- l assisted or licensed undertakings consider the effects of the undertstp. idstoric properties that - i are evaluated and determined eligible for listing on the Narlosal kegister i>
| |
| e
| |
| * . 43 CFR 10 with respect to guidelina and procedures for Federal agencies to follow in the event of .
| |
| . Inadvertent discoveries of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural
| |
| .' patrimony during const:uction projects on Federal or Native American tribal lands. :
| |
| Regulatory poeltions and specific criteria to meet the regulations identified above are as follows: l t
| |
| ~
| |
| * Nuclear Ranctor Regulation (NRR) ONice Letter No. 906, Revision 1, which includes guidance for complying with the requirements contained in the NHPA with respect to protection of historic i
| |
| !' properties during the construction phase and for handling inadvertent discoveries during i construction.
| |
| 1 ne information is acceptable if it permits an evaluation of potential impacts and mitigation inessures to ^
| |
| historic properties.
| |
| Tachalcal Ratlanale The technical estiona!c for evaluating the applicant's potential impact of construction to historic ;
| |
| properties is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| i Because of NEPA and Section 106 of NHPA, the NRC's actions are required to fall under 36 CFR 300, which provides regulatory guidance for evaluating and protecting historic properties from potential adverse impacts resulting from Federal agency undertakings, i De construction of a nuclear power facility could impact historic properties through direct impacts (e.g., destruction or alteration of the integrity of a property) or through indirect impacts (e.g.,
| |
| l prohibiting access or increasing the potential for vandalism). Elements of Section 110 ofNHPA ' .
| |
| require Federal agencies to manage and protect identified, elfgible historic properties located on = [
| |
| . lands under theirjurisdiction. !
| |
| 3-De potential for human temains to occur in the project areas should be evaluated. An inadvertent discovery of such items during construction may necessitate a work stoppage of up to 30 days and
| |
| . consultation under NAGPRA procedures.~ ;
| |
| m .
| |
| d : August 1997 14.1.3-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| -l s=.
| |
| | |
| 111. TGVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| 'Ihe reviewer's analysis of construction impacts on historic and cultural resourcrs should be linked to the environmental review directed by ESRP 2.5.3 to ensure that the environmental factors most likely to be impacted by proposed construction activities are described in that section. An additional source of expertise in the area of historic and cultural preservation is the Archaeology and Ethnography Program (AEP) of the National Park Service, Department ofInterior. With this in mind, the reviewer should conduct the evaluation as follows:
| |
| (1) With the assistance of the AEP and in consultation with the SHPO, consider the historic properties that are listed in or are eligible for inclusion in the Nationa/ Register and ' sat may be affected by construction cf the proposed project.
| |
| (2) Use the output of appropriate environmental reviews describing proposed construction activity to identify the construction activities that could result in potential impacts.
| |
| (3) When assessing the potential impacts on these resources, refer to 36 CFR 800, which describes in detail how to assess the impact of a proposed action on properties that are listed in or are eligible for inclusion in the Nationa/ Register.
| |
| (4) Recognize that there are generally two types of impacts on a resource: direct impacts (e.g.,
| |
| destruction during excavation), and indirect impacts (e.g., visual impact, denial of access); and consult with the reviewer for CSRPs 3.1 and 3.7 for assistance in analyzing indirect irnpacts.
| |
| (5) Although historic properties that are neither listed in nor eligible for inclusion in the National Register are not protected by the provisiens of the NIIPA, as amended, or 36 CFR 800, consider the potential impacts on these resources and measures and controls to avoid adveise impacts.
| |
| (6) For properties that are not eligible for inclusion in the NationalRegister, get assistance from the SIIPO, the Office of Archaeology and 111storic Preservation, or other qualified individuals, as needed.
| |
| (7) Consider alternatives to reduce the impact on the cultural and historic resources and make a determination of the cost of each alternative versus the benefit derived.
| |
| (8) include the cost of the recovery required by the llistorical and Archaeological Preservation Act of 1974 in the consideration of alternatives.
| |
| (9) When the evaluation does not justify preservation of the resource, request that the applicant recover archaeological, historic, architectural, and cultural data related to the resource.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.1.3-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ...g._ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| )
| |
| i i
| |
| e his locovery may include recording by photographs and measured drawings, archaeological s
| |
| ) t excavations to uncovw data and material, removal of structures or salvage of architectural features, and other steps that will ensure fbli knowledge of the lost resource.
| |
| i
| |
| * Salvaged artifacts and materials should be deposited where they are of public and educational benefit.
| |
| (10) . Assess the operational impacts on historic pioperties concurrently with this review.
| |
| IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS The ESRP review should accomplish the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of potential !
| |
| impacts, (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis, and (3) presentation of staff l
| |
| conclusionsregarding impacts of the reviewed construction activities on historic properties. Normally l
| |
| ' this section should be divided into two subsecticas: 4.1.3.1, Site and Vicinity; and 4.1.3.2, Transmission l
| |
| Corridors and Offsite Areas, ne following information should usually be included in the environmental ;
| |
| ; impact statement (EIS):
| |
| I e a positive statement of no efrect for properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National j Register that will not be affected 1
| |
| * potential impacts to the properties that are listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NationalRegister.
| |
| Discuss the steps that led to a detenination of whether or not any effects are adveme.
| |
| ! i e
| |
| _ any adverse impacts on historic properties not eligible for inclusion in the National Register i
| |
| e any measures and controls that are available to limit adverse impacts. ;
| |
| Evaluation of each identified inipact results in one of the following determinations:
| |
| * De ingpact is small and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer i
| |
| should include a statement in the envimamental impact statement of the following type:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available infonnation on the impacts on historic properties from construction and refurbishment activities. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are i no significant envimnmental impacts.
| |
| l
| |
| * ne impact is adverse but can be mitigated by spec @c design orprocedure modifications that the ;
| |
| reviewer has ident@edanddeterminedto bepractical For these cases, the reviewer should consult >
| |
| with the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) and the reviewers for ESRP 9.4 for verification that '
| |
| - the reviewer's evaluations are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance. ;
| |
| De reviewer should prepare lists of verified modifications and identified measures and controls to limit the cornsponding impact. These lists will be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.2.
| |
| b August 1997 4.1.35 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) n
| |
| 'w
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewers for
| |
| . ESRP 9.4 that an analysis and evaluation of attemative designs or procedures is required, ne reviewer should participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical, if no such alternatives can be identined, the reviewer should be responsible for providing this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| k pplicant is committed The reviewer should evaluate proposed construction activities to ensure that i to using currently acceptable practices to minimize impacts, in consuhation with the SilPO, the reviewer should use 36 CFR 800 to evaluate the potential impacts on properties in or are eligible for inclusion in the NationalRegister.
| |
| V, lhil1EMENTATlON ne method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation ef conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in v hich the applicant propeses an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 36 CFR 800," Protection ofIllstoric Properties."
| |
| 43 CFR 10," Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations (NAGPRA)."
| |
| llistoric and Archaeological Data Preservation Act of 1974,16 USC 469 et seq.
| |
| National 111storic Preservation Act, as amended,16 USC 470 et seq.
| |
| U.S. Department of the Interior.1990a. "llow to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,"
| |
| National Register of#fstoric Places, Bulletin No.15 (revised 1991).
| |
| U.S. Department of the Interior.1990b. " Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural l'roperties," National Register of #fstoric Places, Bulletin No. 38.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory O mmission, Of0cc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC/NRR) 1996.
| |
| " Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental
| |
| ' Issues," NRR Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 4.1.36 August 1997 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l NUREO 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O ( ,,, \ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD N,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.2 WATER RELATED IMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary---Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF RRyJM This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the hydrological alterations and water use impacts of construction and refurbishment. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
| |
| C
| |
| \
| |
| Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Informat%n Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Fnvironmental Project Manager,
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language, August 1997 4.21 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REV1EW PLAN
| |
| '"*""*"id.'M'.5.t" .T.,'L*lT.#,!.".t ,0"A*U".2*loi.'nd," "."*A".T!*4*" *"" i .t
| |
| *" """ a" gO J g 7, g , ".a rg.",."".*it ,'*'n,c',:e,.0"""A.,:T ew'
| |
| , .=Ag'.,/.*,2li".'4 :J
| |
| .i . s ois gy*.o,,,.nigg,p .n. r.w .sv. .,*i.. . . ai. . m. .no i.
| |
| d d
| |
| . E"""* "M% ka'."2ft,T.*"'4L"J."$lll*o.'i"'c IBt'ss" """* '" ** ""#*" "***'"'
| |
| | |
| 1 I
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| = nere are no regulatory positions specific to this FSRP.
| |
| Technical RrAggle
| |
| %e technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's potential water related impaus is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Intro Auchry paragraphs that orient the reader with respect te the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. EfNIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| - He material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS De reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. He paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 4.2.I and 4.2.2 De paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental uapact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREG-155f' U.S. NUCLEAR RUGULATORY COMMISSION m) ,
| |
| , ,,3p ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,****// OFFICE
| |
| * REVIEW PLAN OF HUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.2.1 HYDROLOGIC ALTFRATIONS REVIEW RF9PONSIBILITIES Primary-Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's identification, analysis, and description of hydrologic alterations resulting from proposed project construction and construction activities.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include (1) identification and description of proposed construction activities, including site preparation, plant construction, transmission corridor clearing and C transmiss'an line construction, and offsite construction that could result in hydrologic alterstions;
| |
| ( (2) description snd analysis of the resulting hydrologic alterations and the physical effects of these alterations on other water users; (3) analysis of proposed practices to minimize hydrologic alterations having adverse impacts; and (4) analysis of compliance w'.th applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal standards and regulations.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| \ = ESRP 2.1. Obtain a description of the location of the proposed construction site and surrounding region.
| |
| * ESRP 23.1 Obtain descriptions of the hydrology of the region surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| August 1997 4.2.1-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN s
| |
| '"** 'Ma,#ar@."'n:,L*W'" "
| |
| F* "nm=.n"P.".?.22&T.e.**.='nllh2*A'rdf
| |
| ?# *T""'Wat" m io er
| |
| *e*a"'J' 2P'- ni.i a"Jl%.=1%W (d' g.g=ggr . m .n*on .r o
| |
| =ggg.,gy,,r,.gphn. d w r.4.d p.rk@.ny, .. .ppropMm, .ccommode unme .nd
| |
| *=ry g = g, ngog;-gggwggg-.o.g,g w ni = =. u.s. u-w., n l
| |
| | |
| e ERRP 2.3.2. Obtain descriptions of the regional water uses (and users) for the ares surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| * ESRP 2.8. Obtain input regarding any related Federal project hetivities that would affect or would be affected by the proposed p!rt construction.
| |
| * ESRP 3.1. Obtain descriptions of the external appearance of the proposed plant and the plant layout.
| |
| * ESRP 3.3. Obtain input regarding expected water use by the proposed plant, e ESRP 3.4. Obtain input regarding the cooling system for the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRP 3.7. Obtain input regarding power transmission systems for the proposed plant (including transmission corrido: clearing and transmission line construction activities).
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.1. Provide a description of constructiom activities located on the floodplain.
| |
| . ESRP 4.2.2. Provide a list of construction activities resulti ig in hydrologic alterations and their effects on other water users, and additional information to other ESRP Chapter 4.0 reviewers when the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.2 requests that such inputs be made.
| |
| * ESRPs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. Provide a list of hydrologic alterations that will affect terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems.
| |
| * ESRP 4.6. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff recommendations of practices to minimize hydrologic alterations.
| |
| . ESRPs 6.1 and 6.3. Provide a list of possible thermal and hydrclogic alterations during constmetion that may require a monitoring program to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, e Section 9.4.1. Provide assistance in identifying and eval .eing altemative plant design and construction practices that would minimize or avoid hydrologic alterations that result in adverse environmental impacts.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potentialimpacts. The following data and information should usually be obtained:
| |
| e descriptions of the physical characteristics of the surface-water bodies and groundwater aquifers (from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.1 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| p l
| |
| * identincation and description of project-related construction activities expected to result in hydrologic
| |
| (
| |
| \ alterations at the site, transmission corridors, and offsite areas. Activities include construction of cofferdams and storm sewers; dredging operations; placement of fill matet:al into the water; creation of shoreside facilities involving bulkheads, piers, jetties, basins, or other structures or activities with potential to alter existing shoreline processes; construction of intake and outfall structures; water-chrnnel modifications; construction of roads and bridges; operations affecting water levels (flooding); i dewatering activities; and construction activities contributing to sediment runoff, e.g., road construction, clearing and grading, fill or spoil placement (frcm the environmental report [ER], the site visit, and consultatic.2 with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies). s e identification of water sources used during construction and the average and maximum use rates of these waters (from the ER)
| |
| * identification of water bodies receiving construction effluents and the expected average and maximum flow rates and physical characteristics (temperature, sediment load, velocities) of these effluents (from the ER)
| |
| * identification of hydrologic alterations expected to result from the project-related constaction activities listed previously. Examples include changes in water dminage characteristics, the flood handling capability of the floodplains flow and circulation patterns, subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal, and erosion and sediment transport (from the ER).
| |
| (o\
| |
| \
| |
| * identification and location of groundwater and surface-water users and areas thru could be affected by project-related hydrologic alteraions (from ESRP 2.3.2, the ER, and the site visit)
| |
| * descriptions of proposed practices and measures to limit or minimize r:pected hydrologic alterations (from the ER)
| |
| * Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies' hydrological standards and regulations (from consultation with above agencies) e descriptions of proposed means to ensure construction activity compliance with app'icable hydrological standards and regulations (from the ER).
| |
| II. /fCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of the hydrological alterations at the proposed p? ant sites are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 33 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits A
| |
| I \
| |
| \") August 1997 4.2.1-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| * 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, with respect to conditions, limitations and rutrictions on constructicn activities
| |
| * 40 CFR 6 Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain anc etlands protection
| |
| * 40 CFR 122 with itspect to NPDES permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges
| |
| * 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole source aquifer
| |
| * 40 CFR 227 with respect to criteria for evaluating environmental impac ts e 40 CFR 423 with respect to effluent limitations on existing and new point sources
| |
| * State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement fot NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider attematives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts if an environmental assesament of aquatic impacts is aallable from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination or.ne magnitude of the environmental impacts of striking an overall benefit cost balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the pennitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| * Ilecause water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jeffer on County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the U.S. Supreme Court granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the States' role in regulating water rights.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . ,m .
| |
| f _ MNAl Ratirmale V
| |
| The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's proposed hydrologic alterations is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the hydrological alterations occurring during construction or refurbishmeat activities is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| 1 III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer should ensure that the construction activities that result in hydrologic alterations have been identified and seck confirmation that the alterations that result in environmental impacts have been ,
| |
| described in sufficient dctail to allow for the subsequent analysis and assessment of these impacts. The reviewer should conduct the evaluation as follows:
| |
| P (1) Identify alterations in water quantity in the various construction-affected hydrologic systems under the existing and known fdture water rig'its and allocations.
| |
| (2) Describe the physical effects of identified alterations in the quantity of water available on other consumptive water users, (3) Describe the physical effects of altered hydrologic geometry, flow and circulation pattems, and mixing (dm) processes on nonconsumptive water users and to terrestrial and aquatic ecology.
| |
| (a) Cooperate with the reviewers for ESRPs 4.1.1,4.2.2,4.3.1, and 4.3.2 in (1) determining the extent and magnitude of the resulting impacts, and (2) evaluating means to mitigate or avoid these impacts.
| |
| (b) When project construction or construction activity within the floodplain has been proposed, evaluate the extent of compliance with applicable floodplain protection standards, and give particular attention to the consideration of alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development within the floodplain.
| |
| (c) Assist the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.2 in es aluating the impacts of any construction or construction-related activity located in the floodplain or wetland.
| |
| I (d) Assist the appropriate ESRP 9.4 reviewers in the identification and analysis of alternatives that would avoid construction or construction activity in the floodplain or wetlands.
| |
| (4) Describe the physical effects of altered crosional, depositional and sediment characteristics on other water users, and on nearby property and to aquatic ecology.
| |
| ('
| |
| August 1997 4.2.1-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) i
| |
| | |
| The reviewer should identify the alterations by associating the previously identified activities with changes in (1) water quantity and availability; (2) hydrological geometries (especially within the floodplain), flow and circulation pattems, and mixing processes; and (3) erosion, deposition, and sediment transport. 'Ihe reviewer should perform the following analysis procedure:
| |
| (1) Analyze the water quantity and availability by analyzing the constmetion activities that can alter the quantities of water physically available in nearby hydrologic systems and determine the alterations.
| |
| (a) Consider all water used during constmetion:
| |
| . the sources of the water e points of discharge
| |
| + all water diversions that change the quantities of water in various parts of water systems (e.g.,
| |
| constre: tion dewatering).
| |
| (b) For the hydrologic systems where alterations in water quantities due to construction have been identified, determine the physical effects (e.g., altered well yields, water levels relative to intake pipes) likely to have impacts on other water users.
| |
| (2) Analyze the hydrologic geometry, flow and circulation patterns, and mixing procerses by evaluating the construction activities that can alter hydrologic geometries, flow and circulation pattems, and mixing processes, and determining the alterations.
| |
| (a) Consider all construction activities within water bodies and diversions of water during construction.
| |
| (b) Give particula attention to construction and related activities located on the floodplain.
| |
| (c) Identify any State or local floodplain protection standards and analyze proposed project construction and construction-related activities with respect to these standards.
| |
| (3) Analyze the erosion, deposition, and sediment transport by evaluating the construction activities that can alter erosional, depositional, and sediment transport :haracteristics and determine the alterations.
| |
| (a) Consider all construction activities within water bodies in relation to the natural processes occurring before construct;on.
| |
| (b) For those areas where alterations in the natural erosional, depositional, and sediment transport processes have been identified, determine the physical effects (e.g., beach erosion, channel shoaling) likely to have impacts on other water users.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.1-o August 1997
| |
| | |
| . - - . . - . . _ , _ ~ . - -, . - _ . . - . - .. . . . _ - - . - - - - - . -
| |
| 1 i
| |
| s i
| |
| [, L(4)lBe familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and agreements pertinent to the hydrological aspects of plant construction
| |
| ~
| |
| + _
| |
| y 1
| |
| (a)1 Determine compliance and the adequacy of commitments to comply.with applicable regulations and guides. _
| |
| (b) Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal i agencies to make this ' determination.
| |
| +
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS
| |
| ~
| |
| . 1nput from the review of this ESRP to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should be directed
| |
| ' toward accomplishing the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of hydrologic alterations result ing from the proposed project construction or refurbishment activities, and (2) presentation of the basis for the sta#s analysis of the effects of these alterations. ,
| |
| . The following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| 1 e a description of plant design and construction activities that will result in hydrologic alterations, and a quantitative description of these alterations and their effects for each affected water body ;
| |
| ' . quantities of water diverted or used at the construction site, effluent discharge quantities and physical characteristics, and any resultant hydrologic alterations during various stages of construction including under storm flow conditions
| |
| ' .' magnitudes and time variations of hydrological alterations and a comparison with the natural time variations of the hydrological parameters
| |
| - * : com'patibility of proposed construction activities with hydrological provisions of Federal, State, -
| |
| regional, local, on affected Native American tribal regulations and requirements, e.g., commitments to compliance with shoreline management regulations
| |
| ! e '. the compatibility of proposed construction water diversions with existing and known water rights and allocations ,
| |
| . . construction practices and procedures O minimize hydrological alterations or for alternative project
| |
| ' designs or construction practices that might avoid them.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant
| |
| .requi rements andh t at t eh eva uat l on i supports t e h of owllngi type of statement to be nci u el d d in the EIS:
| |
| 1 Based on the applicant's description of the site hydrology, the staff concludes that those construction l activities resulting in hydrologic alterations have been identified and that those alterations resulting !
| |
| 1 August 1997 4.2.1-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) v
| |
| ~
| |
| m ___s _ - ,k_- -<m-. -_,~.m -, ._
| |
| __,_.:.___.m_. _ - -
| |
| ..o5 -_. r,,~-. - - , ,
| |
| * c--
| |
| | |
| environmental impacts have been described in sufficient detail to support the subsequent analysis and usessment of these impacts.
| |
| V, IMP' FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable attemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 33 CFR 330, Appendix A " Nationwide Pem.it and Conditions."
| |
| 40 CFR 6, Appendix A," Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Sourte Aquifers."
| |
| 40 CFR 227," Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of Material."
| |
| 40 CFR 423, " Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation of Environmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,921911, Supreme Court of the United States,510 U.S.1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.LW. 3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.1 8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n /'~% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| (***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.2.2 WATER USEIMPACTS-REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Civi! Engineering and Geosciences Branc.h Secondary--None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description, analysis, and assessment of proposed project construction or refurbishment activity impacts on water use.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include (1) identification of the proposed construction activities or hydrologic alterations resulting from proposed construction activities that could
| |
| /7 have impacts on water use, (2) identification of changes in water quality resulting from hydrologic h alterations or from construction activity effluents,(3) analysis and evaluation ofimpacts resulting from these alterations and activities,(4) analysis and evaluation of proposed practices to minimize adverse construction impacts on water use, and (5) evaluation of compliance with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulations applicable to water use and water quality. The review should include analysis tad evaluation ofimpacts to water quality, water availability, and water use.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input .o the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, sa indicated:
| |
| * ESRP 2.1. Obtain a description of the location of the proposed construction site and the surrounding region.
| |
| . ESRPs 2.2.1 through 2.2.3. Obtain descriptions of the regional land uses for the area surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| l August 1997 4.2.2-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN por de for al revtNsYor nuc e wr ant . ed $ts a de e a t as part of
| |
| [~N the Comenisalon's policy o inform the nuclear industry and the general putdic of rpetory edures and pNc .
| |
| I e w is no d. h e e t r v w fans are ehto p o Environmental
| |
| \j Reports for Nuclear Power Stations. l Pu en el ow plans will be revised periodiceity, as appropriete, to accommodate comments and to n fIcNNucteer R R a WasNngt C 55
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain descriptions of the hydrology of the region surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.2. Obtain descriptions of the regional water uses (and users) for the area surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain input regarding the bas 'ine water quality of the water sources / bodies for the area surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| . ESRP 2.8. Obtain inyt regarding any related Federal project activities that would affect or be affected by the proposed plant construction.
| |
| . ESRP3.1. Obtain descriptions of the external appearance of the proposed plant and the plant Isyout.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Obtain input regarding expected water use by the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Obtain input regarding the cooling system for the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRP 3.6.2. Obtain input regarding water use for sanitary system during construction.
| |
| . ESRP 3.7. Obtain input regarding power transmission systems for the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.1.1 through 4.1.3. Provide a list of construction activiiles (e.g., groundwater depletion) that may have land use impacts and, when applicable, a description of altered flood patterns resulting from construction or construction activities in the floodp.ain.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.2.1 and 5.2.2. Obtain input regarding hydrological alterations that are expected to result from the construction water use changes from operation of the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. Provide a list of construction activities (e.g., surface runolT and water quality degradation) that may have adverse terrestrial and aquatic ecology impacts.
| |
| . ESRPs 4.4.1 through 4.4.3. Provide a list of construction activities that may have socioeconomic impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 4.6. Provide a !ist of applicant commitment and staff evaluations of practices to limit adverse water-use impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 6.3 and 6.6. Provide a list of possible impacts potentially requiring raonitoring.
| |
| . ESRPs 9.4.1 and 9.4.2. Provide a list of adverse environmental impacts affecting water use that could be mitigated or avoided through alternative project designs or construction practices, and assir in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.2-2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| [ . ESRP 10.1. Provide a list of the unavoidable water-use impacts that are predicted to occur during or
| |
| ( as a result of project construction.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a brief summary of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of hydrological and water-use resources that are predicted to occur during or as a result of project construction.
| |
| . Interface with Enykonmental Proiect Mr,ager. Consult with the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) to verify that proposed modifications to water use plans are practical and sb uld lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail chould be modified according to the anticipated magnit ude of the potential impacts. The following data and information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . descriptions of the site and vicinity water bodies (including sole-source aquifers) and groundwater aquifers e descriptions of hydrologic alternions and their related construction activities O
| |
| . the physical effects of hydrologic alterations
| |
| = comparisons of water quantity available to other water users with existing and known future water rights and allocations e identification of water bodies receiving construction effluents (e.g., sanitary wastes, cleaning wastes, dust control, fuels and lubricants, chemical, herbicides, pesticides) and the expected average and maximum flow rates and composition of these effluents
| |
| . baseline water quality data for surface-water and groundwater sources used during construction and impacted by construction activities e potential changes to surface-water and groundwater quality (e.g., heavy metal contamination) resulting from substrate exposure during construction
| |
| . identification and locations of groundwater and surface-water users and areas that could be impacted by project-related construction activities affecting water use (from ESRP 2.3.2, the site visit, and the environmentai report (ER]) ,
| |
| e predicted impacts on the water users identified in th: previous item (from the ER)
| |
| 'd August 1997 4.2.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 1 1
| |
| | |
| h
| |
| . descriptions of any proposed practices and measures to control construc6(on related water use impacts. Factors to be considered include Gooding, drainage, groundwater elevation, erosion, sedimentation, water quality, protection of natural drainage channels and water bodies, protection of shorelines and beaches, restrictions on access to and use of surface water, protection against saltwater intrusion, and handling of fuels, lubricants, oily wastes, chemical wastes, sanitary wastes, herbicides, and pesticides (from the ER).
| |
| . consultations with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulators (from consultation with the above agencies)
| |
| . descriptions of proposed means to ensure construction activity compliance with water-quality and water-use standards and regulations
| |
| . water quality requirements for key elements or aquatic ecosystem and domestic users.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the. review of the water use impact at the proposed plant sites are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| 33 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits 33 CFR 330 Appendix A, with respect to conditions, limitations and restrictions on construction activities 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on Hoodplain and wetlands protection 40 CFR 122 with respect to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges
| |
| . 40 CFR 149 with respect to possibic supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole source aquifer
| |
| . State and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as follows:
| |
| Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the. adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the isssessment NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts of striking an overall benefit-cost Q balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority t.nd other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the U.S. Supreme Court grrsnted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the States' role in regulating water rights.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance cn the fonnat and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water quality issues.
| |
| Technical Rationalc The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential water use impacts is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the water use during construction or refurbishment activities is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant
| |
| ,- 3 construction, operation, or refurbishment. Water quality and water supply are linked. The authority t
| |
| I to regulate water quality can be extended to regulate water supply if the domestic or environmental O water needs are impacted by reduced water quality, Where an assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from construction activities is available from a separate permitting authority (such as Corps, State, EPA, or NPDES permitting agency), NRC will consider the assessment in its detennination of the magnitude of environmental impacts for striking an overall benefit cost balance. Otherwise documentation of adequate consultation with the appropriate permitting authorities is required.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer should evaluate the water use impacts as follows:
| |
| (1) Evaluate water quantity and availability by identifying water users potentially impacted by alterations in water quantity and availability:
| |
| (a) Describe any impacts of reduced water quantity and availability.
| |
| (b) Describe the possibility for inequalities between proposed construction water use and existing and known future water rights and allocations and the probable nature and extent of these inequalities.
| |
| O)
| |
| \
| |
| U August 1997 4.2.2-5 NUREG-IS55 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (2) Evaluate the construction activities and the hydrologic alterations identified in ESRP 4.2.1 with respect to their potential impacts to water users or water use areas:
| |
| (a) Compare the effects of these alterations (e.g., increased temperature, saliaity, erosion, sedimentation) with pre-construction conditions to assess the extent of the impact.
| |
| (b) Evaluate the impacts for individual water users and for water use arec s.
| |
| (c) Identify and describe proposed construction or construction activities located on a floodplain as follows:
| |
| . Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal agencies to determine the extent to which any such activities will conform with applicable floodplain standards.
| |
| . Ensure that the analysis has considered short term effects (e.g., floodplain alterations resulting from temporary construction structures or activities) as well as the long-term alteration caused by the completed plant.
| |
| . Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 and the reviewers for ESRP 9.4.1 to analyze alternatives to any proposed activity located in the floodplain.
| |
| The intent of this instruction is to ensure that alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplain have been considered.
| |
| (d) Identify construction and construction activities that will alter or restrict shoreline accesc (e.g.,
| |
| beach closure) and surface-oriented water uses (e.g., commercial and recreational fishing, navigation) including the following:
| |
| . Describe the effects of construction to water users.
| |
| . if potential adverse impacts are predicted, identify alternative design, construction practices, or procedures that~could mitigate or avoid the impacts.
| |
| (3) Analyze water quality; (a) Identify hydrologic alterations and construction activities affecting water quality and describe their effects on water users or water-use areas.
| |
| (b) Describe the time duration or time periods when the impact will be experienced, and the number of water users cr extent of water-use areas affected. (When necessary, consult with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies for assistance in evaluating the identified impacts.)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.2-6 August 1997 O !
| |
| | |
| l L ,
| |
| f
| |
| /
| |
| (%
| |
| \
| |
| (c) Review consultation with appropriate agencies regarding compliance with Federal, State, regional, local, and afTected Native American tribal water quality' standards.
| |
| De reviewer's analysis of construction impacts on water use should be coordinated with the hydrologic alteration descriptions provided by the environmentalicview for ESRP 4.2.1. This coordination should ensure that the environmental factors most likely to be impacted by hydrologic alterations are described in sufficient detail to permit assessment of the predicted impacts. The reviewer should independently identify and analyze those construction activities expected to affect reveiving water body quality. He reviewer should consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 2.3.2,4.1,4.3, and 4.4 to establish the location and nature of those water users potentially impacted by hydrologic alterations and water-quality changes, ne reviewer should use this analysis procedure to ar'slyze construction impacts on water use:
| |
| (1) Analyze reduced water availability:
| |
| (a) Initiate this analysis if the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 determines that construction activities will result in decreased water availability.
| |
| (b) When this is predicted to occur, identify the location of those water users likely to be aucted, and consult with the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 to determine the hydrologic efTects at these locations.
| |
| (c) Consider these effects (e.g., lev. red groundwater table, reduced well yields, lowered surface-water levels at intake structures) and determine their impacts on individual water users or water-use areas.
| |
| (d) Consider seasonal requirements for water and temporal variations in water availability.
| |
| (e) Consider the potential for impacts when the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 predicts an incompatibility between water availability as affected by project construction activity and existing ud known future water rights and allocations. For these cases, analyze the potential for future inequalities in water availability to determine their probable nature and extent.
| |
| (2) Analyze the construction activity and hydrologic alterations identified by the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 and compare them with present and predicted future water uses that could be affected:
| |
| (a) Analyze in further detail any alterations that can be shown to represent a potential for water-use impacts.
| |
| (b) . Consider both short term impacts (e.g., from temporary channel diversions) that will occur only during the construction period, and long-term impacts (e.g., channel restriction by a breakwater) that will occur for the period of plant operation.
| |
| g August 1997 4.2.27 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (c) Identify individual water users or water-use areas and predict impacts to these users or areas.
| |
| (d) Identify the proposed construction activities that will restrict non-consumptive water use or water access, and identify the water users so affected, categorizing the impacts as either short or long-term.
| |
| (e) Give special consideration to hydrologic alterations that affect floodplains. When such alterations are predicted, consult with the reviewer for ESRP 4.1.1 or 4.1.2 to complete the analysis of any resulting impacts.
| |
| (3) Analyze water quality by considering the construction activities and hydrologic alterations expected to tesult in altered water quality, and the water users or water-use areas that could be impacted by the water-quality alterations; (a) Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 to identify the affected recdving water bodies and the hydrologic alterations (e.g., erosion, sedimentation) that could affect water quality.
| |
| (b) Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 2.3.3 to determine the baseline water quality of the receiving water bodies and with the reviewer for ESRP 2.3.2 to ider.tify potentially affected water users.
| |
| (c) Identify the water bodies receiving construction effluents, the flow rates and chemical composition of these effluents, and the potential for and nature of any contaminants that could be released to sorface or groundwater as a result of substrate exposure during construction.
| |
| (d) Consider potential impacts to water users in, terms of the intended usage (e.g., heavy metals as e contaminant affecting a municipal water supply, cuspe'ided solids affecting industrial use).
| |
| (c) Consult with nearby Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies in analyzing potential water quality impacts.
| |
| (f) Finally, consult with the reviewer for ESRP 4.3.2 to coordinate the analysis ofimpacts to water quality and to avoid any duplication of effort in this analysis.
| |
| IV. EYALUATION FINDINGS Input from this ESRP to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should accomplish tne following objectives: (1) public disclosure of major direct water-use consequences of proposed project construction, (2) prasentation of the basis for the staff analysis, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions and conditions regarding water use. The reviewer should coordinate this input with the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 to avoid duplication.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.2-8 Augur.t 1997
| |
| | |
| The following information should usually be included in the EIS:' .
| |
| --. a description of plant design and construction activities that may cause adverse water use impacts .
| |
| and a quantitative description of these impacts for each' affected water body. For plant facilities and - _
| |
| ~
| |
| construction activities located on the floodplain, (1) staff conclusions as to the necessity of such > l location (e.g., intake structures) and a discussion of applicant commitments or staff recommon-
| |
| - dations for actions to minimize environmental harm to the floodplain, (2) reference to appropriate p - ESRP 9A discussion of alternatives to facility or activity location in the floodplain, and (3)
| |
| ' discussion of the extent of conformance with applicable State or local floodplain protection standards.
| |
| e comparison of predicted effluent and receiving water quality with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards, and conclusions with respect to project compliance with these standards
| |
| . . the physical impacts of consumptive water uses during construction (e.g., groundwater depletion) on
| |
| - other water user
| |
| ' . - the compatibility of proposed construction watog use with existing and known water rights and allocations
| |
| . adverse _ impacts on surface-oriented water users (e.g., fishing, navigation) resulting from plant-construction and construction activity
| |
| . construction practices and procedures to mitigate potential adverse water use impacts or that
| |
| - alternative project designs be considered to avoid these impacts.
| |
| Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations:
| |
| l
| |
| ^
| |
| . The ingpact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement in the environmental impact statement of the following type:
| |
| n The staff has reviewed the available information on the water-use impacts from construction and
| |
| : refurbishment. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts.
| |
| 3
| |
| ;
| |
| * De ingpact is adverse but can be mitigated by spec @c design orprocedure mod @ cations that the reviewer has ident@ed anddetermined to bepractical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager and the appropriate ESRP 9.4 reviewer for verification that the reviewer's ioentified moddications are practical and will lead to en improvement in the benefit- -
| |
| cost 'ualance. He reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and identified measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists should be provided the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.-
| |
| 'C i
| |
| - August _1997 - 4.2.2-9 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) c 4
| |
| , - - - E w /, h ., . , . , , - ,, # -,,n,' ,, .-,, , , y_,y- w,- -[,,, ~ ,,vr , - -
| |
| r--m.--
| |
| -,,, --,n-,,- , e-+,,yr-
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated. and is ofsucir magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer thould inform the appropriate ESRP 9.4.1 reviewers that an analysis and evaluation of attemative designs or procedures is required.
| |
| The reviewer should participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid
| |
| 'he impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer should be responsible for providing this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| He reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements, and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Based on the applicant's description, those construction activities resu'tbg in hydrologic altera-tions have been ident;fied and that those alterations resulting in water-use impacts have been described in sufficient detail to support the subsequent analysis and assessment of these impacts.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases iu which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 33 CFR 330, Appendix A," Nationwide Permit and Conditions."
| |
| 40 CFR 6, Appendix A," Statement of Prxedures on rioodplain Management end Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Pennit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination System."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,92-1911, Supreme Court of the United States,510 U.S.1037; i14 S. Ct. 577; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| ~
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.2.2 10 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U.S.WUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L ( i (e""'}f % ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| - b g*,75/ REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ***** OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.3 ECOLOGICALIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONS!BILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the ecological i
| |
| impacts of construction and refurbishment. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan ntroduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.
| |
| Review Interfaces V
| |
| None.
| |
| Data and Infonnation Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
| |
| 'the reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| = 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 4.3-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN j o , ot
| |
| (_ E"**""*"'d,'.'**"d"d.Td:5.2.*iL"7!:,d,!.".'.'",Mt"Miro ?LT2*,'t.".":".i.II.M[*.*"
| |
| J.'1 2 r-
| |
| "T'..!
| |
| 1J' iPJJ:
| |
| .g g'.21,22'."i,g*;T g,g, ,. 1n'?.,'M.' a. .."22 . n.
| |
| . d,,%.o.T,.p,
| |
| .n. ,
| |
| v .. ij I.t,r. c.'".mi 2*,a.t,:.'iioo e,
| |
| gggg,g.. .ii,. u v ..
| |
| io..a . ,o,,i. .. . ..m,,oo. . . . o i.
| |
| 8:=r.".'4,"1,W:f'.d!.", amittR3*, lot *J.T4.i"dc "ida!* d
| |
| """* ** " 5 ""*'*" "*'*"Y
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There a e no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rat'qng[g ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential ecological impacts is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add d.rity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS He reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. He paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinfomiation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTA'i10N The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, exce> t in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable altern. .ve for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70,"DraP. environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.3-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREO 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O" g/ \ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD i
| |
| g*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.3.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS l REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic !ssues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description, quantification, and assessment of the impacts of new plant construction and plant refurbishment activities on the terrestrial ecosystem. The scope of the review directed by this plan includes an assessment of both onsite and offsite construction and refurbishment activities, including transmission line and access corridor construction. He assessment should be in sufficient detail to (1) predict and evaluate the significance of potential impacts to "important" species and their habitats and (2) evaluate how these impacts should be x considered in the licensing decision, if necessary, the reviewer should suggest consideration of alternative designs or construction practices, or licensee commitmenu nitigate the intensity of environmental impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 14.1. Obtain descriptive material on the terrestrial ecology of the site and vicinity needed to support the analyses made in ESRP 4.3.1. The reviewer for ESRP 4.3.1 should also provide input en significant impacts of construction and refurbishment to the terrestrial environment.
| |
| . ESRP 3.1 Obtain information abobt the power plant's external appearance and layout in enough detail to support the analyses made in ESRP 4.3.1.
| |
| August 1997 4.3.1-1 NUREG-15SS (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmental standard reWew plane e,e prepared for the guidance of the otAce of Nucleet Reectov Regulation staff esponettdo fue environmental tedews for nuclear rower piente. These documente are made eveGeble to the put2c as pe,t of O
| |
| t/
| |
| n i,J""e''i%f2/J'4,g*;1?.o,'"To't gga,m,,e;n,g; ,e
| |
| '' *J i omf#,*t e2WeeT,*e*.W"4'"'"pfene .d,e The en
| |
| * onn.eni eten.e, 7 . n"eveo io r..;:.W" " '?e vironmentei gg,eng.,e;g,w .e w. e .ewoe ,e e v. ee wie. . moommoa e -mmente ana io 6
| |
| 8*"""'""aW:f*cla2? ,*n'"e"sa"on %"ded.Td e ds#d"*""* ** ** ""*"" "*'""'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 3.7. Obtain information about the power transmission system in enough detail to support the analyses made in ESRP 4.3.1.
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.1. Obtain information regarding impacts of construction or refurbishment on land use onsite and in the vicinity of the plant to complete the description of construction and refurbishment impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem.
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.2. Obtain information regarding impacts to land use in transmission corridors and offsite areas to complete the description of construction and refurbishment impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem.
| |
| . ESRP 4.2.2. Obtain information regarding impacts on water use to complete the description of construction and refurbishment impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem.
| |
| . ESRP 4.4.2. Provide information regarding impacts to the terrestrial ecosystem from construction or refurbishment so that an evaluation of social and economic impacts from construction or refurbishment can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 4.6. Provide a list of applicant commitmen's and staff evaluations of practices to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction and refurbishment.
| |
| * ESRP 6.5.1. Provide appropriate information on impacts to the terrestrial environment from construction or refurbishment activities in sufficient detail to allow for the evaluation of the applicant's proposed monitoring program.
| |
| . ESRP 6.6. Provide information regarding impacts to the terrestrial ecosystem from construction or refurbishment so that a description and evaluation of the water quality monitoring programs can be completed.
| |
| * ESRP 9.4. If the reviewer determines that a proposed construction or refurbishment activity will result in an adverse environmental impact that cannot be mitigated by alternative construction practices and procedures, the reviewer of ESRP 9.4 should be informed that alternative locations and plant or component designs should be considered.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide a brief summary of the unavoidable impacts predicted to occur during construction or refurbishment. For example, this should usually be limited to the more significant impacts such as modificatioa of habitat for "important" species.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a brief summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments of terrestrial resources predicted to occur during construction or refurbishment. For example, this would include permanent loss of terrestrial habitat or loss of wetlands.
| |
| NUREG-1SSS (DRAFT) 4.3.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| :O!
| |
| ^
| |
| ^
| |
| J'
| |
| :Q _
| |
| g + !
| |
| Data and Infannation Naads f!he kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station-specific factors, and the P degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of potential impacts. /Ihe ;
| |
| following site and vicinity data or information (in addition to that listed in ESRP Section 2.4.1) should l l
| |
| ' usually be obtained: -
| |
| l
| |
| *
| |
| * a site map showing proposed buildings, the land to be cleared, waste disposal areas, the construction i or refi rbishment zone, and the site boundary (from the environmental report [ER) and ESRP 3.1) : F e the proposed schedule of construction or refurbishment activities -
| |
| '. clearing methods; temporary and permanent erosion, run-off, and siltation control methods; dust suppression methods; and other construction practices for control or suppression specific to the site (from the ER) 2 the total area ofland to be disturbed (from t!.e ER)
| |
| .. . . a e ~t he maximum area of soil to be exposed at any one time (from the ER)
| |
| - * : the area (hectares) of each plant community and habitat type to be cleared or disturbed (e.g.,
| |
| marshes, agricultural fields, and deciduous forests) and how much is being destroyed relative to the -
| |
| total amount present in the region (from the ER) -
| |
| . - the area to be covered by permanent station facilities, including new ponds and lakes (from the ER) -
| |
| E. &e area to be used on a short-term basis during construction or refurbishment, and plans for ,
| |
| restoration of this land (from the ER) e any proposed construction or refurbishment activity expected to i:npact communities or habitats that -
| |
| has e been defined as rare or unique or that support threatened and endangered species (from the ER)
| |
| . . documentation that the applicant has consulted with die appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies (e.g., ~as requked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife --
| |
| Coordination Act)(from the ER) p . identification of other Federal and State projects within the region that affect or could potentially affect tt name threatened and endangered species (or their habitats) that occur on or near the site (from the ER) ,
| |
| e an_ estimate of the potential for bird collisions with cooling towers or other elevated construction
| |
| : equipment or plant structures (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and i affected Native American tribal agencies) -
| |
| T-August 1997c 43.1-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) y I
| |
| .____________-___1._____. _ - . _ _ _ _ _._._ __.____. __ . . .4
| |
| | |
| i Additional background information about the terrestrial ecology cf the site and vicinity, necessary for this review ofimpacts on terrestrial resources from cc nstruction or refurbishment, is requested in ESRP Section 2.4.1 and can be found in the ER, general literature, and from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, ar d affected Native American tribal agencies.
| |
| The following data and information about transmission corridors and offsite areas also should usually be obtained:
| |
| * clearing methods, erosion, run off and siltation control methods (both temporary and permanent),
| |
| dust suppression methods, and other construction practices for impact control or minimization specific to the proposed transmission system (from the ER). The reviewer should confirm that the methods are NRC approved practices.
| |
| * potential for bird collisions with tranamission towers or lines (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| Additional background information about the terrestrial ecology of transmission corridors and offsite areas, necessary for this review of impacts to terrestrial resources from construction or refurbishment, is requested in ESRP 2.4.1 and can be found in the ER, general literature, and from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of construction or refurbishment impacts on terrestrial ecology in the vicinit; of the site and transmission corridors are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respea to including in the EIS information on impacts to the terrestrial environment due to construction
| |
| * Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act with respect to the prohibition of taking, possessing, selling, transporting, importing, or exporting the bald or golden eagle, dead or alive, without a permit
| |
| * Coastal Zone Management Act with respect to natural resources, and land or water use of the coastal zone
| |
| * Endangered Species Act with respect to identifying impacts to threatened or endangered species and critical habitats by means ofinformal and/or formal consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife resources and the planning of development projects that affect water resources NUREG : 555 (DRAFT) 4.3.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| '
| |
| * Migratory Bird Treaty Act with respect to declaring that it is unlawful to take, import, export, U '
| |
| possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers or other parts of nests or eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. "Take" is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning. wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or collecting.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations and other statutory =
| |
| requirements identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Second Memorandum cf Understanding and Policy Statement Regarding implementation of Certain NRC and EPA Responsibilities, serves as the legal basis for NRC decisionmaking concerning licensing matters covered by NEPA and Section 511 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
| |
| i Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the NRC for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants,40 FR 60115, with respect to the NRC exercising the primary responsibility in conducting environmental reviews and in preparing EISs for nuclear power statior.s.
| |
| However, the Corps of Engineers will participate with the NRC in the preparation of EISs by helping to draft material for sections covering (1) coastal erosion and other shoreline modifications, (2) siltation and sedimentation processes,(3) dredging activities and disposal of dredged materials, and (4) location of structures affecting navigable waters.
| |
| p Regulatory Guide 4.7 contains guidance concerning the ecological systems aad biota at potential i sites and their environs be sufficiently well known to allow reasonably certain predictions ofimpacts that there would be no unacceptable or unnecessary deleterious impacts on populations ofimportant species or on ecological systems from the construction of a nuclear power station.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev.1, contains technical information for the design and execution of terrestrial environmental studies, the results of which may be appropriate for inclusion in the applicant's environmental report. The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate results are included in the ER.
| |
| Technical Ratinnale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential construction or refmbishment impacts on terrestrial ecosystems is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Construction of a nuclear power facility will, and refurbishment mhy, directly impact the terrestrial environment. This section of the ESRP reviews and evaluates the impacts that are anticipated from the construction or refurbishment process. This information can then be used in other ESRPs to balance the environmental effects of construction or refurbishment of the proposed facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as the environmental benefits on .he proposed action. The acceptance criteria listed above should be used O
| |
| \' August 1997 4.3.1-5 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) l
| |
| | |
| to ensure that the environmental impacts of the proposed action are considered with respect to matters covered by such standards and ' requirements.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES When reviewing the impacts of station construction or refurbishment on the terrestrial ecology, the reviewer should acquire general data and information as follows: l l
| |
| l (1) Reviewinn the General Data and Information Necessary to Determine the Imnacts on the Terrestrial Ecolony from Station Construction: i i
| |
| (a) Identify the constructicn or refurbishment activities that impact "important" flora and fauna of l 1
| |
| the site and vicinity, transmission corridors, and offsite areas (definition of"important" resources can be found in Table 2.4.1-1). l l
| |
| (b) Determine the areal extent and location of such potential impacts:
| |
| . Prepare a map superimposing impact areas over resource areas.
| |
| i
| |
| . During the site visit, inspect areas where construction or refurbishment activities will occur l and inspect all other potentially impacted areas. l
| |
| * When necessary, supplement the data and information specified in the " Review procedures" through consultations with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State wildlife agencies).
| |
| (2) Reviewing Imnacts of Station Construction on Terrestrial Ecology:
| |
| (a) Review and discuss the following impacts:
| |
| = the number of hectares of plant community types preempted and the number of hectares modified bv construction or refurbishment activities. Describe how construction or refurbishment activities will disturb the existing terrain and wildlife habitats.
| |
| . the impacts of construction or refurbishment on *.hreatened or endangered species. These impacts should be evaluated relative to their impact on the local population and the total estimated population over the entire range of the species as noted in the literature.
| |
| * Estimate the magnitude of the impact for important species that have commercial or recreational value. This may be expressed in terms of dollars, lost opportunity for recreational pursuits, percent reduction in harvest, percent loss of habitat, or other appropriate quantifiers.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.3.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . Consult with / e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (V.-} under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, if threatened or endangered species or t critical habitat are known to occur in the project area, and the proposed project is predicted to add to their further endangerment.'
| |
| . the impact of habitat modification (Eg., tree removal) on associated animal populations
| |
| . - an evatustion of the impacts of construction or refurbishment on "important" species relative to effects on the local population and the total population of the species a the effects of noise on "important" species
| |
| = construction or refurbishment activities that create obstacles to the movements of vertebrates or result in increased dispersal of invertebrate species known to be important as disease Vectors or pests
| |
| * the potential for bird collisions with cooling towers, other elevated plant structures and construction equipment, transmission towers, and transmission lines e changes in terrestrial habitat resulting from establishment of cooling ponds or lakes including the following:
| |
| construction or refurbishment activities that will dewater any wetlands, ponds, or scepages or alter surface drainage patterns supporting terrestrial biota the adequacy of proposed plans for preventing soil crosion runoff to surface waters, and revegetating disturbed soil
| |
| - disposal of construction or refurbishment wastes that will need landfill or special disposal e impacts to floodplains and wetlands on the power line right of way.
| |
| (b) Decome familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and agreements that are pertinent to the construction or refurbishment of nuclear power stations:
| |
| . Refer to the " Acceptance Criteria" section of this ESRP for a list of those that are applicable to this environmental review.
| |
| . Consult with appropriate agencies, when necessary (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State wildlife agency) to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations.
| |
| ,n db August 1997 4.3.1-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| . Analyze construction or tefurbishment activities in light of recognized " good practice." He term " good practice" as used here will refer to those construction or refurbishmeat activities that tend to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
| |
| IV. EVALUABON FINDINGS in conclusion, input from this ESRP to the EIS should include (1) a bst of adverse impacts of construction or refurbishment to terrestrial ecosystems,(2) a list of the impacts for which there are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and the associated measures and controls,(3) the applicant's commitments to limit these impacts, and (4) the staff evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's measures and controls to limit adverse impacts. This information should be summarized and provided to 'he reviewer of ESRP Section 4.6.
| |
| Any construction or refurbishment activity that should receive mitigative action should be described by the staff, Where mitigation is an option, the reviewer should e* aluate appropriate measures, which could include alternative placement of structures, alternative schedules, or alte native construction practices.
| |
| He reviewer should also evaluate alternatives for any proposed construction or refurbishment activity that is predicted te result in an adverse impact that cannot be mitigated. Practices proposed by the applicant for the protection of the environment should be described if the reviewer determines that they are necessary.
| |
| Ultimately, the depth and extent of the input to the EIS should be governed by the attributes of the terrestrial ecological resources that could be affee a.d by plant construction, operation, and refurbishment, and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts to those resources. Ilowever, the following should sually be evaluated for inclusion by the reviewer in the EIS:
| |
| . loss of habitat for endangered or threatened species in the context of guidelines ender the Endangered Species Act af 1973. Where loss of habitat for ommercially or recrutionally important species occurs, the reviewer should consider the effects on the harvestable crop, it should generally be concluded that loss of up to 5 percent of such habitat in the site vicinity will have negligible impact on the $ rop and need no further analysis. Where losses exceed 5 percent, the reviewer should consider the loss in relation to regional abundance of these species.
| |
| . construction practices to minimize soil crosion and the number of hectares disturbed
| |
| . the clearing of vegetation from stream banks, making certain that it is limited D that necessary for placement of structures
| |
| . the Federal Water Poilution Control Act (FWPCA) amendments of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the Matine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
| |
| Guidelines under the Acts should be followed in evaluating the significance of dewatering wetlands.
| |
| Because of the importance of wetlands, any unavoidable impact to this habitat must be considered in the overall benefit-cost balancing.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.3.1-8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l I
| |
| * the intrusion on or destruction of terrestrial plant communities that are regarded as representative of - I natural, undistwbed, or rannant communities or that show unusual ecological or geographical -
| |
| distributions, and the loss of fragile or sensitive habitat ,
| |
| e the proposed procedures for compliance with EPA guidelines for drainage from dredge spoil. Filling of biologically productive wetlands is generally to be avoided. Plans for dumping of dredge spoils must be approved by the EPA and the District OfNe of the Corps of Engineers.
| |
| - - whee cooling reservoirs are to be crmte-1, the potential beneficial impacts (e.g., provision of- ,
| |
| water for irrigation, livestock watering, or the creation of riparian habitat) and adverse impacts (e.g., i the sheiw y:ng r of migratory waterfowl) should be considered and balanced against the ecological !
| |
| losses associated with inundation of the land area by the reservoir.
| |
| * i he~ t applicant's commitment to the u.,e of good construction practices e secondary impacts on wildlife, such as altersJ behavior resulting from construction noise, in addition
| |
| - io direct impacts on animals such as loss of habitat and road kills e the reviewer should screen each predicted impact using criteria appropriate to the impacted segment of the ecosystem. For example, loss of more than a few percent of the habitat available in the region i for an "important" species could be considered of sufficient imperscc to consider mitigating i action. l if the reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the requirements of this ESRP section, then the evaluation supports the following type of concluding statement to be L included in the staff's EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information relative to impacts to the terrestrial environment on .
| |
| or in the vicinity of the site. The staff concludes that the list and description ofimpacts is adequate to comply with 10 CFR 51.45. The data are also sufficient to support an evaluation of potential impacts to the terrestrial environment that could result from plant construction.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION i
| |
| The method described herein will be asal by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the
| |
| ~
| |
| Com' mission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES l
| |
| - 10 CFR 51.45, " Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71, "Droft environmental impact statement-contents,"
| |
| August 1997: - 4.3.19 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) f
| |
| ?
| |
| , -n.,.u, nn w-e--,m, , , , , , , , .- .,n-,,e ,- , aev.-,. -n,rm.,w- -w,, _ ,,.w,m.,n e- rw m ,+s m -,r,,-,._,v,,, , w w.n ,--,
| |
| | |
| 10 CFR 51.75, " Draft environmental impact statement--construction permit."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpart A. "Early Site Perml0 "
| |
| 10 CFR 52.79," Contents of applications; technical infortnation."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. l. l975. General Site Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.lI, Rev. l. I977. Terre 3trialEnvironmentalStudiesforNuclearPowerStations.
| |
| Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act oi 1940, as amended,16 USC 668 et. seq.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean Water Act).
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended,13 USC 1401 et seq.
| |
| " Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants." 40 Federal Register 37110, August 25,1975.
| |
| Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended,16 USC 703 et seq.
| |
| "Second Memorandum of Understanding and Policy Statement Regarding implementation of Certain NRC and EPA Responsibilities," 40 Federal Register 60115, December 31,1975.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (CRAFT) - 4.3.1 10 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREO 1555 U .S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 0 /,,,,% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD N*****) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.3.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REVIEW RESPONSIDILITIES Primary-Generic Issnes and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-Nonc
| |
| !. AREAS OF REVIEW This .nvironmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff s description, quantification, and ast z,sment of the impacts of construction or afurbishment of the proposed facilitL on the aquatic ec> system. The scope of the review directed by this plan will include an assessment of both onsite and
| |
| /,ffsite construction or refurbishment activities, including transmission line and access corridor construction. The assessment should be in sumclent detail to (1) predict and evaluate the significance of f potential impacts to "important" species and their habitats, and (2) evaluate how these impacts should be
| |
| ( considered in the licensing' decision. If necessary, the reviewer should consider alternative designs or construction practices to mitigate the intensity of environmental impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from on provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 211. Obtain information regarding the hydrology of the site.
| |
| . ESRP 212. Obtain a description of surface water and groundwater uses so that the description of impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from construction or rc'urbishment can be completed.
| |
| August 1997 4.3.21 NUREG 15SS (DRAFT)
| |
| ~~
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REYIEW PLAN wi E"w'w p.r,.t P
| |
| g M"*
| |
| um *n#'.,5l',*#4" Men D .,'.t.,-
| |
| .U.#7. . _ no.,g. .*In% Tc u A..=_".s_W.,'sn d,*.im' *:_.;w.2.r
| |
| , ,, ,,,. g'" *.. m r. a " M 1h N ."e M *s T A Y . M
| |
| = __ =., w,,r w.- - .s,. - .....-. __,...
| |
| b anne.edm 1. f5 V M IN I. NrEw Y N w . N N c Y ssY #
| |
| * e ESRI 13.3. Obtain information about the water quality conditions at the site in enough detail to determine impacts to the aquatic environment from construction or refurbishment.
| |
| . ESRP 2.4.2. Obtain descriptions of the aquatic ecology of the site and vicinity. Provide input on the significant impacts of construction or refurbishment on the aquatic environment to guiue the reviewe t of ESRP 2.4.2 in preparing a more detai;ed description of the part(s) of the environment that wil be significantly affected.
| |
| e ESRP 3.1. Obtain information about the power pl. fs external appearance and layout in enough detail to support the analyses made in ESRP 4.3.2.
| |
| . ESRP 3.4.2. Obtain a description of the intake, discharge, and heat dissipation system design and performance characteristics so that a description ofimpacts on the aquatic ecosystem from construction or refurbishment can be completed.
| |
| * ESRP 3.6.2. Obtain a description of sanitary system effluents and their treatment so that a description ofimpacts on the aquatic ecosystem from constmetion or refurbishment can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 3.7. Obtain information about the power transmission system in enough detail to support the analyses made in ESRP 4.3.2.
| |
| . ESRP 4.1.1. Obtain an evaluation ofimpacts of constmetion or refurbishment on land use of the site
| |
| ' and vicinity so that a description of impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from construction or refurbishment can be completed, e ESRP 4.1.2. Obtain an evaluation ofimpacts of construction or refurbishment on land use within the transmission line and access corridors and other offsite areas so that a description ofimpacts on the aquatic ecosystem from construction or refurbishment can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 4.2.1. Obtain information about hydrological alterations and potential water use impacts on the aquatic environment ouring construction or refurbishment.
| |
| * ESRP 4.2.2 Obtain an evaluation of the impacts on water use so that a description ofimpacts on the aquatic ecosystem from construction or refurbishment can be completed.
| |
| e ESRP 4.4.2. Prcvide information regarJing impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from construction or refurbishment so that awfuation of social and economic impacts from construction or refurbishment can be completed, e ESRP 4.6. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff evaluations of practices to limit advers:
| |
| environmental impacts of construction or refurbish' ment.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.3.22 August 1997
| |
| | |
| [\
| |
| * ESRP 6.3. Provide 8nformation on impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from construction or refurbishment so that an evaluation of the hydrological monitoring programs can be corapleted. ,
| |
| * ESRP_LL2. Provide information on impacts on the aquatic environment ' rom construction or refurbishment in suf0clent detail to permit evaluation of the applicant's proposed monitoring l program,
| |
| * ESRP 6.6. Provide information on impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from e 'nstruction or refurbishment so that a description and evaluation of the water quality monitoring programs can be comp'eted.
| |
| * ESREs 9.3 and 9.4. If the reviewer determines : hat a proposed construction or refurbishment activity ,
| |
| will result in an adverse environmental impact that cannot be mitigated by alternative construction practices and procedures, inform the reviewers of ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 t''.st alternative locations and plant or component designs should be considered.
| |
| * IMRP 10.1. Provide a brief summary of the unavoidable impacts that are expected to occur during construction or refurbishment. This should usually be limited to the more significant impacts (e.g.,
| |
| temporary loss of habitat for "important" species).
| |
| * ESRP 102. Provide a brief summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments of aquatic resources that are expected to occur during construction or refurbishment. For example, this would O include any permanent loss of aquatic habitat or loss of wetlands.
| |
| Data and Informatinn Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be a(Tected by site- and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following site and vicinity data or information usually should be obtained:
| |
| * a map of the site and vicinity delineating areas of construction or refurbishment, particularly those where habitat of"important' species (see definition in Table 2.4.2 1) is expected to be altered, such as areas to be cleared along stream banks and areas proposed for the disposal of dredged material (from the environmental report [ER] and ESRP Section 3.1).
| |
| . the proposed schedule of construction or refurbishment activities e the clearing methods, temporary and permanent erosion, run-off, and siltation control methods, dust suppression methods, and other construction practices for control or suppression specific to the site
| |
| - (from the ER)
| |
| /~
| |
| V August 1997 4.3.2-3 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ----_---_w - eA _ - w ---%.- .-- r- , -,., e,.,- ...%% .- -,, m
| |
| * the area of disturbanca for each habitat type listed in the top two items above and the total aquatic area to be disturbed, and an estimate 9f the amount of these habitats that will be destroyed relative to the total amovat present in the region (from the ER) e the aquatic areas to be covered by permanent station facilities (frorn the ER) e any proposed construction or refurbishment activity expected to impact communities that have been defined as rare or unique or that support threatened and endangered species (from the ER)
| |
| * tolerances and/or susceptibilities of"impoitant" blota to physical and chemical pollutants of
| |
| . construction origin (from the ER and the general 1.%rature).
| |
| Additional background information about the aquatic ecology, hydrology, water quality, and the impacts of hydrological alterations and water use, that is necessary for this review ofimpacts on aquatic resources from construction or refurbishment, should be obtained from the reviewers of ESRPs 2.3.1, 2.3.3,2.4.2, and 4.2, the ER, and from consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies.
| |
| The following data and infonnution about transmission corridors and offsite areas should also usually be obtained:
| |
| * the clearing methods, erosion, run-off and siltation control methods (both temporary and permanent),
| |
| dust suppression methods, and other construction practices for impact control or minimization that are specific to the proposed transmission system (from the ER). 'Ihe reviewer should confinn that the methods are NRC-aryroved practices.
| |
| + the water bodies and wetlands crossed or spanned that have been classified as unique aquatic resources by Federal of State agencies and that can be expected to have tower foundations located within them (from the 'eR) e the location and areal limits of construction or refurbishment activities having impacts on aquatic environs (from the ER and ESRP 4.2)
| |
| + a description of the magnitude and schedule of construction or refurbishment activities that are expected to impact "important" aquatic species and thei habitats (from the ER and ESRP 4.2).
| |
| Additional background information about the aquatic ecology along the transmission corridors and offsite areas, necessary for this review of impacts on aquatic resources from construction or refurbishment, should be obtained from the reviewer of ESRP 2.4.2 and can be found in the ER, general literature, and from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies.
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) _ 4.3.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| ,m (J ) 11. ACCEPTANCECRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of construction or refurbishment impacts on aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the site and transmission corridors are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 with respect to natural resources and land or water use in the coastal zone
| |
| * Endangered Species Act of 1973 with respect to identifying impacts on threatened or endangered species and critical habhats by means ofinformal and/or formal consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
| |
| * Federal Water Pollution Control Act (l WPCA) i of 1948 with respect to activities associated with the discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States
| |
| . FWPCA Amendments of 1972 with respect to restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife resources in planning development projects that affect water resources D e Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 with respect to the protection of marine mammals
| |
| (
| |
| * Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctustics Act of 1972 with respect to the dumping of dredged material into the ocean
| |
| . Rivers and liarbors Act of 1899 with respect to construction of any bridge, causeway, dam, or dike ovet or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or any other navigable water of the United States.
| |
| Regula:ory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations and other statutory requirements identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.7 contains guidance concerning the ecological systems and biota at potential sites and their environs be sufficiently well known to allow reasonably certain predictions of impacts and that there would be no unacceptable or unnecessary dcleterious impacts on populations of important species or on ecological systems from the construction of a nuclear power station
| |
| + Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the NRC for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants 1975, with respect to the NRC exercising the primary responsibility in conducting environmental reviews and in preparing EISs for nuclear power stations, llowever, the Corps of Engineers will participate with the NRC in the preparation of environmental 7
| |
| impact statements by helping to draft material for sections covering (1) coastal erosion and other l
| |
| 'q)\ Augusi 1997 4.3.25 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| shoreline modificatioris,(2) siltation and sedimentation processes,(3) dredging activities and disposal of dredged mr.terials, and (4) location of structures affecting navigable waters.
| |
| Technical Rattnnale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's construction or refurbishment impacts on aquatic ecosystems is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| The EIS needs to include an analysis that considers the environmental and other effects of construction or refurbishment on the aquatic environment and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental and other effects, as well as the environmental benefits of the proposed action. Following the acceptance criteria listed above will help ensure that the environmental impact of the proposed action is considered with respect to matters covered by such standards and requirements.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURM When reviewing the impacts of station construction or refurbishment on aquatic ecology the reviewer should acquire general data and information as follows:
| |
| (1) llcritEiDy the General Data and Informailon Necenarv to Determine the Imoacts of Station Construction or Refurbishment on Aanatic Ecology:
| |
| (a) Identify the construction or refurbishment activities that impact "important" aquatic fauna and flora of the site and vicinity, transmission corridors, and offsite areas.
| |
| (b) Determine the areal extent and location of such potential impacts.
| |
| * Prepare a map superimposing impact areas over resource areas.
| |
| * During the site visit, inspect areas where construction or refurbishment activities will occur and inspect all other potentially impacted areas.
| |
| . When necessary, supplement the data and information specified in this part through consultations with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife agencies).
| |
| (2) Reviewing Imnacts of Construction or Refurbishment on Aountic Ecology:
| |
| Review and discuss the following impacts:
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.3.2-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| k
| |
| ,a (a) Determine how construction or refurbishment activities will impact "important" species and (v) their habitats (e.g., those resulting from r,couring and siltation, dredging and soil disposal, and interference with shoreline processes), and estimate the magnitude and duation of such Irepacts.
| |
| (b) Detennine the impacts of construction or refurbishment on threater.ed or endangered species, evaluating these impacts relative to the local population and the total estimated population over the entire range of the species as noted in the literature.
| |
| (c) Identify water bodies receiving construction or refurbishment effluents and the expected average and maximum flow rates, composition, and physical characteristics of these efiluents (from ESRP 4.2).
| |
| (d) Describe proposed construction or refurbishment management practices for the amelioration of impacts (from the ER). For example, e avoid narrow reaches of water bodies and important habitats as sites for locrting intake or discharge structures e provide a zone of passage that permits normal movement of"important" species ,
| |
| populations and maintenance of the harvestable crop of economically important populations.
| |
| O, (e) For important species having commercial or recreational value, estimate the magnitude of the impact. 'Ihis may be expressed in terms of dollars, lost opportunity for recreational pursuits, percent reduction in harvest, percent loss of habitat, or other appropriate quantifiers. In absence of more sophisticated population models, tbse determinations can usually be based on percent of habitat type lost.
| |
| (f) If threatened or endangered species are known to occur in the project area, and the propos d project is predicted to add to their further endangerment, consult with the U.S. Fish and V'ildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
| |
| (g) Identify potential disturbances of benthic areas by
| |
| - placement ofintake and discharge structures
| |
| = channel modifications for navigation or flow control
| |
| * placement and removal of cofferdams e construction of bulkheads, piers, jetties, basins, and storm sewers e direct dredging, including the area that may be affected by resulting siltation and turbidity.
| |
| August 1997 4.3.2-7 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) t
| |
| | |
| (h) Anc, lyze the importance of these disturbed benthic areas to "important" species, taking into account the relationship between the area disturbed and the remaining comparable undisturbed area in the region available for the continued maintenance ofimpacted biota.
| |
| (i) Relate the critical life history and habitat needs of"important" fish and shellfish (e.g., seasonal requirements, migration routes, spawning areas, nursery grounds, and feeding and wintering areas) to the plant construction or refurbishment schedule and consider whether impacts are likely to he of short duration or otherwise reversible.
| |
| (j) In analyzing such impacts, consider e percent of the water body cross section that might be obstructed by construction or refurbishment activity at any time e time and duration of such obstruction
| |
| . potential changes to water quality caused by exposure of substrate to contaminants during construction or refurbishment (e.g., dredging for intake channels, cofferdam construction).
| |
| + coordinatir,g this review with the District Of1 ice of the Corps of Engineers.
| |
| (k) Identify sediments, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, and other potential pollutants entering affected water bodies.
| |
| * Consider both the points of entry of site drainage into suiface-water bodies and the areal extent ofimpact by suspended materials and siltation.
| |
| * Determine the potential for reversibility ofimpacts following completion of construction or refurbishment.
| |
| * Assess plans for maintenance of siltation ponds or catchment basins.
| |
| (1) Identify potential clearing along reaches of streams, rivers, and other water bodies.
| |
| + Identify water bodies where such habitat alterations will occur and indicate the extent of such changes.
| |
| * Compare this with the extent of remaining similar habitats in the region.
| |
| (m) Identify potential dewatering effects on groundwater supply, wetl'mds (protected under Executive Order 11990), and othe aquatic habitats.
| |
| * Consider the location and areal extent of ar.y wetlands that will be drained.
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 4.3.28 August 1997 O
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| .-___._______..___.._.__..___..___m.._._
| |
| l i
| |
| e Determine the relative extent of comparable wetlands in the regioi 'nd, as in item (g) above, address the relative importance to the ecosystem of the impacted wetlands in l comparison with the regional wetlands. . . ;
| |
| * ~ Examine the potential for reversibility of impacts and/or environmental improvement following construction or refusishment.
| |
| (n) Identify disposal plans for dredged material and placement of fill material. .l l
| |
| * Identify the areal extent of any water bodies or wetlands that would receive dredge spoils i during construction cr refurbishment.-
| |
| * Consider the relative extent of similar water bodies and wetlands in the region and in this l
| |
| context analyze the importance of the impacted wetlands and water bodies to the ecosystem. 1 i
| |
| e Coordinate this review with the District, Office of the Corps of Engineers. J (o) Ensure tisat aquatic species expected to become established in cooling ponds are identified.
| |
| * Ensure that the applicant has described in the ER the aquatic species that are expected to -
| |
| become established in cooling ponds. ;
| |
| Consider bow these colonization may impact aquatic species in adjacent water bodies and !
| |
| wetlands in the site and vicinity. .
| |
| '(p) -In addition to the above analyses (!tems a p), consider any other site specific construction or :
| |
| refurbishment impacts to aquatic ecosystems that can be predicted on the basis of proposed construction or refurbishment activities and the local aquatic ecosystem, consulting with the reviewers for ESRPs 2.3,2.4.2,3.6, and 4.2 to identify such additional impacts.
| |
| (q) - Ensure initial evaluation of environmental impacts hu been submitted by the applicant if the j applicant wishes to accelerate the start of construction.
| |
| i
| |
| + Ensure that an applicant wishing to accelerate the stvt of construction by early submittal of
| |
| = the ER has submitted in the ER an initial evaluation of environmental impacts based on an -
| |
| . analysis of at least 6 months of field data related to the proposed facility and suitable' :
| |
| projections of the remaining seasonal periods ifinformation has already been provided on ,
| |
| the critical life stages and biologically significant activities (e.g., spawning, migration) that :
| |
| - Increase the vulnerability of the potentially affected biota at the proposed site.
| |
| ei If this has been done, the reviewer should ensure that the applicant makes a com.nitment to '
| |
| _ ; furnish, within 6 months of the time of filing, a final evaluation based on a full year of field o
| |
| data. ;
| |
| N August 1997 I 4.3.29 NUREO-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ~
| |
| t
| |
| .;; A L A . -. . ~.. . . . _ . , _. L, A_ 4 ... _a . _- A 4 _
| |
| | |
| (r) Become familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and agreements pertinent to the i construction or refurbishment of nuclear power stations:
| |
| l
| |
| * Refer to the " Acceptance Criteria" section of this ESRP for a list of the standards that are !
| |
| applicable to this environmental review.
| |
| . Where required by these provisions, consult with the reviewers of ESRP 2.3 and with appropriate agencies (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State wildlife agency) to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations.
| |
| . Analyze construction or refurbishment activ; ties in light of recognized best management pt:etices.
| |
| IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS Input from this ESRP to the EIS should include (1) a list of adverse impacts of construction or refurbishment to aquatic ecosystems, (2) a list of the impacts for which there are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and the associated measures and controls,(3) the applicant's commitments to limit these impacts, and (4) the staffs evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's measures and controls to limit adverse impacts, nis information should be summarized by the reviewer of ESRP Sectir 4.6.
| |
| For all construction or refurbishment activities, the commitment of aquatic resources should be indicated.
| |
| The reviewer should also evaluate the proposed construction or refurbishment activities to ensure that the applicant is planning to use generally acceptable practices that should result in minimizing impacts associated with such practices (see 40 CFR 423.40). Practices and commitments proposed by the applicant for the protection of the environrent should be described.
| |
| Any construction or refurbishment activity that should receive mitigative action should be described by the staff. Where mitigation of a predic'ed impact is an option, the reviewer should evaluate appropriate measures, which could include alternative placement of structures, attemative schedules, or attemative construction or refurbishment practices. He reviewer should evaluate attematives for any proposed construction or refurbishment activity that is predictri to result in an adverse impact that cannot be mitigated.
| |
| Ultimately, the depth and extent of the input to the EIS will be govemed by the attributes of the aquatic ecological resources that could be affected by plant construction, operation, and rsfurbishment, and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts to these resources. He reviewer should screen each predicted impact using criteria appropriate to the impacted segment of the ecosystem. De following should usually be evaluated by the reviewer for inclusion in the EIS:
| |
| a loss of habitat for endangered or ihreatened species in the context of guidelines under the Erdangered Species Act of 1973. Ifloss of habitat for commercially or recreationally important species occurs, the reviewer should consider the effects on the harvestable crop. It should generally NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.3.2 10 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| b be umcluded that loss of up to'5% of such habitat in the site vicinity will have negligible impact on I
| |
| - the crop and need no further analysis. Where losses exceed 5%, the reviewers should consider the loss in relation to regional abundance of these species.
| |
| * construction practices to minimize soil erosion and the number of hectares disturbed !
| |
| * the clearing of vegetation from stream banks, making certain that it is limited to that necessary for placement of structures e the applicant's commitment to the use of best management practices
| |
| ~
| |
| * alternatives to mitigate such impacts, such a using a rish hatchery and habitat restoration to increase natural fish production, if the applicant's ER reveals a potential significant impact on fish j populations. ,
| |
| * lost "important" aquatic species and habitats from the viewpoints of their uniqueness within the region under consideration, relative impacts, and long term not effects.
| |
| . He assessments of relative impacts should include statements expressed in percentage terms in whicle the amount of expected resource loss is related to the total resource in the immediate region and in which the total resoum in the immediate region is related to that in the surrounding regions.
| |
| De assenments oflong term net effects should include statements about whether impacts represent long term net losses, long term net gains, or something in between. For example, short term impacts to individuals in the local impact area may be severe while long term impacts to the local population may represent no not losses.
| |
| * disturbance of benthic areas. All dredged areas or areas affected by dredging may be considered as temporarily lost habitat, therefore dredging should be limited, if possible.
| |
| . surface run-off, Good construction practices will generally control surface run-off, Where drainage courses represent an especially important resource (see the Final Environmental Statement for Skagit Nuclear Station), attention should be given to measures for their protection during construction or refurbishment. De reviewer should (1) determine if construction or refurbishment activities affecting water quality (e.g., run oft, turbidity) will comply with Federal, State, regional, and local water quality standards, and (2) reach a conclusion as to whether controls proposed by the applicant will ensure satisfactory protection of surface watersc
| |
| * dewatering in wetlands. ' Guidelines under the FWPCA Amendments of 1972, the Coastal Zone ll Management Act of 1972, and the Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 should be followed in evaluating L
| |
| : the significance of dewatering on wetlands. Generally, dewatering of biologically productive r
| |
| -y ; wetlands may be considered an adverse impact that should be avoided. ' ne percentage loss of such t- August 1997 : 4.3.2-1 I NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l }
| |
| l 1
| |
| l
| |
| < _ _ ___ _ ~ _ _ i . _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| wetlands in the region should be considered to place the loss in perspective for the licensing decision.13ecause of the importance of wetlands, alternatives to avoid any loss of this habitat should always be considered.
| |
| + dredge sposis and placement of fill. Drainage from dredge spoil areas should comply with existing EPA guidelines. The reviewer should reach a conclusion about whether adequate practices have been provided for manapment of this stage of construction or refurbishment. Filling of biologically productive wetlands should generally be avoided. Dumping of dredge spoils should be perfonned under the cognizance of the EPA and the District Office of the Corps of Engineers.
| |
| if the reviewer verifies that sufficient information has beta pmvided in accordance with the requirements of this ESRP section, then the evaluation supports the fol!owing types of concluding statements to be included in the staffs EIS:
| |
| 'the staff has reviewed the available information relative to impacts to the aquatic environment on or in the * **i yt of the site. The staff concludes that the list and descriptioa ofimpacts is adequate to comply v 10 CFR 51.45. The data are also sufficient to support an evalur. tion of potential impacts to the aquatic environment that could result from plant construction.
| |
| V. IMPl.EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with r.pecified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51, Subpart A. " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.75," Draft environmental impact statement construction permit."
| |
| 10 CFR 52,"Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.79," Contents of applications; technical information."
| |
| 40 CFR 423. " Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."
| |
| Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4003.1992. General Site Suitability Criteriafor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| NUREO.1555 (DRAFT) 4.3.2 12 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ) Regulatory GuLle 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmentalReportsfor Nuclear Pour Stations.
| |
| V Regulstory Guide 4.7, Rev. 2. 1995. General Site Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations. Second Proposal.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. l. 1977. Terrestrial Environmental Studiesfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Executive Order 11990," Protection of Wetlands."
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC l$31 et seq.
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act,33 USC,1251 to 1387.
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment.16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended,16 USC 1361 et seq.
| |
| Marine Protection, Research, and Suetuaries Act, as amended,33 USC 140) et seq.
| |
| " Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the U.S. Nuclear
| |
| (' Regulatory Commission for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plauts." 40 Federal Register 37110, August 25,197$.
| |
| " Notice: National Environmental Policy Act; Pollution Prevention," 58 Federal Register 6478.
| |
| Rivers and liarbors Appropr:ations Act of 1899,33 USC,403 et 3q..
| |
| "Second Memorandum of Understanding and Policy Statement Regarding implementation of Certain NRC and EPA Responsibilities," 40 Federal Register 60115, Decemh.tr 31,1975.
| |
| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. EnvironmentalProtection Measuresfor Construction Practices, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington.
| |
| ' Augusi 1997 4.3.2-13 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| NUREG 1555
| |
| ,,,' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O v ,
| |
| i ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| (*****/ OFFICE REVIEW PLAN OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.4 SOCIOECONOMICIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBIL111ES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch l 1
| |
| Secondary-None ,
| |
| I. ARP.AS OF REVIEW This environmental standard rey!ew plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the socioeconomic impacts of construction and refurbishment. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 4.4.1 through 4.4.3.
| |
| Review Inte, faces None.
| |
| Data and Inform.tlon Need, The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should encure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with th intent of the following regulation:
| |
| 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, and analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 '4.41 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN O b4"'#,""*''.".da,?."."#:.*f:,'",3r.':flA*,Mr."*t,1*,.
| |
| .i?.,2'4**T; g, eu u.p"" *s'"0." 20.'.t. .,'gF* . :' s.v Pot %Y,*""."
| |
| t) l g-gwgy. sa.a. .. w .*.4 ,.,i .sv . . ,*i.. io 4.. . oi. .no i.
| |
| 8"""'*"'' *h ida'Mi. n" "aA" "WT'c''itn!* """* * ** ""'*" "*'""Y
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specinc criteria necessary to meet the regulations identined above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specine to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical RatiQDalt Technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential socioeconomic impacts is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that othnt the reader with respect to the relevance of the materini to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES De material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis ,f data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS he reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 4.4.1 through 4.4.3 The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATIOR
| |
| %e method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with speclDed portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI, REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70,"Dran environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 155$ (DRAFT) 4.42 August 1997 I
| |
| | |
| 1 NUREO 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O /'"% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.4.1 PIIYSICALIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Isaues and Environmental Projects Branch I
| |
| Secondary-Nonc
| |
| : 1. AlmAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs identification and assessmut of the '
| |
| direct physical impacts of construction related activities'd to the ecmmunity. Amer.g these are the construction disturbances of noise, odors, veHele exhaust, dust, vibration, and shock from blatting.
| |
| De scope of the review directed by this plan should include consMeration ofimpacts resulting from
| |
| /] plant construction or refurbishment, transmission corridors and access roads, other offsite facilitiu, and
| |
| (/ pridect related transportation of goods and materials. He ruview should be of sufficient detail to predict 4 and assess potential im;. sets, and to show how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process.
| |
| Where necessary, the reviewer should identify alternative locations, designs, practices, and procedures '
| |
| that would mitigate predicted adverse impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer will obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the j following ESRPs, as indicated: i
| |
| . ESRPs 2.1 and 2.2. Provide a detailed description of the plant location and of the surrounding region affected by the plan
| |
| * construction or refurbishment.
| |
| ~ (a) Construction related activities are those that occur solely as a result of plant construction and/or refurbishment.
| |
| August 1997 4.4.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN P* W.,%"2,1 d
| |
| * o) q, u.gming.m?/,.C.%*%:/,!.".'.*,g.o
| |
| -~
| |
| , g :, g .n =,..n*.nm m .i nia ..,~ e, %v .n. . w w.'"*r's:'!7.??,4*oi,'0*,b."**. v w '*M o.,en*
| |
| i.v i. e. ,
| |
| nis
| |
| ,rgaaggg;ap-. a w .. **.a . .. v .. . ..mm . .-. .a i.
| |
| i 8:ml".' c o".tp:re.'"nt!J' :,@.1.o". vi.tt;:'Jd c Wa"*"' " '* " ""*" "**'"' i
| |
| ___ _ __- _ -..-.- - -- -- -- - - - - - - - ^ ^ - ' ' - ~ ~ ' ^ ^ ^
| |
| | |
| i e ESRP 2 3 2. Obtain descriptions of bodies of water likely to be affected by noise, odor, or transportation from constmction er refurbishment or whose ae.thetics would be affected, o ESRPs 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Identify the socioeconomic features such as population and community characteristics of the site environs that potentially may be subject to physical impacts from construction or refurbishment.
| |
| . ESRP 3.1. Identify any aspects of the plant's appearance that may cause physical impacts in the region, including visual aesthetics, e ESRP 3.7. Provide a detailed description of any power transmission system construction associated with the plant that may physically impact the region, including visual aesthetics, e ESRPs 4.1.1 throuch 4.1.2 Obtain data on land uses likely to be affected physically or aesthetically by construction / refurbishment noise, odors, dust, etc., at the plant and along transmission and access corridors. Of special concern are nearby recre: tion areas.
| |
| . ESRP 412. Obtain data on construction / refurbishment activities that may have adverse impacts on noise, odors, dust, shock, vibration, or aesthetics,in the vicinity of the plant and transmission and access corridors.
| |
| . ESRP 4.6 Provide a list of the applicant's commitments and the practices that the staff has identified to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction.
| |
| . ESRP 5.8.1. Identify the features of pir.nt construction expected to result in operational impacts.
| |
| . ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4. If the reviewer determines that there are physical impacts of construction that are adverse and should be avoided, the reviewers for ESRps 9.3 and 9.4 should be requected to consider alternative plant designs, locations, or construction practices that would avoid the impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. P: ovid: a list of the unavoidable physical impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed construction activity.
| |
| . Interface with Environmental Project ManaccI. Consult with the environmental project manager on practicality and cost effectiveness of any proposed modifications to mitigate physical socioeconomic impacts of construction.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.12 August 1997 O I l
| |
| | |
| Data and Infamnation Needs
| |
| )
| |
| \js The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station specific factors and the degree cf detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The foliowing information will usually be obtained:
| |
| e the distribution of people, buildings, roads, and recreational facilities vulnerable to impact frvm construction related activities (from the environmental report [ER]).
| |
| . appli;atic standards for levels of noise, dust, and gaseous pollutants (from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| + predicted noise lovels at sensitive areas identified in the first item listed above (from the ER) e predicted air pollutant levels at sensitive areas identified in the first item listed above (from the ER).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria are based on meeting the relevant requirements for noise, dust, and air pollution and visual nesthetics of the following regulations:
| |
| * Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, with respect to air quality during construction activities.
| |
| (
| |
| ' . Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, with respect to noise from construction.
| |
| + 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, with respect to Category 2 socioeconomic impacts.
| |
| * 10 CFR $1.71 and 10 CFR 51.45 with respect to describing the significance or potential significance of physice' imp cts of plant construction activities on nec+y communities.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, with respect to economic and social impact of siting and constmetion activities.
| |
| Technint Ratinnale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential physical impacts is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| V Aupst 1997 4.4.1 3 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| 1 I
| |
| in accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(d), the applicant is required to submit in the preliminary and final environmental reports (PER and FER) information needed for evaluating socioeconomic impacts of construction or refurbishment. Similar information is required to be present in the EIS pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71.
| |
| Reasor..bly detailed information about the potential for physical socioeconomic impacts such as noise or dust at the site in question is required to assess any potential social or economic impacts that might occur as a result of plant construction or operation. Data in the ER must be adequate to make these determinations.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne reviewer's analysis of construction or refurbi-hment impacts to the community should be linked to the environmental reviews directed by ESRPs 2.1,2.2,2.5.1,2.5.2,3.1 and 3.7, to ensure that the environmental factors most likely to be impacted by the proposed construction are adequately described, ne reviewer should ensure that information presented in the applicant's environmental report is complete and accun,te. The reviewer should recognize that physical impacts to a community from construction of a nuclear plant are not markedly different from any other large heavy construction project. With this in mind, the reviewer should complete the following steps:
| |
| (;) For any particular construction related activity, first consider the distribution of residents and transients who could be affected, including determination of sensitive use patterns (e.g., hospitals, residences, recreational areas) and the allowable limits of impacts.
| |
| (2) Identify the potential impacts on the community and predict their extent and magnitude, including impacts from dust, noise, shock from blarting, and polluting gases and particles.
| |
| * Consider impacts in qualitative terms where the effect on the community is expected to be minor.
| |
| * Where adverse impacts (i.e., impacts that should be mitigated nr avoided) can be predicted, conduct a more detailed analysis and where practical, make quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the impacts.
| |
| (3) Identify the applicant's commitments to mitigate the physical impacts. These include
| |
| * wetting down roadways and construction sites a scheduling noisy operations during daytime hours a suppressing blast and shock effects by using mats.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I o)
| |
| (d (4) Consider the major physical impacts of plant construction or refurbishment. De specific impacts should include the impact of plant refurbishment on transportation and the aesthetic characteristics of the region.
| |
| (5) Become familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and agreements pertinent to the construction of nuclear power plants.
| |
| * Refer to the " Acceptance Criteria" section of this ESRP for a list of those generally pertinent to this environmental review.
| |
| * Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies to verify that current, applicable regulations and guides are available. His should include, for example, consultation with the EPA and State and local agencies for current ambient air-quality standards and air pollutant levels and Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines and standards applicable to facility construction, e Verify that the applicant has made commitments to compliance with these applicable regulations and guides.
| |
| . Become familiar v ith general references on construction practices and impacts.
| |
| -
| |
| * Examine proposed construction activities in light of recognized " good practice." He term
| |
| " good practice" as used here refers to those noise level construction activities that tend to mitigate adverse physical impacts to the community.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS De review conducted under this plan should be directed toward accomplishing the following objectives:
| |
| (1) public disclosure of physical impacts cesulting from construction related activities; (2) presentation of the Ms for the staff analysis; and (3) presentation of staff conclusions regarding physical impacts of construuon-related activities to the community.
| |
| If the site is remote from a community and the applicant is committed to meeting applicable guides and standards and to following good construction practices, these facts should be stated with only a very brief discussion noting that under these conditions physical socioeconomic impacts should be minor. Where this is not the case, each of the areas identified in the analysis section shot:ld be addressed briefly with cone';usions regarding the significance of the impact on the community, ne reviewer should discuss the applicant's comn itments to meet applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal standards, and should describe mitigating actions that should be taken by the applicant during construction. If there are some unique impacts resulting from unusual methods, materials, or other construction-rehted activities, these impacts should be addressed in detail.
| |
| (" /
| |
| August 1997 4.4.1 5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l if the reviewer determines that the applicant is committed to comply with all applicable standards and that the applicant's proposed construction related activities represent good construction practices, the reviewer may conclude that the impacts resulting from these activities will be acceptable.
| |
| Where predicted impacts are adverse, the reviewer should consider mitigative measures, including alternativo placement of structures, alternative schedules, attemative construction practices, or other )
| |
| conditions to be imposed by the construction permit.
| |
| Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations: l
| |
| * The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement in the EIS of the following type:
| |
| 'lhe staff has reviewed the available information on the operation of the construction (refurbishment) activities. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant physical socioeconomic environmental impacts as a result of construction (refurbishment).
| |
| * The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by spec!(ic design orprocedure modifications that the reviewer has identified and determined to be practical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager and the reviewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 for verification that the reviews are pmtical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance. The reviewer shoaM prepare lists of verified modifications for the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.2.
| |
| A statement similar to the following should be included in the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the infonnation on the operation of the nonradioactive-waste-system.
| |
| Ilased on this review, the staficoncludes that the following impacts require mitigation.
| |
| * The impact is adverse and cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs sr procedures is needed.
| |
| The reviewer should participate in any such halysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that couM be considered practical, if no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer is responsible for providing this information ta the reviewer for ESRP 10.1, A statement similar to the following should be included in the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the information on the operation of the nonradioactive-waste-system.
| |
| Based on this review, the staff concludes that the following impactQ) eannot be mitigated and -
| |
| should be avoided. Alternatives should be considered.
| |
| NUREO-1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| V. IMP 11MENTAT10N J
| |
| The method described herein will be und by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which die applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. RffERENCES 10 CFR 51 Appendix B," Environmental effect of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71," Draft environmental impact statement-contentsc' Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Clean Air Act Amendments of1977, as amended,41 USC 7401 et seq.
| |
| Noise Control Act, as amended,42 USC 4901 et seq.
| |
| o V August 1997 4.4.17 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| (/ '... \
| |
| REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.4.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMICIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. ARRAS OF REVIEW nis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs analysis and evaluation of the social and economic impacts of plant construction or refurbishment on the surrounding regionW and indiv4dval communities that could be affected by the proposed project.
| |
| %e scope of the review directed by this plan includes the social and econom'.: imputs resulting from construction or refurbishment of the pi'nt and from the activities and dernands of the construction /
| |
| ( refurbishment labor force. Categories ofimpacts resulting directly nom (cm u uction or refurbishment of the station include (1) private sector regional materials, products, and services; (:.) tegional labor, (3) tax revenues to localjurisdictions; (4) public facilities and services:(5) social or economic significance of ecological and land use impacts, including human displacement; and (6) Ic:al plarming-political dec!sion processes. Categories ofimpacts resulting from the activities and demands of the construction / refurbish-ment labor force include (1) population settlement pattern,(2) housing,(3) land use, (4) education, (5) other public facilities and service,(6) transportation,(7) private sector goods and services, (8) employment and regional income,(9) tax revenues to localjurisdictions,(10) local planning political decision processes, and (111 melal structure and community cohesion. He reviewer should identify specific impacts and where they will occur and predict their relative magnitude, Where necessary, the reviewer should access alternative locations, designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate predicted adverse impacts.
| |
| (a) See ESRP 2.5.2 for a definition of" region,"
| |
| August 1997 - 4.4.21 NUREO l555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN d *"
| |
| * t'dl"Yd?A.?",*.' "2" "."*.iL".*iW.*" '""
| |
| f' ""*'""*"'a'.n"T?ad.r'.dn:,L*L 1%',"%'n'.T*/Mi,'""3*.,':'a.'ndE gh wm nc ed. Th environm nt.1 n
| |
| ".*?o.,t d 'E.,
| |
| :fj,d ip*
| |
| , pw pl.n.#. #2 M .t L.ycc*.'s.d to P,.%p r. o'n;''of Environm.nt.1 gg_enng,.,gg.,p.n. .. w ..vi.a i,.**oy. .. ,*.i.. . .mm.4.i. . n.ni. .no i.
| |
| 8*"""*"" "M@l.'.". 2ff,tn"*J" . .*#" 42W 19 d c"Ef's!* """"" "' ""*" "***'"'
| |
| | |
| Review Intarfaces The reviewer will obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| * FSRPs 2 $.1 and 212. Identify the socioeconomic features such as population and community characteristics of the site environs that may be subject to economic impacts from construction or refurbishment.
| |
| * ESRPs 4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.2. and 4.3. Identify the potent.al environmental impacts from plant construction or refurbishment on the plant site, transmission corridors, offsite areas, water resources, and terrestrial resources of the region that may have associated social or economic impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 412. Provide a list of applicant commitments of practices to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction.
| |
| * ESRP 512. Identify the social and economic impacts of construction or refurbishment that are expected to extend throughout the operating lifetime of the plant.
| |
| * ESRPn 9.3 and 9.4. If the reviewer determines that proposed construction activitics will result in adverse social or economic impacts that should be avoided, request that the reviewers for ESRP 9.3 and 9.4 consider alternate plant designs, locations, or construction activities that vould avoid the impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 10.1. Provide a list of unavoidable adverse social and economic impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of proposed construction activity.
| |
| * ESRP 10.2. Provide a brief summary of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of social and economic resources predicted to occur as a result of proposed construction activity.
| |
| * ESRP 10.3 Provide an assessment of the incremental increase in regional productivity and the expected annual tax payments to local and State governments for the construction period. This information should support analysis of the trade-ofTs between short-term uses of the site and long-term productivity of the region.
| |
| * Interface with the Environmental Project Manacer. Consult with the Environmental Project Manager I
| |
| (EPM) to verify proposed modifications based on socioeconomic impacts are practical and cost clTective.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.2 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l Data and Information meds v
| |
| De kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station specific factors and the degree of detail should be modified acccrding to the anticipated magnitude of he potential impact. He following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . economic base data and information, including
| |
| - important regional industry by category, including employment (from ESRP 2.5.2) the size and nature of the heavy construction industry and construction labor force within the region (from ESRP 2.5.2)
| |
| - the total regional h.bor force (from ESRP 2.5.2) regional unemployment levels and future economic outlook (from ESRP 2.5.2).
| |
| . data and information about the political structure, including regional politicaljurisdictions, tax districts, and local and regional planning and administrative organizations (from ESRP 2.5.2) e demographic information, including population forecasts (from ESRP 2.5.1)
| |
| V e social structure information, that covers the major community stmetures (from ESRP 2.5.2) e housing information, including the sales and rental market in region, number of units, tumover and vacancy rates, and trends in addition to housing stock, adequacy of structures, and location of existing and projected housing (from ESRP 2.5.2) data and information about the educational system, including regional primary and secondary schools and higher institutions, including capacity and present percentage of utilization (from ESRP 2.5.2) e recreational information tha', covers public and private recreational facilities and opportunities, including the present and projected capacity and percentage of utilization (from ESRP 2.5.2) e information about taxation, including the regional tax structure and distribution of the present revenues to each jurisdiction and district (from ESRP 2.5.2) e land use planning and zoning information about local plans concerning land use and zoning that are relevant to population growth, housing, and changes in land use pattems (from ESRP 2.5.2)
| |
| '& August 1997 4.4.2 3 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| t
| |
| * ' afonna' ion about social services and public facilities, including the
| |
| - ti,e present and pmjected water and sewer facilities, including present capeity and projected percentage of utilization (from ESRP 2.5.2) present and projected police and fire capabilities (from ESRP . 5.2)
| |
| - location of hospitals, numb:r of medical doctors, and specialized health facilities, including present and projected capacity (from ESRP 2.5.2).
| |
| . Information about highways and transportation that covers
| |
| - regional and local highway systems, including carrying capacity and condition of roads and hi, ways (from ESRP 2.5.2)
| |
| - modifications that might affect traffic flow to and from the station site (from ESRP 2.5.2).
| |
| . con:tructica/ refurbishment induced factors uding the folle
| |
| - annual expenditures within the region for materials an ..ponstruction or refurbishment (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| - plaas to sur jlemsnt public facilities and services to support constmetion or refurbishment and agenclea responsible for facility expansion (from the ER and consultation with State and local agencies)
| |
| - taxes by type and jurisdi. tion to be paid during construction or refurbishment (fronahe ER)
| |
| - annual construction labor force requirements (for each quarter year, if possible) over the construction period. Where necessary, requirements by mrijor construction craft may be reported (from the ER).
| |
| ii. ACCEPTANCE CRITPllA Acceptance criteria for including socioeconomic impacts during construction or refurbishment are based on meeting the relevant requirenants of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR S t.45(d) and S t.71(d) with respe.ct tc the analyses required in the development of the ER and EIS
| |
| * 10 CFR 52.18 with respect to reviewing applications for early site pertnits
| |
| . 10 CFR 52.81 with respect :a reviewing appli:ations for combined licenses NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.2-4 August 1997 O
| |
| ,I
| |
| | |
| I l .
| |
| * - 10 CFR 51 and 52 with respect to describing the significance or potential significance of V[) socioeconomic impacts of plant construction activities.
| |
| J Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identirmi above are as folicas:
| |
| ,
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2 addresses benefits and costs to nearby populations from construction activities.
| |
| Technical Rationale De technica rationale for evalnating the applicant's potential social and economic impacts during construction or refurbishment is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| - In accordance with 10 CFR S t.45(d;, the applicant is required to submit in the preliminary and final environmental reports (PER and FER) information needed for evaluating potential socioeconomic impacts on corn:nunities in the vicinity of the plant. Similar information is required to be present in the environmental impect statement pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71. Reasonably detailed information about the potential for social and economic impacts of plant consmion or refurbishn.ent on the surrounding region and individual communities is needed in ths _ _ o that the staff may evaluate the significance of these impacts.
| |
| C
| |
| ! !!!. REVIEW PROCEDUR2S The reviewer's analysis of the social and economic impacts of construction or refurbishment should be linked to the environmental descriptions provided by the myiewer for ESRP 2.5.2 (Community Characteristics). He reviewer should er.nre that the enwonmental factors most likely to be impacted by plant construction or refurbisiunent are described la sufficient detail to permit assessme-1 or the predicted impacts. Based on these descriptions, the reviewer should identify and analyze components of the regional and community social, political, and economic systems that would be potentisily impacted, as follows:
| |
| (1) From the full scope of potential impacts, determine the impacts that are minor and those that are likely to be adverse and thus need detailed analysis.
| |
| * Where practical, develop quantitative measures of adverse impacts.
| |
| * Consider all impacts (dentified during the analysis to the extent practical, in terms oflocation, duration, and magnitude.
| |
| * Be aware that the duration of some impacts will be longer than the construction or refurbishment peried and that the character of such impacts may be altered due to completion of construction or g . furbishment and dispersal of the construction / refurbishment labor force.
| |
| k August 1997 4.425- NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| e Confer with the reviewers fo uSRP 4.1, Land-Use Impacts; 4.2, Water-Use impacts; and 4.3, Ecological Impacts, to determine if ar.y of the construction / refurbishment impacts identified under these sections are of sufficient social or economic consequence to be examined further under this plan.
| |
| (2) Consider all of the socioeconomic impacts of proposed plant construction or refurbishment, including the impact of plant refurbishment on regional housing and public services such as safety,
| |
| - social services, tourism and recreation, public utilities, education, transportation, and offsite land use.
| |
| (3) For analytical purposes it is effective to categorize impacts into these directly resulting from plant construction or refurbishment and ucsc resulting from the activities and demands of the construction / refurbishment labor force. Analyze the cnalysis of social and economic impacts directly associated with plant construction or refurbishment, as follows:
| |
| * Estimste the annual value of the major categories of materials and services to be purchased within the region and compare that value with the estimated value of the materials and services that would have been produced without plant construction (or refurbishment).
| |
| * Estimate the annual construction (or refurbishment) labor force requirements (for each quarter year, if possible) over the construction (refurbishment) period and compare tkm with the number of workers availabic from within the region. Where necessary, determine these requirements for the major construction crafts, using standard craft categories.
| |
| . Ideutify thejurisdictions receiv;og significant tax revenues derived from plant construction or refurbishment, purchased scrue3 and materials.
| |
| r Estimate the physical dem , 's placed by plant construction (or refurbishment) on local public facilities and services (e.g., iire, police, sewc , and water) and compare these demands with
| |
| . existing facilities and services. .
| |
| = In consultation with appropr*ste reviewers, determine if any impacts identified under land-use, watsr-use, and ecological its. pacts require further analysis regarding social and economic
| |
| - consequences. Such impacts could include economic impacts of changes in visual quality or recreation resources.
| |
| * Determine the families or households to be displaced by plant construction. Analysis should:
| |
| - determine any equitable compensation for relocation and include analysis of adequacy of mitigation plans.
| |
| - address socioecor_amic effects oflabor force motiL.y, and residential choices.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.2-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 1 I
| |
| (4) Analyze the socioeconomic impacts assoelated with the construction or refurbishment labor force, as U' follows:
| |
| . From the previous estimates of construction / refurbishment labor requirements and the number of
| |
| . workers available within the region, predict the number of workers originating from withir, the region and the number ofin movers.
| |
| * Estimate the number of construction / refurbishment force in-movers, and predict their temporal and geographic distribution.
| |
| . Estimste the number of induced in movers, and predict their temporal and geographic distribution. ,
| |
| . Estimate the overall impact of in-movers on regional incon.e, employment, and population, and identify critical services and goods for the affected region.
| |
| * Predict potential changes in regional housing patterns (e.g., introduction of mobile homes).
| |
| . Estimate the additional level of public facilities and services required to support in-movers as a function of their probable location. Types of facilities and services that should be considered include education, water and sewer, safety, health, welfare, transportation, and recreation.
| |
| . Identify adverse traffic conditions caused by transportation of workers and materials to and from the site.
| |
| . Identify the jurisdictions expected to receive significant tax revenues generated by the project oayroll and induced economic activity.
| |
| ~ . - Compare the total flow of tax revenues from the various sources associated with plant construction or refurbishment to the expenditures required to meet the additional demand for public facilities and services.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDIN(IS Input from the ESRP 4.4.2 review to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should be directed toward meeting the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of social and economic impacts resulting from plant construction or refurbishment; (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis; and (3) presenta-tion of staff conclusions regarding impacts of the reviewed construction or refurbishment activity to the region's social, political, and economic structure. ,
| |
| 'ihe following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| . a statement of the scope of coverage and the objectives of the analysis If Tugust 1997 4.4.2-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| * a summary of the steps taken in the analysis and reference to methodologies employed e a summary of the findings of the analysis for each impact category with the level of detail being 1
| |
| related to the importance/ severity of the antici,3ated impact e identification and assessment of potential mitigation measures.
| |
| Evalustion of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations:
| |
| = The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts ute of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement of the following type:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the avaLble information on the construction (refurbishment) of the proposed facility. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant socioeconomic impacts on communities in the vicinity of the plant as a result of constructior.
| |
| (refurbishment).
| |
| The impact is u. verse but can be mitigated by design changes or procedure modifications that the reviewer has identifled and determined to be practical. For these cases, the trviewer should consult with the EPM and th. reviewers for ESRP 9.3 for verification that identified mitigation measures are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and identified measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact.
| |
| These lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 4.6.2.
| |
| * The impact is adverse ana - . os be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is required.
| |
| He reviewer should participate in any such analysis and tvaluation of attematives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practini, if no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer should be responsible for providing this information to the reviewers for ESRPs 10.1 and 10.2.
| |
| The reviewer should categorize impacts as those over which the applicant has some control and those over which the applict.nt has little or no control. The impacts over which the epplicant has some control usuahy are a direct result of the construction or refurbishment process. The impacts over which the applicant has little or no control are indirect results of construction or refurbishment and are usually associated with the influx of the construction / refurbishment labor force.
| |
| Where the applicLat has control over impacts, the criteria outlined above should be applied.
| |
| Where the applicant has little or no control over alternatives to mitigate impacts that in the reviewer's judgment are adverse, the reviewer should (1) prepare a description of these impacts for inclusion in the NUREG.1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.2-8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ) EIS,(2) where appropriate, identify potential solations to the problem t! at are beyond the jurisdiction of (d
| |
| the NRC, and (3) ensure that these impacts are considered in the staffs final evaluation of the proposed action.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the requirements of this ESRP and that the evaluation supports the following type of concluding statement, to be included in the staffs EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available infor. nation relative to the economic impacts of plant coustruc: ion. The staff concludes that the information is adequate to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 51.45. These conclusions are based on the following:
| |
| . the applicant has developed the information using the recommended information sources and approaches suggested by prevailing professional practice e the information sources used are iecently updated versions.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes en acceptable alternative for co nplying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR S t," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.45, " Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71," Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| - 10 CFR 52,"Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.15," Standards for review of applications."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.48," Standards for review of applications."
| |
| 3 10 CFR 52.81," Standards for review of applications."
| |
| - Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reporufor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| August 1997 4.4.29 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NURE'b1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| [,,,'A U ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| !\,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS REVIEW RPRPCNSIBILITIES Prioary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch .
| |
| Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs review of environmental impacts on low-income and minority populations by proposed project construction or refurbishment to the extent that such information can serve as the basis of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
| |
| , The scope of me review directed by this plan should include consideration of the methods that are used
| |
| ; to identify and quantify impacts on low-income and minority populations, the location and significance
| |
| ; \ of any environmental impacts during construction on populations that are particularly sensitive, and any additional information pertaining to mitigation. T1.e descriptions to be provided by this review should be of sufficient detail to permit subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific impacts, in particular whether these impacts are likely to be negative and disproportionate.
| |
| Review Interfaces He reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 214. Receive descriptions of the low-income and minority populations that could be disproportionately impacted by proposed project c(nstruction or refuri,ishment activities and the mechanisms (including socioeconomic) by which disproportionate harm could occur.
| |
| August 1997 ' 433-l' NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| [ g rooo". 2 7lt A'"4,5lll7*,d,!.".** !* a g "~
| |
| ".""a".i4MlG"''d' gggg .m,=g
| |
| , ~~
| |
| >n,y s -
| |
| -~~
| |
| n,.
| |
| ".m f,2"YJL*a*o!2*l.'.T,.2li".'4',"
| |
| ar. i
| |
| : w. rr a.
| |
| u sr . - .,,, ,n .. . .- .
| |
| =p_.iggg .n. , a i.
| |
| d 8*:::'lillll*."$,7.'.".fMidll?",
| |
| . li'.*e"J' J N.*.".d.d.e"M.T e'' sons" """* ** ""*'*" "*d''"'
| |
| * ESRPs 4.1.1 thronah 4.6. Receive descriptions of potential environmental (including socioeconomic) impacts of construction on the environment that may have a bearing on environmentaljustice.
| |
| * ESRPs 93 and 9.4. If the reviewer concludes that proposed construction or refurbishment activities will result in disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations that should be avoided, request that the reviewers for ESRPs 93 and 9.4 consider alternate plant designs, locations, or construction / refurbishment activities that would avoid the impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 10.1. Provide descriptions of unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations during construction or refurbishment.
| |
| * ESRP 10.2. Provide descriptions of environmental impacts that disproportionately affect low-income and m!nority populations during construction or refurbishment through short term use and long-tenn productivity.
| |
| * ESRP 103. Provide descriptions ofirreversible and irretrievable environmental impacts that disproportionately 4ffect low-income and minority populations as a result of construction or refurbishment,
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The anceptance criteria for environmentaljustice impacts during construction are based on the following:
| |
| * 10 C.7R 51.45 with respect to analysis of xonomic data e Executive Order 12898 with respect to minority populations and low-income populations.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidanc.e for addressing environmentaljustice (CEQ 1997), which sheuld be followed as appropriate o the guidelines for specific information requirements for environmental justice determinations, which are described in Attachment 4 to NRR Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1. Information submitted by the applicant is adequate and meets the 10 CFR 51.45 requirements and interim NRR guidelines Ifit permits the identification of minority and low-income populations as required in that guidance.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.7, which specifies the avoidance of disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations during plant siting.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFr) 4.43-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| .. .. .. . . . ~
| |
| l
| |
| [m
| |
| (
| |
| Tecnnical Rationale
| |
| %e technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential environmentaljustice impacts is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| ne Code ofFederal Regulations, i0 CFR 51.45, requires applicants to provide the information that the Commission needs in its development of independent analysis of environmental impacts.
| |
| 3 Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to consider ewironmental justice as part of the NEPA process. NRC, while an independent agency, has agreed to comply with the Executive Order.
| |
| De purpose of the environmentaljustice assessment is to identify and address, as appmpriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low.
| |
| income populations, nese populations may be present in scattered small groups, or may have unusual customs, practices, or dependencies on specific resources that would be overlooked in a broader brush analysis that focuses on the majorit; population. As a result, it is necessary to evaluate impacts for each such population ard more carefully examine unusual environmental pathways that could result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on them.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCfDURES ne kinds of data and information needed will be s5ccted by site- and station-specific factors and the Q degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The
| |
| ) data requirements analysis should generally be the same for any type of envirmmental review that requires the preparation of an environmental report. He following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . an assessment (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the degree to which each minority or i
| |
| low-income population is disproport onately receiving adverse human health or environmental (including socioeconomic) impacts during construction or refurbishment as compared with the entire .
| |
| geographic area. Here should in addition be an assessment compt. ring the impacts with the larger overall geographic area encompassing all of the alternative sites.
| |
| . an assessment (qualiative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the significance or potential significance of such environmental impacts on each low-income and minority population. Significance is determined by considering the disproportionate exposure, multiple-hazard, and cumulative hazard conditions outlined in the Draft Guidance for Addressing Environmental Justice under the National Environmental Policy Act(CEQ 6997).
| |
| . an assessment of the degrt e to which each low-income and minority populatica is disproportionately receiving any benefits compared with the entire geographic trea e a discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environ ntal justice concerns
| |
| /
| |
| August 1997 4.4.3-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l
| |
| | |
| . - when alternative sites are being evaluated, the same reviews should be available for each site e a brief description of p:.thways by which any environmental impact during construction may interact with cultural or eccnomic facts that may result in disproportionate environmental impacts on low-income and minority populations.
| |
| To make a determination of which impacts are likely to be of c:,ncern and therefore what environmsntal impact areas should be discussed, the reviewer should (1) coordinate with the reviewers of ESRPs 4.1 through 4.6 to ensure that t! e appropriate impact areas are being discussed.
| |
| (2) examine the record of the public scoping process to determine whether appropriate environmental impact areas are being dircu. sed with respect to environmentaljustice.
| |
| (3) contact the cognizant personnel of each affected State for sites located on or near State boundaries, or where transmission line routes, access corridors, or offsite areas pass through more than one State.
| |
| Supplemental data provided by other individuals and organizations may be usefri in determining the completeness of the applicant's identification of minority and low-income n:quiations.
| |
| IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS
| |
| 'Ihe icpth and extent of the input to the EIS will be govemed by the extent and significance of the identified low-inco m and minority populations and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts ofconstruction.
| |
| Data provided by the applicant are useful if a data in ce environmental report (ER) describe the degree to which each minority or low-income population is disproportionately prone to adverse human health or environmental impacts during construction or refurbishment as compared with the entire geographic area
| |
| . the data are consistent with data obtained from other sources, when available. In addhion, a similar assessraent is made in the ER for each of the alternative sites in comparison with the larger geographic region that encompasses all of the sites.
| |
| . when applicable, data in the ER describe the significance or potential significance of such environmental impacts on each low-income and minority populations
| |
| . when applicable, data in the ER describe the degree to which each minority or low-income population is disproportionately prone to any benefita during construction or refurbishment in comparison to the entire geographic area NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.4.3-4 August 1997 e
| |
| | |
| - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . . - _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ - . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . .
| |
| ?
| |
| l
| |
| : J when applicable data'in the ER describe any mitigative measures for which consideration is made to
| |
| ~
| |
| / reduce environmentaljustice concerns -
| |
| C the data in the ER consider the unique lifestyle and practices of low income and minority F communities (for example, subsistence activities or dependence on specific water supplies) that ?
| |
| could result in disproportionate impacts from plant construction and site operations.
| |
| The following information should usually be included in the EIS: =
| |
| e - a statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which each minority or I low income population is oisproportionately receiving adverse human health or environmental impacts during construction as compared with the entire geographic area, together with the significance of these l'npacts L
| |
| * a discussion of the reasoning (e.g.=, based on locations of minority and low income populations and the environmental pathways described in ESRP 2.5.4) behind the estimated degree ofimpact ,
| |
| i e a discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental justice concems, j The reviewer should verify that sufficient information is available to meet the re:evant requirements and that the evaluation supports statements of the following type to be included in the staff's EIS:
| |
| Based on review of the information provided by the applicant, the staff finds that no m* m ority or low-income ' group will experience disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts as -
| |
| a result of activities during construction (refurbishment).
| |
| . If the reviewer determines that there will be a disproportionately high and adverse environmental impact
| |
| ; on some minority or low income population as a result of activities during construction, an input to the
| |
| - EIS should be prepared that describes the impact (s) and the staff evaluation of alternatives that would 1- mitigate or avoid the impact (s)._
| |
| . V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the sta. Tin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulation .
| |
| .VI. REFERENCES 1 10 CFR 51.45, ' Environmental reports."
| |
| . - . August 1997 .4.43-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| . . . ..: =_ .. =__ . _ - . . _ -__ _ _ _ __= _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _.
| |
| - l
| |
| | |
| l Regulatory Guide 4.7, Re t. 2. 1995. GeneralSite Sultability Criterlafc,r Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Second Proposal.
| |
| - Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. DraA Guidancefor Considering Environmental Justice unde; the National Er,vironmental Poliuy Act. Draft CEQ Guidance, Wnshington, D.C.
| |
| Execrtive Order 12898," Federal Actions to Address Envimnmental Jur ;ce in Minority and Low.
| |
| Income Populatic.ns." 59 FederalRe, ster 7629 7633 (1994).
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiot., Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC/NRR). 1996.
| |
| " Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Cor.sidering Environmental Issues." NRR Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1, Attachment 4, Washington, D.C.
| |
| O
| |
| _e.lss, <- 4.4.36 ..g.s.,997 8
| |
| | |
| NURE2-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O_ .[D, ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,*****/ OFFICE REVIEW PLAN OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.5 RADIATION EXPOSURE TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Secondary-None L AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs analysis and assessment of potential mdiological impacts on the proposed project construction work force. The scope of the review directed by this plan should be limited to those projects proposed to be located on or adjacent to the site of an rperating nuclear fuel-cycle facility
| |
| * and should include an analysis and evaluation of the mdiological impact of such a facility on the construction work force and a determination that the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 20 are uet. The review should be in sufficient ': tail to enable the staff to Q determine and confirm the quantitative radiological impact of the operating nuclear fuel-cycle facility on construction workers at the site of the proposed plant.
| |
| Review Interf.ces he reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 4.6. Provide a list ofissues,if any, regarding compliance with 10 CFR 20.
| |
| (a) For the purposes of this environmenta! n: view, the term " nuclear fuel-cyc5 facility" or " nuclear facility" is interpreted to mean an operating nuclear power reactor, or other nuclear installadon associated with the nuclear fuel-cycle process and located on or adjacent to the proposed plant site. It includes operation of individual reactors of a multi-unit plant while construction of the remaining unit or units continues.
| |
| August 1997 -4.5-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| 'M:1Tl:r,.t.*imT:,''"*,f."p"an.*'."L9%%iM23=%J.%? T d(^ oggggg N*J"'=
| |
| E* llr.':l2lF,val"m.e. n,=. oom
| |
| ,. ':*L6.oi.i.i.'oLm""a,
| |
| ,.'ifo:n=o,env!,lla'
| |
| ,t,."a.v.e:io . ,tr im.U2.o"m.oi.i i i.v.W:'" i
| |
| = g * . g g ,, n. un wr..i e ,.,io..iiv, .,,o,,i .io. moe . . .ne-8=:illa:"o' min"l2lf,2*.T, .,"*' tllo*#.Til'"4 tra.'ain." """* * '* ""'*"'***'"'
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| * ESRP 5.4. Pmvide a construction work force collective annual dose.
| |
| * ESRP 1012. Provide the estimated annual collective dose to construction workers for use in the benefit-cost balance.
| |
| Data and Information Needs This review applies to applications for construction and combined licenses. The following data and information should usually be obtained when construction of the proposed plant will take place on or adjacent to a site where there are operating nuclear fuel-cycle facilities:
| |
| * the physical layout of the site, including the locatim and orientation of onsite or adjacent nuclear fuel-cycle facilities that are expected to be eperating during construction of the proposed plant (from te environmental report [ER) or Preliminary Safety Analysis Report [PSAR])
| |
| * the location and characteristics of radiation sources and radioactive effluent emission sources of the adjacent nuclear facility, including detailed descriptions of the radioactive content of unshielded tanks or stcrage areas, the steam system in boiling-water reactor (BWR) facilities, and the emissions from vents and stacks (from the ER or PSAR)
| |
| * measured radiation dose rates and airbome radioactivity concentrations at specific locations throughout the construction site where environmental radiological monitoring data exist for an operating facility (fmm the ER or PSAR)
| |
| * calculated radiation dose rates at specific locations throughout the construction site where environ-mental radiological monitoring data are not available, including a description of the methodology used to deternune dose ates at the construction site (80m the ER or PSAR) a the number and principal locetions of construction workers who will be exposed to the radiation sources described above and the total amount of time per year that they will spend at those locations (from the ER cr PSAR)
| |
| * the calculated r collective dose to the construction work force, in:luding all models, assumptions, arviinpot dr.t .d in arriving at the figures that have not already been provided in the above described required data and information. This may include assumptions about shielding provided by buildings or structures between the construction location and the radiation sources (from the ER or PSAF4 When the applicant's PSAR and ER are submitted at the same time for review, either document may be used for subm! sion of the data and information required for this review. In the PSAR, the assessment of radiation exposure to construction workers is discussed in Chapter 12, Radiation Protection, Section 12.4, as described in Regulatory Guide 1.70 The information should be used in the staffs safety review to determine whether turbine building radiation sources in BWRs are adequately shielded, and whether outside tanks or storage areas for radioactive materials need to be shielded.
| |
| NOREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.5-2 August 1997 I
| |
| | |
| -- __ __ _ ~ . ~ _ _. _ _ _ _ . _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| 4
| |
| ~'IL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA t Acceptance criteria for the analysis and evaluation of radiation exposure to construction worken are based
| |
| ~
| |
| on the relevant requimnents of the following regulations:
| |
| * ! 10 CPR 20; 20.1001; 20.1201; 20.1203; 20.1204; and 20.1205, with respect to occupational dose ;
| |
| limits requirements for summation of internal and external doses and the detennination of the dose e s W CPR 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Appendix I," Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Cor.ditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As
| |
| '.Is Reasonably Achievable ' for Radioactive Material in Light Water-cooled Nuclear Power Reactor .
| |
| Emuents" with ' respect to design objectives for dose.
| |
| - Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identifed above are as D ,
| |
| - follows::
| |
| "* 1 Regulatory Guide 8.8 with respect to methods of ensuring that the calculated doses commitments are .
| |
| reasonably Icw.. -
| |
| Technical Rationale 1
| |
| ThethaW rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential radiation exposure to construction workers y
| |
| 4
| |
| [ is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| When construction is trking place nearby or adjacent to an operating light-water-cooled power reactor, there is a possibility that the workers may be exposed to radioactive materials that would cause them to
| |
| . receive doses in excess of limits for members of the public. To ensure that radiation levels are low
| |
| - enough to prevent inadvertent exposure or to properly assess the exposure to constn:ction workers, methods have been developed to determine the potential exposure to these workers. If evaluation of l ' - the doses indicate that workers may be exposed to levels above the limits to the public, then -
| |
| - construction 4orkers must be treated as radiation workers by the licensee (or applicant) and the L requirements in 10 CFR 20 must be followed.-
| |
| III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 1
| |
| ' In the analysis bi the potential radiation exposures to construction workers, the reviewer should fi st
| |
| , detennine whether there is a need to consider radiological impacts to construction workers. The reviewer should consult the site and ' vicinity map: of ESRP 2.1 and the NRC list of operational nuclear facilities. If
| |
| - there are or will be no adjacent operating nuclear facilities during the proposed project construction period,
| |
| - the review shculd be terminated. The reviewer should prepare an input for the environmental impact
| |
| - statement (EIS) stating that there will be no expected radiation exposure to construction workers during construction of the proposed project.
| |
| e '
| |
| L a . ..
| |
| -August 1997 '45-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ___m __ + ___m _ ., , . . . ,y.-, ,, ,_ . . . , , ,,
| |
| | |
| i If the reviewer determines that there is or will be an adjacent operating nuclear facility during the construction period, the reviewer should conduct an analysis as follows:
| |
| (1) Identify the sources of radiation that will contribute to the radiation exposum of constantion workers.
| |
| * Base this identification on review of the f.djacent nuclear facility description provided by the applicant as appropriate.
| |
| * Consult with the revieurs of ESRP 3.1 and Chapter 12 of the applicant's PSAR,if available, and p:.rticipate in or get information from reviewers who participate in the site visit to complete this portion of the analysis. Sources to be considered in this portion of the analysis have been identified in the " Data and Information Needs" of this ESRP.
| |
| (2) Determine the source strength for each of the sources identified in item 1 above.
| |
| * Accomplish this determination by either direct reviewer calcubtion of these values or by analysis to validate and accept the applicant's data.
| |
| * When the latter procedure is used, conduct this portion of the analysis by comparing the applicant's data with available data from similar systems.
| |
| (3) From the informa' ion provided in 'he ER or PSAR (if avaliable), determine the location, number, duration of stay, and possible shielding of construction workers.
| |
| * If shielding is not practical, consider these workers to be occupationally exposed. Consult with the reviewer of ESRP 3.1 or Chapter 12 of the applicant's PSAR, if available, to confirm plant and station layout, and establish possible workcr shielding factors and plant construction schedules through the site visit and consultation with the applicant.
| |
| (4) Determine the radiat'on dose rates at the principal onsite locations where construction workers will be present and at locations where panicularly high dose rates could be expected on the basis of the source strengths determined in Item 2 above.
| |
| * Accomplish this either by direct reviewer calculation of these values or by analysis to validate and accept the applicant's data. Acceptable codes and methods include the following:
| |
| - The SKYSHINE computer code, developed by Radiation Research Associates and available through the Radiation Shielding Information Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is an acceptable code for calculating dose rate at distances from nitrogen-16 sources in BWR steam system components,
| |
| - Draft American National Standard ANSI N346 also provides acceptable methods-NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.5-4 August 1997 I
| |
| | |
| f ..
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| m
| |
| ]n 1- .1he OASPAR code, described in Pagula ony Guide 1.109 is an appropriate code for -
| |
| calculating dose due to gaseous emment plume immersion.
| |
| The dose rate may aled be determined through comparison with measured results, such as those - :
| |
| - available in EPRI NP-243 and HAS1-305, 1 i
| |
| - et When the applicant has used these codes or methods to predict dose rates, the~ reviewer's -
| |
| determination may be limited to verification of the techniques of calculation and input. - ;
| |
| (*) Baisd on the doses or dose rates determined in Item 4 above, and the number, location, and duration of
| |
| ' stay of construction workers determined in Item 3 above, determine the estimated individual and - i annual collective dose to construction workers at the proposed site.i
| |
| = 1he teviewer's evaluation of radiation exposure to construction workers involves (1) a determination that :
| |
| - the predicted doses are reailstic and accurate, and (2) an evaluation of the predictions with respect to the requirements of 10 CPR 20 for rioses to individuals in restricted areas.-
| |
| The reviewer should use the following analytical procedure for estimating the 'oses to determine if
| |
| ' predicted doses are realistic and accurate:
| |
| - (1) Analy:e radiation sources and source strength.
| |
| . - Verify that all potential radiation sources associated with the adjacent nuclear facility have been
| |
| -: identified and that their source strengths have been accurately predicted.
| |
| F-
| |
| --
| |
| * Determine this on the basis of a site ' visit to the adjacent facility and through comparison of the facility sources and source strengths with similar facilities.
| |
| (2) Analyze the impacts on the work force.
| |
| . . Verify that the size of the projected work force is consistent with work force data from similar projects, and that the locations of workers and the duration of their stay at a particular location art
| |
| - consistent with the proposui plant layout, the schedule of construction, and the nature of the construction task.'-
| |
| . . - Evaluate'the realism of any radiation shielding factors proposed by the applicant to take credit for work force shieldiag provided by the plant stmetures under construction.
| |
| (3) Evaluate dose rates and collective doses by veritying that
| |
| - l dose rates have been calculated on the basis of WM compuintional models or on the basis of
| |
| - actual measurements.-
| |
| J August 1997 I ,
| |
| 4.5-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4 ..
| |
| ,1 m - -,,.~.--m . - . . - ~ _ _ - .
| |
| * dose rates or doses have been calculated for those site locations where principal concentrations of construction workers will be located, and that appropriate work force / work duration data have been seed.
| |
| 5 the individual and collective doses to the construedon work force are realistic and accurate.
| |
| - When the evaluation establishes that there are significent differences in the determination of
| |
| = reCation exposure to construction workers and the applicant's determinations of radioactive exposure, consult with the applicant to determine the reasons for these differences.
| |
| Request that additional data be provided or that calculations be repeated until you and the applicant are in reasonable agreement about the estimated individual and collective doses.
| |
| The reviewer should use the following procedure to evaluate the predicted doses with respect to 10 CFR 20 requirements:
| |
| * Determine whether monitoring of ccnstruction personnel under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1205 is required.
| |
| * Summarize measures necessary to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and prepare input to appropriate EIS sections, identifying their merit.
| |
| * When advised that such measures have been implemented, recalculate the construction worker doses.
| |
| IV. EYALPATION FINDINGS The evaluation of the radiation exposure to construction workers should be perforiaed to accomplish the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of predicted radiological impacts to the construction work force resulting from construction of the proposed project in the vicinity of an operating inclear facility, (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, regarding radiological impact to constiuction workers. The following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| * a description of sources of radiation and physical relationship of these sources to the proposed project construction zone e estimates of maximum individual doses and a brief discussion of how the estimates were calculated, a comparison of these dosu with the requirements of 10 CFR 20, and the reviewer's conclusions with respect to compliance with 10 CFR 20, including any measures necessary to achieve compliance
| |
| * estimates of the annual collective dose to the construction force by year of construction, a brief discussion of how the estimates were made, and the neviewer's conclusions with respect to the accuracy of the dose commitment estimates.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.5-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| 1 O When the reviewer has determined that the predicted collective dose is realistic and accurate and that the V requirements for protecting construction workers from radiation exposure are being met according to 10 CFR 20, the following statement should be used:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available infoanation relative to the radiological impacts to construction workers. The staff concludes that the predicted individual doses are realistic, accurate, and within the limits in 10 CFR 20.
| |
| V. IMPIFMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptt ble altemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES ,
| |
| 10 CFR 20,"Standam. N Protection Against Radiation."
| |
| 10 CFR 20.1001," Purpose."
| |
| 10 CFR 20.1201, " Occupational dose limits for adults,"
| |
| I i 10 CFR 20.1202, " Compliance with requirements for summation of extemal and intemal doses."
| |
| () 10 CFR 20.1203, " Determination of extemal dose from airborne radioacti ie material."
| |
| 10 CFR 20.1204, " Determination of intemal exposure."
| |
| 10 CFR 20.1205, " Conditions xquiring individual monitoring of external and intemal occupational dose."
| |
| 10 CFR 50. Appendix I," Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As k Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Matetial in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents."
| |
| Regniatory Guide 1.70. Standard Format and Content ofSafety Analysis Reportsfor Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition (NUREG-751094).
| |
| Regulatory Guide 8.8. Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Fxposures at Nuclear Power : rations Will Be As low As is Reasonably Achievable.
| |
| Regu!ttory Guide 1.109, Rev.1.1976. Calculation ofAnnual Doses to Mainfrom Routing Releases of P="eter Fj!uentsfor the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with CFR 50, Appendi:1.
| |
| O August 1997 4.5-7 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| Draft American National Standard. ANSI N346, For the Calculation and Afe:.suremer.t of Direct and Scattered Gamma Radiationfrom Nuclear Power Picnts.
| |
| EPRI NP 243. Analysis cf N 16 Radiation bieas trements at the Cooper Nuclear Station, Electric Pnwer Research Institute.
| |
| HASL 305, Determination ofN 16 Gamma Radiation Fields nt BWR Power Stations.
| |
| O NUTSG-1555 (DRAFT) 4.5 8 Ani; st 1097
| |
| | |
| l NURES1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 7 ...e,'g ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,*****/ REVIEW -
| |
| PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4.6 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION OR REFURBISHMENT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs summarization of potential adverse
| |
| . environmental impacts of construction or refurbishment, measures and controls to limit adverse impacts committed to by the applicant, and the staff's evaluation of those measures and controls. The scope of the review directed by this plan hcludes evaluating measures and controls for feasibility and adequacy in n limiting impacts. The result of this review should be a table listing the potentially adverse impacts, the applicant's commitments, and the staff's evaluation.
| |
| (
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 4.1 throuch 4.5. Obtain lists of adverse impacts and measures and controls to limit adverse impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 6.7. Consult with the reviewer of ESRP 6.7 on adverse impacts during construction so that monitoring plans may be designed to quantify and limit such impacts as possible.
| |
| . ESRPs 9.4.1 throuch 9.43. Ensure that the reviewers for ESRPs 9.4.1, through 9.4.3 have been consulted as part of the process of evaluating measures and controls to limit adverse impacts.
| |
| August 1997 4.6-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW FLAN Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the cuidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff toe alble for environmental reviews for nuclear wer pTants. These documents are made avallable to theplic as part ne e n$t bettt e for nvir t ie la ert r e ae a lone
| |
| .gomp nc tth ttwm to nogged. The environmental stanIrd re w plans are keyed to Preparatbn of Envirnnmental Pubt envl stander eview plans will be revloed periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and Comments and suggestione for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 20555.
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 101. Provide a list of those adverse environmentalimpacts that cannot be mitigated or for which mitigation is not practical.
| |
| . ESRPs 10.2 and 103 Provide s. list of the irreversible and irretrievable resources that the proposed plant constitutes. These resource commitments and any unavoidable adverse constmetion impacts identified as input to ESRP 10.1 should be provided to the reviewer of ESRP 10.3 for the evaluation of short term versus long-term uses and impacts of the proposed action.
| |
| * Proiect Manager's lla-dbook. Refer to the Proj ct Afanager's Handbook, NUREG/BR-0073, Rev.1, for information on applicant commitments and their applicability with and linkage to ESRP 4.6.
| |
| * Interface with Environmentd. Protect Manager. Notify the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) of any adverse impacts, as dinovered in the reviews of ESRP Chapter 4.0, that are likely to result from constmetion of the proposed plant and that are identified throug;i the analysis. Potential mitigation measures and their merits should be presented as they are identified.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts to be mitigated. The following data or infonnation should usually be obtained:
| |
| * Staff listing of potentially adverse impacts should be developed in consultation with the reviewers of other plans related to plant constmetion or refurbishment and with the reviewers of plans related to consideration of alternatives.
| |
| * Data and information related to the applicant's commitments to measures and controls to limit potential impr::ts should consist of the following three elements: (1) identification of the impact,(2) the planned control program, including monitoring , and (3) the control procedures. The following elements may be fov'.d in the environmenta' .eport (ER):
| |
| - noise
| |
| - erosion
| |
| - dust traffic effluents and wastes surface-water impacts
| |
| - groundwater impacts land use protection / restoration water-use protection / restoration terrestrial ecosystem impacts aquatic ecc, system impacts socioeconomic ianpacts NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.6-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ;7 .
| |
| h -
| |
| s radiation exposuit to construction workers UM 3-; other site-specific impacts.
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRrrERIA t
| |
| J Ag== criteria for the summary of measures to monitor and control adverse ir pacts during construction or refurbishment are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CPR 50.36(b) with respect to requirements for monitoring and keeping records of environmental . i
| |
| . data for the protection of the nonaquatic environment.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| + : Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rey,2, with respect to the inclusion of a construction impact control program.
| |
| TechnicalRationale
| |
| - The technical ratior. ale for evaluating the applicant's commitments to measure and control adverse impacts during construction is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| ~ Evaluation of the proposed action includes identification and evaluation of the potentially adverse
| |
| .-impacts of plant construction or refurbishment. This review results in a summary of the potentially ,
| |
| 5- adverse impacts'and lists the applicant's commitments to measures and controls to limit adverse !
| |
| . impacts during construction or refurbishment. The applicant's commitments must be compared with
| |
| - the list of potentially adverse impacts identified by the staff and evaluated for efficacy to determine i
| |
| : those impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated. A list of the adverse i npacts that cannot be
| |
| : avoided or mitigated should be provided to the reviewer of ESP /10.1.
| |
| IIL- REVIEW PROCEDURES -
| |
| The reviewer's analysis should include identification and tabulation of potentially adverse' construction or
| |
| . refurbishment impacts requiring' mitigation,' identification of the applicant's commitments that limit and -
| |
| p control these impacts', and comparison of applicant commitments with the staff's list of impacts needing
| |
| . mitigation. To do this, the reviewer should use the following analysis procedure:
| |
| {
| |
| [('t) Identify and tabu' late the impacts of construction or refurbishment (see reviewers for ESRPs 4.1.1 - i through 4.5 ) that are of sufficient severity to need mitigation (i.e., measures and controls to limit the - j impact). j i
| |
| (2) List the applicant's commitments for mitigating the impret.
| |
| 3 L (3) Based on consultation with appropriate staff reviewers, identify die applicant commitments thr.t will satisfy the statfs concerns for mitigation.
| |
| ip Q ,
| |
| ? dugust 1997 4.6-3 NUREO-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| , .-. , . . . - ~ , , .
| |
| m.a , y- --
| |
| m
| |
| | |
| (4) When you determine that there are no applicant commitments to control or limit an adverse impact, .
| |
| consult with reviewers for the appropriate ESRPa 4.1 through 1.5, the reviewers for ESRPs 9.4.1 through 9.4.3, and the EPM to identify and evaluate available mitigation measure (s). Also note tho.,e impacts for which no appropriate measures and controls to limit the impact can be identified.
| |
| (5) Prepare a table similar to that shown in Table 4.6-1 to compare potentially cJverse impacts of constmetion or refurbishment with the applicant's commitmerits and identify those adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated or for which mitigation is not practical.
| |
| Table 4.61. Summary of Potentially Adverse Impacts of Construction or Refurbishment Impact Applicant's impact Description Commitment Staff Evaluation Land-Use Impacts impact I commitment a evaluation a impact 2 commitment b evaluation p Hydrological and Water impact 3 commitment c evaluation y Use Impacts impact 4 There are no practical measures for mitigation of this impact. The impact will be considered in the evaluation of unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
| |
| Following the above analysis (Steps 1 5), the reviewer should seek confirmation that (1) the tabulated impacts are adverse and that measures and controls to limit the magnitude of the impset are required, (2) the measures and controls are reasonab!: and specific, and (3) benefits / costs have been considered .
| |
| To do this, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Confirm that the construction or refurbishment impacts, when conridered on a si'.e-specific basis, are adverse and should be mitigated.
| |
| * Make this determi'iation through consultation with the appropriate reviewers for ESRPs 4.1 through 4.5, and take into account experience gained in the review of other projects having similar impacts.
| |
| * Ensure that adequate documentation is available to support the staff conclusions with respect to the nature and severity of Jiose impacts requiring mitigation.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4.6-4 August 1997 .
| |
| | |
| 9#3* 43* O IMAGE EVALUATION ///j / p ($ b4 Q/// k sjf@
| |
| +[+ TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 <f4
| |
| <> +
| |
| 1.0 lFa m E l0_ E I.I L" E 118 l.25 1.4 1.6
| |
| < 150mm >
| |
| < 6" >
| |
| 4 4$
| |
| #f.h ,,,f) 't [s m- _ -_
| |
| .,// _==_
| |
| ::a = -
| |
| (716) 265-1600
| |
| [.3+.
| |
| | |
| A
| |
| && o t IMAGE EVAL.UATION j/j' db e
| |
| gk/7 \* g) TEST TARGET (MT-3)
| |
| /
| |
| 4 f/' *%}/(h ,$
| |
| l.0 d E E B L4 yEjHE l-l E u
| |
| = llLM EE I.25 1.6 4 150mm >
| |
| 4 6" >
| |
| f ti7,,p_,,,,_t.,s c,,
| |
| f[)
| |
| w=- .
| |
| | |
| 9 4/ b IMAGE EVALUATION /jjg//f $'#
| |
| 4)%y%: $> TEST TARGET (MT-3) /(g@4#4 s W' '%, 4 1.0 ' 82 Ru d@Has I,l [m L2g i3
| |
| ~ ~'
| |
| ; i.25 l i.4 i.6 4 150mm >
| |
| 4
| |
| # ** +<$ 4%
| |
| 'S
| |
| #c fs,,,,,xxxf -
| |
| Ax
| |
| = = - - Q,,a ;.4
| |
| _ggg_ <
| |
| | |
| q q (2) Confirm that the selected measures and controls to limit each impaci have been evaluated to verify that
| |
| ' a practical level of mity. tion can be achieved by the methods and controls to be applied.
| |
| Y
| |
| * Confirm that each measure and control h reasonable (i.e., involves methods and techniques that are appropriate and achievable on a site specific basis).
| |
| * Confirm that the measures and controls are specific, unambiguous, and are structured such that their application and results can be verified through subsequent field reviews and inspections.
| |
| (3) Confirm that environmental, economic, and social costs of the available measures and controls to limit adverse impacts have been balanced against the expected benefits to be achieved.
| |
| * Consult with the appropriate benefit cost reviewers in conducting this portion of the evaluation.
| |
| Benefit cost reviews cannot be used as a basis for noncompliance with NRC regulations.
| |
| * Note that when mitigation techniques do not lead to an improvement in the overall benefit-cost ratio and if mitigation is not required by law, the impact may be accepted without mitigation and considered in the overall project benefit cost balancing.
| |
| IV EVALUATION FINDINGS ,
| |
| /
| |
| This review should prepare a summary of (1) adverse impacts of construction or refurbishment for which
| |
| ! measures and controls to limit the impacts can be applied, (2) the applicant's commitments to limit these impacts, and (3) the staff's evaluation of the potential adverse impacts and the applicant's measures and P 'co.itrols to limit adverse impacts. The results of this review will be used by the reviewer for ESRP 10.1 to de, scribe the unavoidable adverse impacts of construction or refurbishment. The input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should include
| |
| + a summary of the p tentially adverse impacts of construction or refurbishment
| |
| . a description of the applicant's commitments for measures and controls to limit adverse impacts e the staff's evaluation of applicant's commitment related to each impact.
| |
| : a. ,
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in wnich the applicant proposes na acceptable altemative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| i [3y D August 1997 .
| |
| .4.6-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFr) m3
| |
| | |
| 1 i
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 50.36(b), " Environmental conditions."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation of Environmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989. Profect Manager's Handbook, NUREG/BR-0073, Rev.1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| O NUREO-1555 (DRAFT) < 4.6-6 August 1997 O
| |
| i i
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U
| |
| O '''"%
| |
| v i I!
| |
| .S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| %,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STATION OPERATION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (3SRP) directs the staff's preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact matement (EIS) that describes the environmental impacts of station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.1 through 5.10.
| |
| (n n
| |
| Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5.0-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMINTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| * ' d *d "
| |
| w ."u p.rt .f Os 's YvD.nw.nn" .i r.#".*t ,MA k"w'.", p@YrI *e.0uDtle",.*mY."*dl5[.Yth.85"*t-o h.*b*""#.t%:,2l*/J,,'4*""e'*
| |
| am,3, g m._ . ..
| |
| a
| |
| ,':@.'2.a.*".d,',*
| |
| Un o e c.,a"m"P,.: r'
| |
| -,.e . - .-
| |
| = a w ,2... _ r.. .... __
| |
| d E:=ll"J' *"o&W5511.", AE,*iC'sa".o". 41d;;" cTd 'Was" """* ''' " 5 ""*'"' "*'"''*'
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP. I Technical Rationale l
| |
| Techn' cal rationale for evaluating the applicant's predicted environmental impacts of station operation is
| |
| . l discussed in the following paragraph: l l
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the render with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organirstion and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.1 through 5.10. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental im: wt statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.0-2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 I 1
| |
| O /O( U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL NUCLEAR STANDARD REGULATORY C
| |
| \,*****/ REVIEW PLAN 1 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l 5.1 LAND-USE IMPACTS .
| |
| I REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES i Primary-Generic Issues a:.d Environmental Project Branch i Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs d.e staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the land use impacts of station operation The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material j from the myiews conducted under ESRPs 5.1.1 through 5.1.3, !
| |
| 1
| |
| ( Review Irierfaces
| |
| (
| |
| None.
| |
| Data ani Information Needs l The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Envirorimental Project Manager, 11, ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following restulation:
| |
| a 10 CFR Si,70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5,1-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environrnental standard review p one are prepared for the dance of the office of Nucteer Reactor Regulation staff
| |
| -(~N !*h W.eJo'n*". fn'f n!C'#cW!,'1"4*v".n!"# " R J ." !f"I' ''*
| |
| (*) ""**'='alu'*p!*,A**en"A."h'?"2"'a hem i a for Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| n ltM" rad;fJ'. ,e fe;'r'.ya@tEhe2*.'fa*p32.*'
| |
| *'fac".TinWd,-ota a on Published environmental standard review reflect new information and experience. plans will be revised periodicany, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to iio*m""m"lTe'crt"!fmtit"a'an?J :rvt"e'ign " d Jaid,';a*B ettet """* '"* "$ ""*'*" """'''"'
| |
| | |
| Regulatoiy positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP, Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the pplicant's land use impacts is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| f 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is req iired.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.1.1 through 5.1.3. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformaiion to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| j NUREO-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| (''i/^)\
| |
| ''s *****
| |
| REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.I.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW Land.use His environmental standard n o plan (ESRP) directs the staff s assessment ofimpacts of plant opera-tion on land use in the vicinity of the site. The scope of the review directed by this plan ashould include an evaluation of plant operation in sufficient detail to determine the significance of potential land use
| |
| (^
| |
| (
| |
| impacts in the vicinity of tbc site and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the reviewer should recommend e!ternative operational modes or designs that would prevent, reduce, or mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces ne reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| ESRP 2.2.1. Obtain land use description information.
| |
| ESRP 2.4.1 Obtain information on the principal terrestrial features of the site.
| |
| ESRP 2.6. Obtain information on geologic environmental impacts.
| |
| 9 ESRP 3.4.1, Obtain information on the cooling system end its operational modes.
| |
| August 1997 5.1.1 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmental standard review plans are prepared for th ance of the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff o'
| |
| , it,: Tai.'A*& ;To' alt #Ufe's."J'iJ:"v'deEnWonmental :-
| |
| ist ommi standard review plane a V; is;2:'n: s"#!*, ,J" o",%"#,l." *""*""-"'" **"'"d fdes or th
| |
| *"""""'"**a"'*"a'*"**"-""'
| |
| ?ubelshed_ enviro,nmental.
| |
| m oct n into meuon nd e stand,ard pese-e. review plans will be revised periodically, at appropriate, to accommodate comments and to 8:m;i:afw:it*"!l.'"n'2 fas.*uW:"d,0:d. T c*ada* d
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 5.3 3. Obtain information on the heat-dissipation system.
| |
| * ESRP 5.8.2. Provide information on land-use impacts associated with plant operation that may have social and economic impacts in the region surrounding the plant site.
| |
| * ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of the measures and controls to limit adverse land use impacts that are to be recommended for consideration.
| |
| * ESRP 6.5.1 When potential adverse impacts of cooling tower drih deposition are predicted, provide any recommer:ded preoperational baseline monitoring program elements.
| |
| . ESRP 9.3.1. Provide a list of adverse land-use impacts that could be avoided or mitigated through alternative heat-dissipation system designs or operational procedures, and assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4.2. Provide land-use impact information that can be used to compare alternative circulating water systems.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide a summary of the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts on land use that are predicted to occur as a result of plant operation, e ESRP 10.2. Provide a summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments ofland use resources that are predicted to occur as a result of plant operation.
| |
| . ESRP 10.3. Provide land-use information at the proposed site and its vicinity related to short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information required will be affe:ted by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information should usually be obtainec
| |
| * a description of the heat-dissipation system, including type, location, size, and schedule of operation (from ESRP 3.4.1)
| |
| = for plants using spray cooling ponds, or mechanical draft or natural draft cooling towers, the length and duration of elevated plumes and drin predictions (from ESRPs 5.3.3.1 and 5.3.3.2)
| |
| . maps showing land use within the site and vicinity. Land-use categories should be consistent with those defined in USGS (1997)(from ESRP 2.2.1).
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.1.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ;(]/
| |
| / . tabulations ofland areas devoted to major uses witHn the site vicinity. Land-use categories should be consistent with those defined in USGS (1997)(from ESRP 2.2.1).
| |
| . information on sensitivity of resident species to salts expected from efiluents from cooling towers and spray ponds (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| . location of roads and bridges within the site vicinity (from ESRP 2.2.1).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review ofland use impacts at the site of the nuclear power station and in its vicinity are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to analysis requirements to be included in draft environmental impact statements (EISs) preparai by NRC
| |
| . 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), with respect to discussion in EISs prepared by NRC of possible conflicts between alternatives and the objectives of applicable land-use plans.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| ,m
| |
| . Dere are no con 0icts between the applicant's proposed facility and the objectives of Federal, State, (L') regional, and local (and in the case of proposed location on a reservation, Native American tribal) land use plans and the Federal sources shown in Table 4.1.1-1 (plus comparable State sources).
| |
| or
| |
| . If there are or are likely to be con 0icts, the extent of the conflicts, the possibilities of resolving the conDicts, and the seriousness of the impact of the applicant's proposal on land-use plans and policies and the effectiveness ofland-use control mechanisms for the area can be adequately evaluated and discussed in the EIS or other environmental do.ument.
| |
| Technical Rationalg The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's description ofimpacts to the site and vicinity is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| NRC's regulations implementing NEPA provide that NRC EISs are to include a section discussing the environmental consequences of alternatives (10 CFR 51, Appendix A[7]). The section is to include a discussion of"possible con 0icts between the alternatives and the objectives of Federal, m
| |
| i T D August 1997. 5.1.1 3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Native American tribal) land-use plans, !
| |
| policies and controls for the area concerned." In addition, the regulations provide that due considera- )
| |
| tion will be given in an EIS to compliance with applicable zoning and land use regulations (10 CFR 51.71[d]),
| |
| The questions of(l) what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, and (2) how an agency should handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives ofland use plans are addressed by the Council on Divironmental Quality (CEQ) in Questbn 23 of CEQ (lo?1). With regard to what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, CEQ (1981) states on page 18033 *. hat The term " land use plans" includes all types of formally adopted documents for land-use plan-ning, zoning, and related regulatory requirements. Local general plans are included, even though they are subject to future change. Proposed plans should also be addressed if they have been formally proposed by the appropriate government body in a written form and are being actively pursued by officials of thejurisdiction. Staged plans, which must go through phases of develop-ment ... should also be included even though they are incomplete.
| |
| With regard to how an agency should handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objec-tives ofland-use plans, CEQ (1981) states on page 18033 that The agency should first inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential conflicts. If there would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could arise in the future when the plans are finished ... the EIS must acknowledge and describe the extent of those conflicts. If there are any possibilities of resolving the conflicts, these should be explained as well. The EIS should also evaluate the seriousness of the impact of the proposal on the land-use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the proposal will impair the effectiveness ofland use control mech-anisms for the area. Comments from officials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and answered in the EIS.
| |
| III. REVIEW PROCEDURES Land use impacts to the site and vicinity because of construction are covered in ESRP 4.1.1 and limited portions ofland-use impacts on the vicinity are covered in ESRPs 4.15,4.3.1, L4,53.3.1, and 5.3.3.2.
| |
| As a general rule, the land-use changes considered in the staff s environmental reviews of construction impacts (ESRP 4.0) are sufficient to cover most land-use impacts on tue site and vicinity due to the phys-ical presence of the plant. Such land-use changes on the site will not be altered during subsequent plant operation, and thus the above referenced analyses of these changes should suffice for plant operation.
| |
| For example, where plant construction preempts the exploitation of mineral resources, the analysis of this impact as prepared by the reviewer for ESRP 4.1.1 should be used, because the operational impact is only an extension in time of the construction impact. This section should be limited to those direct restrictions on land use in the site vicinity resulting from plant operation.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.1.1 4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| [ t r
| |
| lI When assessing the impacts of plant operation on land use in the vicinity, the reviewer should use the -
| |
| following procedure:
| |
| l(1) Usin3 the results of the related reviews, assess the probable impacts of plant operation on crops or
| |
| -other vegetation or on transportation systems to establish if any would be severe enough to result in - .>
| |
| change in land-use patterns in the site vicinity. -
| |
| 4
| |
| _ (a) Realire that the impacts on land use resulting from plant operation are primarily those related to salt drift from cooling tower or spray pond operation and are thus limited in scope.
| |
| (b) Explore all possibilities of"special-case" land-use impacts (e.g., operational impacts to flood.' -i plainW land use and reallocation ofirrigation water to plant cooling water), but specific instruc-tions for such special cases are not to be provided in this ESRP, (2) .Using the pmlictions of drift and plume from the cooling system (ESRP 5.3.3.1), establish the areas 3 in which there is potential for fogging, icing, or drift damage (ESRP 5.3.3.2) of sufficient magnitude i to result in potential land-use changes.
| |
| (a) Add the additional land area potentially changed to the area already committed by plant con-struction (ESRP 4.1.1)
| |
| (b) Conduct an analysis as outlined in ESRP 4.1,1, preferably as a part of the analysis called for in ESRP 4.1.1.
| |
| (
| |
| (3) Plants with once-through cooling systems have no general impacts on land use because of plant operation; nevertheless, conduct a limited inquiry to reveal any site-specific or unusual impacts.
| |
| The evaluation ofland use impacts at the site or in the vicinity resulting from station operation shouid follow the procedures outlined in the " Review Procedures" of ESRP 4.1.1 for any additional land area potentially changed beyond that land area committed because of plant construction.
| |
| l IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The review performed under this ESRP should be directed toward the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of major direct land-use consequences of the proposed project;(2) presentation of the basis of staff analysis of the project; and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, recommendations, and conditions
| |
| .regarding land use.
| |
| ; Because the review for this section is closely allied to the review for ESRP 4.1.1, the reviewer should
| |
| : recognize that some information may be included in ESRP 4.1.1. The reviewer should not repeat this M) The term 'l floodplain"is defined at 10 CFR 72.3.
| |
| August 1997. 5.1.1-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) !
| |
| i i
| |
| . - . , . _ ,_. _ , _ , , ,___m. _
| |
| | |
| . information in ESRP 5.1.1, but should instead refer to ESRP 4.1.', including in this ESRP only the addi-tional information that is specifically related to operational land-use impacts in the site vicinity.
| |
| Public disclosure may be accomplished by presenting a brief description of plant operation and a discus.
| |
| sion of the resulting land use changes. This section should be prepared as a summarv that a nontechnical reader can understand. Extensive descriptive material should be incorporated by reference and should not be duplicated in the EIS.
| |
| The basis of the staff's analysis may be presente - 2 narrative summary by highlighting important aspects of the impacts resulting from land use changes. The discussion should identify important effects and mitigating actions proposed by the applicant or the staff. Minor issues should receive minor treat-ment. Important issues should be discussed in detail.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7)." Environmental consequences and mitigating actions."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71, " Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| 10 CFR 72.3," Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and liigh-Level Remediation Waste: Definitions."
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).1981. " Forty Mon Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,"46 Federal Register 18026-18037 (1981).
| |
| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).1997. "USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data," U5JS Survey Earth Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.1.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE31555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| (") [(h ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD ;
| |
| \,*****j REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIM 5.1.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFFSITE AREAS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Pro.iects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIF,yl
| |
| 'Ihis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's assessment of direct impacts to land use resulting from operation and maintenance of the transmission corridors, access corridors, and offsite areas. The scope of the review directed by this plan should be limited to consideration of these corridors and areas in sufficient detail to form a basis for assessing the impacts of operation and maintenance. ;
| |
| Where necessary, the reviewer shou!d consider alternative designs or practices that would mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
| |
| V Review Interfacu The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs,a indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 2.2.2. 2.4.1. 2.6. 3.7. and 4.1.2. Obtain information about the following topics: land-use description of transmission corridors, access corridors, and other offsite areas; principal terrestrial ecological features of these areas; potential geologic environmental input; design characteristics of the proposed transmission system; and land use impacts of transmission line construction.
| |
| . . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of the measures and controls to limit adverse land use impacts that are to be recommended for consideration in the licensing process.
| |
| August 1997 5.1.2- 1 NUREG-IS55 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN EnWonmental standard review plans ero dance of the office of Nuclear Reactor riegulation staff 1trc" oms'L*C%"m':!IormTrL"3prepared "*
| |
| [,'
| |
| :'urt *"na:for 'n:,J the 5Y*:f"l:"""*d"l30:s':,5%%:."'"'
| |
| ornmiEsion's reguistions and Environmental standartf review plans are not substnutes for re lato
| |
| ' "**"''"''"gd*'d des or th
| |
| **"''"'"''"*''d' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' " ' ' ' ' " " * " ' ' '
| |
| , ( id"J,#'?J O.'.'*R't.""JiJE'.".d' * '"* '
| |
| Published environmental standard review plans win be revised peridcally, as appropriate, to accommodate comrnents and to reflect new information and experience.
| |
| * d 8: ;";lT".1:n'"afW filf"Jo'"n'*n?!r'n"@.*A"*Jd "4'nJ* :d,.T c''WM.* """* '""* ""*"' "**"'''"'
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 9.4.3. Provide e list of adverse land-use impacts that could be avoided or mitigated through alternative transmission system operational or maintenance procedures, and assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide a summary of the unavoidable adverse land-use impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of transmission system operation.
| |
| . ESRP 10.3. Provide land-use information for the transmission corridors and offsite areas that is related to short term uses and long term productivity of the environment.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information required will be affected by site- and. station-specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The fol-lowing data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| e proposed routes for corridors that will be used for transmission lines from the plant site to an inter-connecting point or points on the existing high voltage transmission systems (from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| . proposed routes of access corridors to serve the proposed station (from ESRP 2.2.2) e identification of offsite areas by land use, size, and location (from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| . land-use restrictions, if any, contained in any casements (from'ESRP 2.2.2) O
| |
| . corridor lengths, widths, and areas (from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| . land use within the corridors using the categories defined in USGS (1997). Land-use information should be subdivided into corridor segments having predominantly similar land use types (from ESRP 2.2.2).
| |
| if specific corridors have not been established and only bands are given, a description ofland use within the band using the categories as defined in USGS (1997)(from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| . Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal land-use plans (from ESRP 2.2.2)
| |
| . highways, railroads, and utility rights-of-way that will be crossed by transmission lines and access corridors (from ESRP 4.1.2)
| |
| . land-use impacts of construction (from ESRP 4.1.2)
| |
| . basic transmission system electrical and structural design parameters (from ESRP 3.7)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.1.22 August 1997
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| !'') = a description of maintenance practices (e.g., vegetation control and access road maintenance), opera-tional characteristics (e.g., transmission system noise, electrical interference effects, and access road traffic), and their associated land-use restrictions or changes (from the environmental report (ER]).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review ofland use impacts at the site of transmission corridors and offsite areas are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| = 10 CFR S t.7)(d) with respect to analysis requirements to be included in draft environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by NRC
| |
| * 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), with respect to discussion in EISs prepared by NRC of possible conflicts between alternatives and the objectives of applicable land-use plans.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to neet regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no conflicts between the applicant's proposed facility and the objectives of Federal, State, regional, and local (and in the case of proposed location on a reservation, Native American tribal) land-use plans and the Federal sources shown in Table 4.1.1 1 (plus comparable State sources)
| |
| () or V e if there are or are likely to be conflicts, the extent of the conflicts, the possibilities of resolving the conflicts, and the seriousness of the impact of the applicant's proposal on land-use plans and policies and the effectiveness ofland use control mechanisms for the area can be adequately evaluated and discussed in the EIS or other environmental document.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's impacts resulting from land use of transmission corridors, access corridors, and offsite areas is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| NRC's regulations implementing NEPA provide that NRC EISs are to include a section discussing the environmental consequences of alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A(7]). The section is to include a discussion of"possible conflicts between the alternatives and the objectWs of Federal, State, regional, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Native American tribal) land-use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned." In addition, Se regulations provide that due considera-tion is to be given in an EIS to compliance with applicable zoning and land-use regulations
| |
| . (10 CFR St.71[d]).
| |
| l Guidance on (1) what constitutes a land-use plan or policy, and (2) how an agency should handle p potential conflicts between a proposal and the objectives ofland-use plans are addressed by the ik
| |
| 'v l
| |
| August 1997 5.1.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| Council on Environrnental Quality (CEQ)in Question 23 of" Forty Most Asked Questions Concem-ing CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (CEQ 1981). With regard to what con-stitutes a land-use plan or policy, CEQ states on page 18033 that The term " land-use plans" includes all types of formally adopted documents for land-use planning, zoning and related regulatory requirements. Local general plans are included, even though they are subject to future change. Proposed plans should also be addressed if they haw been formally proposed by the appropriate government body in a written form, and are being activdy pursued by officials of thejurisdiction. Staged plans, which must go through phases of development ... should also be included even though they are incomplete.
| |
| With regard to how an agency should handle potential conflicts between a proposal and the objec-tives of land use pMs, CEQ (1981) states e a page 18033 that The agency should first inquiie of other agencies whether there are any potential conflicts. If there would be immediate conflicts, or if conflicts could arise ir. the future when the plans are finished ..., the EIS must acknowledge and describe the extent of those conflicts. If there are any possibilities of resolviy the conflicts, these should be explained as well. The EIS should also evaluate the seriousness of the impact of the proposal on the land-use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the proposal will 'mpair the effectiveness ofland use control mechanisms for the area. Comments from officials of the affected area should be solicited early and should be carefully acknowledged and answered in the EIS.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The analysis of the land use impacts of operation of the transmission corridors, access corridors, and offsite areas is an extension of the analysis conducted under the review of ESRP 4.1.2. The same consid-erations outlined in the Review Procedures of ESRP 4.1.2 should apply. Additional considerations include land use restrictions or changes that could occur because of maintenance practices, access corridor use, noise, or electric or magnetic fields.
| |
| The reviewer should conduct the evaluation of land-use impacts in transmission corridors and other offsite areas resulting from station operation using the procedures outlined in ESRP 4.1.2.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The review performed under this ESRP should be planned to document the following objectives:
| |
| (1) public disclosure of major direct land-use consequences from operation of the transmission corridors and offsite areas, (2) presentation of the basis of the staff analysis of the project, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions and recommendations regarding land use.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFr) 5.1.2 3 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| f% ..
| |
| Because the review for this section is closely allied to the review for ESRP 4.1.2, the reviewer should (V) recognize that some information may be ine'uded in ESRP 4.1.2. The reviewer should not repeat the information in ESRP 5.1.2, but should refer to ESRP 4.1.2 instead, including in this ESRP only the addi-tional information specifically related to operational land-use impacts.
| |
| Public disclost.re msy be accomp'ished by presenting a brief description of the land-use changes result-ing from transmission system operation. This section should be prepared as a summary that it a non-technical reader can understand. Extensive descriptive material may be incorporated by reference and need not be duplicated in the EIS.
| |
| The basis of the staff's analysis may be presented in a narrative summary by highlighting important aspects ofimpacts resulting from land-use changes. The discussion should include identification of -
| |
| important effects and mitigating actions proposed by the 1.pplicant or by the staff. Minor issues should receive minor treatmnt, important issues should be discussed in detail.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluat'on of conformrice with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| /^\ VI. REFERENCES
| |
| %s) 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7)," Environmental consequences and mitigating actions."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71, "Drafl environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| Couccil on Fnvironmental Quality (CEQ).1981. " Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations," 46 Federal Register 18026-18037 (1981).
| |
| . U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).1997. "USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data," USGS Survey Earth Resources Observation 1)ata Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
| |
| ,3 I )
| |
| J August 1997 - 5.1.25 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NURE31555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION Om
| |
| [\,, ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| (,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
| |
| ' 5.1.3 HISTORIC PROPERTIES REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-Nonc 1.- AREAS OF REVIEW '
| |
| This endronmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's assessment of potential impacts of proposed project operation on historic properties in the site and vicinity, along transmission corridors, and at offsite areas. Historic properties include districts, sites, buildiegs, structures, or abjects of his-torical, archaeological, architectural, or traditional cultural significance (U.S. Department of the Interior 1990a,1990b). Historic properties that need to be considerej during the project include those evaluated as being " sir'ficant," which are those properties that are either listed in or cligible for listing in the V National Register ofH/storic Tlaces (U.S. Department of the Interier 1977).
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include consideration of the impacts of operation on significant historic properties and the adequacy of proposed methods to mitigate any adverse impacts on these resources.
| |
| The review should be of sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to predict and assess potential impacts and to evaluate how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where appropriate, the reviewer should consider alternative locations, designs, or operating procedures that would mitigate pre-dict'ed adverse impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer shculd obtair. input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs. as indicated:
| |
| L August 1997 5.1.3- 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAfi
| |
| ! u*r .i.aa-o w.. ,,
| |
| n eco &"'*"";"##,I.g,.,, '" % g4.n . . m. om.. ., wo i., n.. cia n.w.s n ci ttr, X.,W1 ;
| |
| !u J !n-. @"*i.f4,.g "' "
| |
| 'e ,n'.*.2,7.c"*t'. h7'.7,"f4ba'.2".W?4' *. f.f.r.'.',2"#i,"*''ono,.nis
| |
| . i.a
| |
| , m,e,,,,,,w, ,.gjg.p. .m w a .s,. .,,,,,a.i.. .. ....,,o, . . oa .ao io d
| |
| et"""*"" "G 4A'."attan"'*J"' . s,,'"J.T30:d,.fc #' nt """* ** " 5 ""*"" "**""'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 4.1.3. Obtain input regarding land use impacts f.mm construction that could impact operations.
| |
| * ESRP 5.1.0. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff evaluations of practices to limit adverse linpacts of operatioA including (1) actions required to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, and (2) rrocedures for protecton of significant historic properties.
| |
| . ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4. When the reviewer concludes that a proposed operation will result in adverse impacts to historic and cultural resnurces that should be avoided, a request should be made to the rev' ewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 to consider alternative plant designs, locations, or operational activities that would avoid the impacts.
| |
| + ESRP 10.1. Provide a list of the unavoidable adverse impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of proposed project operation.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-speci0c factors and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information should u:ually be obtained:
| |
| e a description of historic and archaeological resources within the site bo"..aary, transmission or access corridors, or offsite areas (from ESRP 2.5.3) e a description of historic or archaeological resources that are within 15 km of the proposed site or within 2 km of proposed transmission corridors, access corridors, or offsite areas (from ESRP 2.5.3)
| |
| . the State Ilistoric Preservation Officer's (SHPO's) comments on the impact of fhe proposed project on significant historic properties (from ESRP 4.1.3)
| |
| . State laws and plans for historic preservation (from ESRP 4.1.3).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of historic properties that could be impacted by proposed operation are based on the relevant requirements of the following regulations:
| |
| * 36 CFR 800 defines the process by which a Federal agency meets its requirements under Section 106 of the National llistorical Preservation Act (NHPA) to ensure that agency-assisted or agency-licensed undertakings acknowledge the effects of the undertakings on historic properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register ofHistoric Places. Compliance will be necessary for any new construction or ground-disturbing modificatione, during the operational phase.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.1.3-2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| (p) v Regulatory positions and specific criteria to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| + Section 110 of the NiiPA, which deals with agency responsibilities for ensuring that historic preservation is fully integrated into ongoing programs and missions of Federal agencies. NRC is responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 110 of the N11PA during operation of the plant.
| |
| + NRR Office Letter No,906, Revision 1, which includes guidance for complying with the require-ments contained in the N11PA pertaining to protection and preservation of significant historic prop-cnics during operation of the plant.
| |
| Technical Rntionale The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's potential impa,:ts to historic properties is dis-cussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| Because of NEPA and Section 106 of N11PA, the NRC's actions are required to fall under 36 CFR 800, which provides regulatory guidance for protecting historic properties from potential adverse impacts resulting from Federal agency undertakings.
| |
| Although compliance with Section 106 of NilPA may be necessary for new actions at an existing project during operation, the primary Federd agency responsibility for protection of historic prop-( erties during the operational phase falls under Svetion i10 of the same act (U.S. Depanment of the V Interior and Advisory Council on llistoric Preservation 1989) 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer's analysis and evaluation of operational impact on historic and archaeological resour:es should be based on the concurrent review of construction impacts (ESRP 4.1.3). Only the impacts of operation that differ from those rcaulting from construction need be assessed, in this respect, a temporai extension of an impact from the construction phase through the operational life of the project is not a dif-ferent impact. Where the reviewer determines that the impacts of operation on cultural and historic resources have been adequately considered by the review directed by ESRP 4.1.3, no further review should be required. If the reviewer determines that there will be an impact of operation that would not have been considered by the reviewer for ESRP 4.1.3 (e.g., the impact of the visual plume from a cooling tower), the reviewer should assess that operational impact as an extension of the review directed by ESRP 4.1.3.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The ESRP review should be designed to accomplish the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of impacts resulting from operation; (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis; and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, regarding impacts of the reviewed operational activities on historic properties. The following infornution will usually be included in the environmental impact statement (EIS):
| |
| (3 1 J
| |
| August 1997 5.1.33 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| Where there will be no impacts that are unique to plant operation, the following wording should be used:
| |
| The staff has determined that the impacts of operation on historic properties s
| |
| * be no more than temporal extensions of the impacts of construction assessed in ESRP 4.1.3. Conse-quently, no further discussion is required.
| |
| Where the impacts of operation differ from those described in ESRP d.l.3, the reviewer should I
| |
| include a description of these impacts on those propenies that are 1: Aed in or cligible for indusion in the Nationa/ Register. The reviewer should discuss the steps that led to a determination of whether or not the effect is adverse.
| |
| V, IMPl EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of confonnance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 36 CFR 800," Protection ofIlistoric Properties."
| |
| U.S. Department of the interior.1977. " Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Plan-ning," National Register ofHistoric Places, Bulletin 24 (revind 1985).
| |
| U.S. Depanment of the Interior. 1990a. "How to Apply the National Register Criteria '_'r Evaluation,"
| |
| National Register of#istoric Places, Bulletin No.15 (revised 1991).
| |
| U.S. Department of the Interior.1990b. " Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cul-tural Properties," National Register ofHistoric Places, Bulletin No. 38.
| |
| U.S. Jepartment of the Interior and Advisory Council on Ilistoric Preservation.1989. "He Section 110 Guidelines: Annotated Guidelines for Federal Agency Resp:,nsibilities under Section 110 of the National flistoric Preservation Act," Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRR Office Letter No.,906, Rey,1. 1996. " Procedural Guld-ance for Preparing Ei.vironmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues," Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.1.3-4 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| NURE21555
| |
| ,,,, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
| |
| v a, N ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD g,*****j REVIEW PLAN.
| |
| OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.2 WATER RELATEDIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primar/* -Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVlFJL This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the hydrological alterations, plant water supply, and water-use impacts of station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2.
| |
| (
| |
| 1, Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Nggds The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragiaph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| = 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5.2-1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN ng x,oos*w
| |
| [**""*?,,'4"*"Ato?.'i2'.Wm#4"3g.,l;"."Ya'1?a*.'2",."
| |
| : - m= ".":iL".*ife" '"".. .., o,
| |
| . ...,.uxB.
| |
| ggy,og,.wa.,.v:.,n,.e, .g go. n moo ..,vg7.'4%:o:.m.i.v
| |
| .. - ouo* .ma y,,gg .d=w,.4g,g.p.n. . .. o ,.,w .av. .. .,ow.i.. io ....mmoa. . ..mm.oi. .oo to
| |
| . r.
| |
| !"""""2"!st':it22ft,"".*e"5%"J"4."Cd.Tdc
| |
| * War """* ** " ""*" "**""'"'
| |
| __a _. _ T
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| . There are no regulatory positions 8pecific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationalg The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's water-related impacts is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| - Intn>ductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation..
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no spec;fic analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FJNDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The pa agraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of infonnation co' red by ESRPs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented at describe their relaticnships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IIAPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant ~oposes an acceptable alternative f;r complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70 "Drafl environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREO 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR" COMMISSION D/#'\ "
| |
| ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD g /) REVIEW PLAN -
| |
| ***** OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.2.1 IIYDROLOGIC ALTERATIONS AND PLANT WATER SUPPLY REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs identification, analysis, and descrip-tion of hydrologic alterations resulting from plant opc.dtion and the staff s analysis of the ade.guacy of the water sources proposed to supply plant water needs.
| |
| He scope of the review directed by this plan should include (1) the identification and description of pro-
| |
| - posed operational activities that could result in hydrologic alterations;(2) the identification, description, sg ard analysis of the resulting hydrologic alterations and the effects of these alterations on other water users;(3) the analysis of proposed practices to minimize hydrologic alterations having adverse impacts; (4) the analysis and comparison of plant water needs and the availability of water supplies to meet those needs; and (5) conclusions with respect to the adequacy of water supplies to meet plant water needs.
| |
| Erview Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain descriptions of the hydrology (e.g., physical characteristics of the surface water
| |
| - bodies and groundwater aquifers) of the region surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.'L Obtain descriptions of the regional water uses (and users) for the area surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| August 1997 5.2.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC L NVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN EnHronmental standerd review plans are propered for the dance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff p he mrr selon a f th riucYar indu try and hI INc f storyprocedu os at d pol 6c e ,
| |
| e e with hem le no e d. he eI 'n! to r vi plans are e to Prepars n$ronmental
| |
| (, Rc;. orts for Nuclear Power Stations Putdished environrnental standard review Moct new information and experience. plane will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accomrnodate comments and to 6 d d Ein"*Je%*1ffFot':f'acie'e" A*f#J,'Risa*Jn *4."dnJ* .oc:d *"d 'TB's ss'' """* ''' ** ""*''" "**"'''"'
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| I
| |
| . ESRP 3.3. Obtsin input regardirg expected water use by the proposed plant. This includes water sources, points of water return, and variations in water use by season and plant operational mode.
| |
| . ESRP 3.4. Obtain input regarding the cooling system for the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRP 3.6 Obtain descriptions of the waste systems for nonradioactive waste disci.arged from the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRP 5.2.2. Provide a list of operational activities resulting in bydrologic alterations, and the result-ing effects of these alterations to other water users. Additional information should be provided to other ESRP Chapter 5.0 reviewers when the reviewer for ESRP 5.2.2 requests that such inputs be made.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.3.1.1 and 5.3.2.1. Provide descriptions of operational hydrologic alterations that sill sup-port the descriptions ofintake system nydrodynamics and discharge thermal plumes in ESRPs 5.3.1.1 and 5.3.2,1.
| |
| . ESRh S.3.1.2 and 5.3.2.2. Provide descriptions of opere'.lonal hydrologic a!!erations that may affect aquatic ecosystems.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Supply a list ofidentified measures and controls to limit or minimize hydrnlogic altera-tions and, when necessary, identitled operational practices and procedures to match plant water needs to available water supplies.
| |
| . ESRPs 6.1 and 6.3. Provide a list ofidentified preoperational baseline monitoring prograr. 4.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4. Provide assistance in identifying and evaluating alternative plant design and operational practices and procedures that would minimize or avoid operational hydrologic alterations that resuit in adverse environmental impacts.
| |
| . Interface with Environmental Project Manager. Alert the Environrnental Project Manager (EPM) of any operation activity likely to result in hydrologic alterations to the floodplain.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail could be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The l
| |
| following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| l . descriptions of the physical characteristics of the surface-water bodies and groundwater aquifers I (frcm ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.2.1-2 August 1997 l
| |
| | |
| . - -. - . . . . .. .. -- . - - . - . . . . -..- . .- . . - -.. ~ . - . -
| |
| m f% . - quantitative descriptions of proposed watz sources, including groundwater sustained yield,7-day h _~ __.
| |
| _once-in-10 years low flow, flows (including reverse And regulated) and yields during the' drought of
| |
| - tword, and low lake levels; estimates of frequency and duration of water-supply shortages (from -
| |
| ESR'' 23.1 and the environmental report [ER]) ,
| |
| . - withdrawals and returns of surface water and groundwatet used for plant operatio i, including rates -
| |
| - and sources of waar, nls should include the different operational modes of the plant (e.g., maxi.
| |
| mum water intake and consun.ption, minimum water availability, average plant water use by month, and during shutdown). De informatbn should also include plant effluent quantity and physical characteristics as a function of the differeni opersonal modes (from ESRP 33.1 and the ER).
| |
| . a quantitative description of present and known future swface-water uses (diversions, consumptions, and returns) that are within the hydrological system in'which the plant is located and that may affect plant water availab!!ity or be affected by plant water use, ne following should be included for each use (fiam ESRP 23.2 and the ER):
| |
| - locations of diversions and returns with resoect to the plant intake system -
| |
| - identification of water bodies
| |
| - average monthly withdrawal and consumption ate.
| |
| . a quantitative description of present and known future groundwater withdrawals on the site and for distances great enoug'n to cover aquifers that may affect plant water availability or be affected by plant water use. He following should be included for each use (from ESRP 2.3.2 and the ER):
| |
| - location, depth, and elevation of wells (total and cased) and water levels with respect to the plant
| |
| ^
| |
| - identification of aquifers
| |
| - average monthly withdrawal rates.
| |
| 4
| |
| * operational activities expected to resu't in hydrologic alterations within the site and vicinity, along transmission corridors, or at onTsite areas. Dese a:tivities can inc!ude credging cperations, opera-_-
| |
| tions affecting water levels, and dewatering activities (from the ER)-
| |
| * identification and description of the hydrological alterations resulting from the identified operational activities. Dese can include cbuges in the flood-handling capability of the floodplain, flow and circulation patterns, erosion subsidence, water availability,'and sediment transport (from the ER).W
| |
| , . - identification and locations of surface-water and groundwater users (includicg aquatic ecosystems) and water-use areas that could be affected by hydrologic alterations resulting from plant operation (from ESRP 23.2, the ER and the site visit) - _
| |
| - (a) See ESRP 2.3.1 for a definition of the floodplain.
| |
| P o
| |
| A ._ August 1997 - 5.2.1 3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 2 3 a*m -
| |
| m, ewa - > es-, - -- ~s a -~ n---w---e---e w- ---wAe~s+m, -++n s Y~s a= , ,/w. 4
| |
| * a summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relatmg to plant water use and water consumption (from ESRP 2.3.2 and the ER) e descriptions of proposed means to ensure compliance with standards and regulations affecting plant water use and water consumption. and proposed practices and measures to limit or minimize opera- I tional hydrologic alteraticas (from the ER). !
| |
| 1
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of the hydrologic alterati ns at the proposed plant sites are based on the relevant requirements of the following regulations:
| |
| * " CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits
| |
| * 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, with respect to conditions, limitations, and restrictions on construction activities
| |
| . 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection
| |
| . 40 CFR 122 with respect to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges i
| |
| . 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use n or above a sole source aquifer
| |
| . 40 CFR 227 with respect to criteria for evaluating environmental impacts
| |
| . Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified abeve are as follows:
| |
| . Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirer.ients of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negav A requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the propo.;ed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are avai:able for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is availab!c from the permitting authority, the NRC will considet the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost balance. When no such assenment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.2.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| /"')
| |
| ( ,/
| |
| . Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be consid.
| |
| cred simultaneously with changes in water supply, in Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the U.S. Supreme Court granted the States additional authority _
| |
| to limit hydrological alterations beyond the States' role in regulating water rights.
| |
| . Regulatory Oulde 4.2 contains guidance on the format and centent of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water-quality issues.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's hydrologic alternations and plant water supply is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the hydrologic impacts occurring during plant operation is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant con-struction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| Water quality and water supply are interdependent. Changes in water quality must be considered simuhaneously with possible changes in water supply.
| |
| III. REVIEW PROCEDURES (o}
| |
| b This section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) should be planned to accomplish tha following objectives: (1) public disclosure of the hydrologic alterations resulting from plant operatic. i and the comparison of plant water needs with water availability,(2) a discussion of the effects of these altera-tions and water supply /need comparisons, and (3) presentation of stafTconclusions regarding the adequacy of plant water supply to meet plant water needs.
| |
| The reviewer's analysis of hydrologic alterations and water-supply / water consumption comparison should be linked to the environmental descriptions provided by the environmental reviev's for ESRPs 2.3 and 3.3 to ensure that the environmental factors most likely to be affected by operational hydrologic alterations and plant water consumption are described in sufficient detail to permit subsequent assess-ment of any potential impacts. Tiv reviewer should coordinate the analysis of hydrologic alterations with the analysis prepared by the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1, because the analyses for many of the hydro-logic alterat ions resulting from plant construction will be sufficient to cover subsequent ( period of plant operation) alterations due to the physical presence of the plant. Where these alterations will not be fur-ther changed by plant operation, the analysis p: paad by the reviewer for Section 4.2.1 should suffice for plant operation. This environmental review should be limited to consideration of hydrologic param-eters directly associated with plant operation.
| |
| The reviewer's identification of plant operational activities that could result in hydrologic alterations will require knowledge of the site and vicinity physiography, hydrology, and water uses. In addition, the n
| |
| ( ,L
| |
| : v. August 1997 5.2.1 5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| reviewer should be familiar with fehral, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal regulations with respect to hydrology and water use.
| |
| When evaluating hydrologic alterations resulting from plant operation and the adequacy of the water sources proposed to supply plant water needs, the reviewer should use il'e following procedure:
| |
| (1) Consider appropriate plant operating conditions (including periods of maximum plant water use, minimum water availability, average plant operation by month and during shutdown) and hydro-logic variations affecting water use.
| |
| (2) Detennine if all known future water uses (including aquatic ecosystems) have been considered.
| |
| (3) Estimate the effects of operational hydrologic alterations and restrictions on v'ater availability on these users.
| |
| (4) Identify and analyze my measures proposed by the applicant to minimize or limit these alterations and restrictions.
| |
| (5) When analyzing water availability, coordinate this review with the reviewer for ESRP 3.3.1.
| |
| (6) When analyzing hydrologic alterations, coordinate this review with the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1 to ensure that the reviewer is aware of the scope and extent of these related reviews and to avoid any duplication of effort.
| |
| (7) In consultation with the reviewer for ESRP 2.3.1, establish the physical availability of the proposed water sources, including consideration of the drought of record for the region and the 7 day once-in>10 years low flow.
| |
| (8) In consultation with the reviewer for ESRP 2.3.2, identify the other water uses, rights, and restric-tions of the surface-waters and groundwaters, including existing station water uses (e.g., an operat~
| |
| ing steam clectric plant).
| |
| (9) in consultation with the reviewer for ESRP 3.3.1, detennine plant needs for the following plant operating conditions; maximum water consumption, minimum water availability, average opera-tion by month, and plant shutdown.
| |
| (10) Establish by comparison the cdequacy of the water supply to accommodate anticipated plant operating modes.
| |
| (11) Analyze all operational auivities that can alter the quantities of water physically available in nearby hydrologic systeras and determine the alterations.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.2.16 August 1997
| |
| | |
| -. - - - - - . . - _~ - - .. - .. -
| |
| l r
| |
| l l
| |
| s
| |
| * Conalder all water to be used during operation, under various plant opasting ( ESRP 3.3.1) !
| |
| and hydrologic (ESRP 2.3.1) conditions.~~- l
| |
| . Consider all watw divaalons that change the quantities of water in various parts of water syrr twns (e.g., pwmanent dewatwing) and water rights or allocations obtained for the plant. -
| |
| t
| |
| * Determine the physical e#ects (e.g., altered well yields, water levels relative to intake pipes) {
| |
| ; likely to aNoct other water usws and aquatic ecosystems for those hydrologic systems in which !
| |
| 4 altwations in water quantities have bow identified. [
| |
| i (12) Analyse the operational activities that can alter hydrologic geometries, flow and circulation pat- j terns, and mixing procems and detwmine the altwations. Hydrologic altwations due to the intake r
| |
| ' or discharge system are covwed in ESRPs $.3.1.1 a Al 5.3.2.1.
| |
| l
| |
| * Considw other hydrologic sitwations (e.g., maintenance drodh ing, permanent dewatering) with i the potential for impac" to watw usws.
| |
| * Report any operational activity that will result in hydrologic alterations to the floodplain to the En vironmental Project Manager and to the revi;. wor for ESRP $.2.2. ;
| |
| * Analyze and evaluate such altwations lit accA.c4 with the instructions provided the !
| |
| reviewer for ESRP 4.2.1. j i
| |
| j (13) Analyse the operational activities that can altw wesional, depositional, and sediment transport !
| |
| r characteristics and detamine the alterations. (Note that alterations resulting from intake or r
| |
| " . discharge syste6n operation am addressed by the revl ewers for ESRPs 5.3.1.1 and 5.3.2.1). i 4 . Consider operational activities in relation to the natural processes that would occur in the y absence of plant operation.
| |
| 4
| |
| . For those areas in which alterations in the natural wesional, depositional, and sediment trans- !
| |
| t
| |
| ; port characteristics have been identified, detamine the physical e#ects (e.g., beach erosion, [
| |
| increased turbidity) likely to aNect other water users. ;
| |
| (14) Ensure that thoto operational activitics resulting in hydrologic altnations have been identified, and seek confirmation that those aitwations resulting in aivironmental impacts have been described in sufficient detail to allow for the subsequent analysis and assessment of these impacts. ,
| |
| i i
| |
| L g August 1997 L
| |
| '5.2.17 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| .a 1:. , ,,..i...LO,_,.w_,_..-,~~-__R..J._,.._ . . . . . . , . . . . _...,........~____L.u.__....a._,.-_....a..
| |
| | |
| (15) Evaluate the adequacy of plant water supplies with respect to plant water needs, using the follow-ing evaluation procedures:
| |
| * Determine if the identified alterations in water quantity in the various operationally affected hydrologic systems are compatible with existing and known future water rights and allocations.
| |
| * Describe the physical eficcts ofidentified alterations in the quantity of water available to other consumptive water users.
| |
| * Describe the physical effects of altered hydrologic geometry, flow, and circulation patterns in relation to non consumptive water users. When proposed operational activities involving hydrologic alterations to the floodplain are identified, complete the evaluation of these alterations in accordance with the evaluation instructions of Section 4.2.1.
| |
| * Describe the physical effects of alteied crosional, depositional, and sediment characteristics in relation to other water users, to property and (for those effects not addressed by the reviewers of ESRPs 5.3.1.1 and 5.3.2.1) to aquatic blota.
| |
| * Detennine if the sources of water proposed to supply plant water needs will be adequate for these needs, taking into 6ccount seasonable variations in water supply and the varint!ons in water needs as a fun: tion of operating conditions. If the sources are dete: mined to be inadequate under some conditions, describe the conditions, including seasonal / plant operating mode factors, the estimated time duration of the inadequacy, and the predicted effect on plant operation.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| + a de*cription of plant operational activities that will result in hydrologic alterations, and a description of these alterations and their effects for each affected water body
| |
| + the quantities and rates of water diverted, consumed, and discharged during plant operation. Sources of wate: and points of return should be identified. Variations (seasonal, plant operational modes) should be discussed.
| |
| * conclusions with respect to the adequacy of the proposed water sources to meet plant requirements, and effects on plant operation when the proposed water sources are inadequate to meet all plant water needs
| |
| + conclusions with respect to the compatibility of proposed water diversions with existing and known future water rights and allocations NURB31$$$ (DRAFT) 5.2.18 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (m)
| |
| + recommendations for operational practices and procedures to minimize or limit operational hydro-logic alterations having adverse impacts, or for alternative practices and procedures that could avoid these alterations e identification and evaluation of operational practices and prc:edures that could avoid any incompati-bilities between plant water needs and plant water supply.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufDclent information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation suppont the following type of statement to be included li; the EIS:
| |
| Dased on the applicant's analysis and description of the hydrologic alterations resulting from plant operations, the staff concludes that the characterization of the hydrologic system is valid and adequate to evaluate the adequacy of the sources of water proposed to supply plant water needs.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with speelned portions of the regulations.
| |
| O
| |
| \%/ )
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 33 CFR 330, Appendix A,"Netionwide Permit and Conditions,"
| |
| 40 CFR 6, Appendix A," Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination Systems."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."
| |
| 40 CFR 227," Criteria for the hvaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of Material."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Clean Water Act, as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also knowa as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act).
| |
| Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,921911, Supreme Court of the United States,510 U.S.1307; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 640; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, p
| |
| t 4 1994).
| |
| August 1997 5.2.1 9 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U .S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON O r~N ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAP TEACTOR REGULATION 5.2.2 WATER-USEIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs analysis and assessment of predicted impacts of plant operation on water use.
| |
| 'The scope of the review directed by this plan should include (1) analysis of hydrologic elterations that could have impacts on water use, including water availability; (2) analysis of water quality changes that f-could afTect water use;(3) analysis and evaluation of impacts resulting from these alterations and changes; (4) analysis and evaluation of proposed practices to minimize or avoid these impacts; aad (5) evaluation of compliance with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulations applicable to water use and water quality. Ilydrologic alterations and water quality changes should be considered as they may affect both surface-water and groundwater uses, including domestic, municipal, agriculture, industrial, mining, recreation, navigation, and hydroelectric power.
| |
| The review should be in sufficient detail to predict and assess potential impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the reviewer should identify and evaluate attemative designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate or avoid predicted adverse impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the followin8 USRPs, as indicated:
| |
| August 1997 5,2.21 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '"**""*"'a "" "1Jm.J" oi.'0*o,."":".1:it.'&g2" ,., .,
| |
| O,- vL-ww,, &,,2.n.t".:ti:r,m:d '94t"? *?
| |
| g, g f,g, nw@" w v,rA....&.o:.n.m.s.v g, "fe,. .5.5 ou oa z.w,.
| |
| e w
| |
| , Woo.,
| |
| * so.:t.o,o.oi.i .
| |
| , g,ggy,,,,g.p.o. .an,. r.* ~ v. . *i.. .. -. 4a. .- . .,. i.
| |
| t 2",".'.*.".'M"hiai.'#nti,W
| |
| . *iN:."Cdo.7c' ''ra!!* """* ** " ""*" "*'""'
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain descriptione of the hydrology of the region surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| * ESEI13 2. Obtain descriptions of the regional water uses (e.g., the location and nature of water users and water use areas) for the area surrounding the proposed plant site, e ESRP 2.3.3. Obtain descriptions of the baseline water quality of the water sources / bodies for the area surrounding the proposed plant site.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Obtain input regarding expected water use by the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Obtain descriptions of the cooling system of the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRPs 3.6.1 throuch 3.6.3. Obtain descriptions of the nonradioactive waste systems for the pro-posed plant. f r. formation regarding the quantity and concentration of waste streams (for chemicals or blocides, sanitary system wastes, and othar nonradioactive wastes) should be obtained.
| |
| * ESRP 5.2.1. Obtain descriptions of the plant operational activities that could result in hydrologic alterations, the potential hydrologic alterations themselves, and the comparison of plant water needs and the availability of water supplies to meet those needs.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.3.1 throuch 5.3.3. Obtain input regarding the impacts of the proposed plant cooling system on aquatic systems. For the intake system, obtain information regarding the intake hydrodynamics and the physical impacts caused by the flow field induced by the intake. For the discharge system, obtain information regarding the impacts of the plant's thennat discharges on the receiving water bodies.
| |
| . ESRPs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. Obtain input regarding the impacts of the nonradioactive waste systems (chemical and biocides, sanitary systems, other) for the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff recommendations for measures and controls to limit adverse water use impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 6.3. Provide a list ofidentified and evaluated preoperational baseline monitoring programs that will be needed to assess operational impacts to water use.
| |
| . ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4. Provide a list of adverse environmental impacts affecting water use that could be mitigated or avoided through attemative project designs c:' operational procedures, and assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| * ESRP 10.1. Provide a list of the unavoidable adverse water use impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of plant operation.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.2.2 2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| * EERE.Hl.2. Provide a brief summary of the irreywsible and irretrievable commitments of hydro-
| |
| - (--
| |
| logical and water use resources that are predicted to occur as a result cf plant operation.
| |
| Data and Ininnnatlan Wands l The kinds of data and information needei will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the _
| |
| degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following data ed information will usually be obtained:
| |
| e descriptions of the site and vicinity water bodies and groundwater aquifers (from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| * descriptions of hydrologic alterations ami their related operational activities (from ESRP 5.2.1)
| |
| *: the physical effects of hydrologic alterations (from ESRP 5.2.1) .j i
| |
| -e a quantitative description of present and known future surface water uses, inchiding any station.
| |
| water uses not associated with the proposed project, that are within the hydrological system in which the plant is located and that may be adversely affected by the plant. The following should be - ,
| |
| included for each use (from the environmental report [ER] and ESRP 2.3.2): ;
| |
| t identification of the water body locations of diversions and retums with respect to the plant. Diversions located between the i plant discharge and the region of complete dilution should be further characterized by location f with respect to the water body. ;
| |
| i
| |
| - average monthly withdrswal and consumption rate for each division by use category (e.g., -
| |
| domestic, municipal, agriculture).
| |
| * a quantitative description of present and known future groundwater withdrawals on the site and for
| |
| - distances great enough to cover aquifers that may be adversely affected by the plant. The following should be included for each use (from the ER and ESRP 2.3.2): -
| |
| .l
| |
| - withdrawallocation
| |
| - depth and elevation of wells (total and cased depth) and water levels
| |
| ~
| |
| identification of aquifers .
| |
| : average monthly withdrawal rates by use category. .
| |
| * comparisons of water quantity available to other water users with existing and knowr, future water rights and allocations (fkom ESRP 5.2.1) ,
| |
| s ,
| |
| t
| |
| ! August 1997 ~ . 5.2.23 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) i
| |
| - ;,p.<._#,.,,a . . , . _ .,
| |
| a y.,%., .
| |
| , #m.__.mmm.-
| |
| ,_,,..,'ry.c # . m.w _, w . .rmm a.,,.., ,.y,., _, ,y,c,.,._,,. ,.m
| |
| | |
| e a quantitative and qualitative der,cription of recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive known future water uses. For a 10 km (6 mi) radius this should include the following (from ESRP 2.3.2):
| |
| . identification of water bodies and location with respect to the plant
| |
| - kind and location of activity on the water body
| |
| - use rate wth time variation.
| |
| . identification of water bodies receiving plant effluents and the expected average and maximum flow rates and composition of these efDuents (from the ER)
| |
| + predicted impacts to water users or water use categories described in the " Data and Information" section of this ESRP (from the ER) e baseline water quality data for surface water and groundwater sources used for and impacted by plant operation (from ESRP 2.3.3) e descriptions of any proposed practices and measures to control or limit operutional water use impacts (from the ER)
| |
| * summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specine water body restdctions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations (from the ER and ESRP 2.3.2)
| |
| . Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal standards and regulations applicable to water quality and water use (from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) e descriptions of proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water quality and water use standards and regulations (from the ER).
| |
| 11 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the water use impacts at the proposed plant sites are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 33 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits.
| |
| . 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection.
| |
| . 40 CFR 122 with respect to permit conditions for discharges including stormwater discharges.
| |
| * 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole. source aquifer.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.2.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| . Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal water laws and water rights. }
| |
| ?
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as !
| |
| - follows: i I
| |
| e Compliance with environmental' quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a f substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of - !
| |
| - the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternativa to the !
| |
| proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts, if an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment -
| |
| in its detennination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-oost :
| |
| balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impa:ts is available from the permitting authority, the i NRC (possibly in cordunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant
| |
| = expatise) will establish its own impact determination.
| |
| l a Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the fonnat and content of ERs including hydrology,
| |
| ' water use, and water qua'ity issues, ;
| |
| In Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Depanent of Ecougy (U.S. Supreme Count Case), the U.S. Suprune Court granted the States additional authority to liml9.ydrological alterations beyond the States' role in ,
| |
| regulating water rights. As a result of this ruling, the States may regulate the quantity of water as a part i of the definition of water quality, i
| |
| Technical Rationale ,
| |
| W technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential water use impacts is discussed in the fol-lowing paragraph:
| |
| J A detailed and thorough description of the water use during plant operations is essential for the eval-untion of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment. Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality !
| |
| , must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. Changes in water quality must be U considered simultaneously with possible changes in water supply.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PkOCEDURES The review conducted with this plan should be directed toward accomplishing the following objectives:
| |
| (1) public ' disclosure of mejor direct water use consequences of plant operation, (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis, and (3) presentation of staff evaluations, conclusions, and conditions regarding water use. W reviewer should coordinate this input with the reviewer of ESRP 5.2.1 to avoid duplicailon.
| |
| 1 4
| |
| i August 1997: . 5.2.2 5 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| .44
| |
| - .-,.<.,.-_n;---,----- .nn,..~.-new ,,.r- r.n-, +m,- . e- -,.n~- .+.. ,~s--e-,,,~-
| |
| | |
| The reviewer's analysis of operational impacts on water use should be linked to the environmental descriptions provided by ESRPs 2.3 and 3.3 to ensure that the environmental factors most likely to be impacted by the proposed plant operation are described in sufDelent detail to permit assessment of the predicted impacts.
| |
| The reviewer should coordinate this analysis with the reviewer for ESRP 2.3.3 and with the reviewers for ESRPs 5.3.2.2 and 5.5 to identify and analyze those water quality changes afr ec ting water use. De reviewer should also coordinate this review with the analysis of construction impacts described in ESRP 4.2.2 because the analyses for many of the water use changes considered in the staffs environ-mental review of construction impacts will be sufficient to cover subsequent ( period of plant operation) impacts due to the physical presence of the plant. Where these changes will not be further altered by plant operation, the plant construction impact analyses (ES) will suffice for plant operation. This environmentai review should be limited to consideration of the impacts on water use that are direct resuns of plant operation. Unless the reviewers for ESRP 2.3 indicate a potential for operational water-use impacts along transmission corridors or at offsite areas, this review may be limited to potential site and vicinity water use impacts.
| |
| Site Vish During the site visit, the reviewer should:
| |
| . Observe the general pattern of water use at the site and vicinity and at those identified offsite and transmission corridor areas where operational activities could be expected to impact water use.
| |
| . Identify those water users and water use areas that should be considered.
| |
| . Consult with appropriate nearby Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal agencies for further identification of water users, water use areas, or water-quality considerations that should be analyzed.
| |
| * Consider appropriate plant operating conditions (including periods of maximum plant water use, minimum water availability, average plant operation by month and shutdown water requirements) and hydrologic variations in analyzing potential water use impacts.
| |
| Areas ofImnact The reviewer should evaluate the impacts of water use on water availability, hydrologic alterations, and water quality.
| |
| l NUREG 1555(DRAIT) 5.2.2-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| p' Water Availability Q) When addressing water availability, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Ensure that the water users and water use areas potentially impacted by alterations in water quantity and availability as a result of plant operation have been identi0ed and that any impacts of reduced water quantity and availability have been identified and assessed.
| |
| * There are no quantitative criteria for determining the severity of such impacts (e.g., percent reduction in hrigation water) so make this a.sessment through consultation with the reviewers for ESRPs 3.1 and 5.8 and, where necessary, with the assistance of nearby Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies.
| |
| * When adverse impacts have been identined, consult with the reviewer for ESRP 5.2.1 for assistance in identifying design or procedure modifications that could mitigate the impact.
| |
| (2) Ensure that the possibility for inequalities between proposed plant water use arid existing and known future water rights and allocations has been considered and that the probable nature and extent of these inequalities has been described.
| |
| (3) Ensure that any transfer of water rights (e.g., from irrigation use to plant consumptive use) has been described and that the impacts associated with such transfers have been identified and assessed.
| |
| U llydrologic Al ltrations When addressing hydrologic alterations, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Ensure that the hydrologic alterations identined by the reviewers for ESRPs 5.2.1,5.3.1.1, and 5.3.2.1 have been analyzed with respect to their potential impacts to water users or water use areas.
| |
| * Compare the effects of these alterations (e.g., turbidity, erosion, sedimentation) with pre-operational conditions to assess the extent of the impact.
| |
| * Evaluate impacts for individual water users and for water use areas.
| |
| * Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 5.5 for assistance in this evaluation and to coordinate the overall evaluation of operational impacts due to hydrologic alterations.
| |
| * When necessary, consult with nearby Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies for assistance.
| |
| * Seek means to mitigate or avoid any identified adverse impacts, p
| |
| _ August 1997 5.2.27 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (2) Seek confirmation that any operational activities affecting the floodplain have been der,cribed by the reviewer for ESRP 5.2.1.
| |
| * Consult with appropriate State and local agencies to determine the extent to which such activities will conform with applicable floodplain standards.
| |
| * Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 5.2.1 and the reviewers for ESRP 9.4 to analyze alternatives to any such activity affecting the floodplain.
| |
| (3) Ensure that operational activities that will alter or restrict surface-oriented water uses (e.g.,
| |
| commercial and recreational fishing or navigation) have been identified and that their effects on water users have been described.
| |
| * Ensure that structurally related impacts on surface-oriented water use (e.g., breakwaters orjetties having impacts to navigation) have been addressed by the reviewer for ESRP 4.2.2.
| |
| * Identify and assess any operational impacts (e.g., altered current velocities associated with cool-ing water discharges) that would increase or modify these structurally related impacts.
| |
| * Seek confirmation that identified hydrologic alterations resulting from plant operation comply with applicable Federal, State, regional, local and afrocted Native American tribal standards and regulations.
| |
| * Consider site- and region specific water use type, frequency, and magnitude because many of the impacts resulting from hydrologic alterations do not permit development of specific criteria for determining adversity.
| |
| * When potential adverse impacts are predicted, identify alternative designs or operating procedures that could mitigate the impacts.
| |
| , Water Ouality When addressing water quality, the reviewer should do the following:
| |
| (1) Ensure that hydrologic alterations and operational activities affecting water quality have been identi-fled and their effects on y ater users or water use areas described.
| |
| (2) Consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 to ensure that potentially affected water users have been identified and that baseline water quality data for the e.fTected users and water bodies are available.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.2.28 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| l (3) Evaluate ime on the basis of altered watw quality, taking into account the nature of the impact, .
| |
| ; Lt he time di% ion or time periods when the impact will be e5+!r:+i, the numbw of watw users or !
| |
| extent of water use areas affected, and the watw quality requimments of the affected usws or areas, i i
| |
| e Consult with the revieww for ESRPs 5.3.2.2 and 5.5 to coordinate this evaluation and to avoid ;
| |
| duplication of effort with other ESRP Chaptw 5.0 reviewws. {
| |
| l
| |
| * When necewary, consult with Federal, State, egional, local, and affected Native American tribal j agencies for assistance in evaluating the identified impacts.
| |
| i
| |
| * When advwse impacts have been identified, seek altwnative opurational procedures to avoid the j impact.
| |
| (4) Consult with the reviewws for ESRP 3.6 to determine the flow rates and chemical composition of [
| |
| plantpffluents. Consider potential impacts on water users or water use areas in terms of the intended ,
| |
| usage (e.g., chemical contaminants affecting a municipal water supply, suspended solids affecting ,
| |
| industrial use, turbidity affecting recreational use). !
| |
| ($) Determine if opwational activities affecting surt' ace water and groundnter quality will comply with _ f State and Federal water quality standards for efiluents and receiving water bodies. This evaluation [
| |
| should be made in consultation with the reviewer for ESRP 5.$ to avoid any duplication of effod in the evaluadon of water quality impacts.
| |
| IV. EVALUA110N FINDINGS :
| |
| The following information should usually b( iucluded in the environmental impact statement (EIS): 1
| |
| * A' description of plan't operational activities that will cause advase water use impacts and a quantita-tive description of these impacts for principal water users and water use areas.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4
| |
| * A comparison of predicted emuent and receiving water quality with applicable emuent limitations !
| |
| and water-quality standards, and condusions with aspect to proposed project compliance with these standards.
| |
| * The physical impscts of consumptive plant water use on other water users.
| |
| * 'Ihe compatibility of proposed plant water use with existing and known water rights and allocations, and the impacts associated with any transfer of water rights for plant water use.
| |
| * _ Adywse impacts to surface-oriented water users resulting from plant operation. !
| |
| e identification and evaluation of plant de Ign and operating procedures to mitigate potential adverse
| |
| : water-use impacts, or of attemative designs or procedures that could be used to avoid these impacts.
| |
| August i997 S.2.29 NUREG l$$5 (DRAFT) er ar- ..v -r ,--we -,-3, --r. ...,-vw-c r- y,e y- e ,x.+c- ,..~r.,w-,c . - , - - , - , , - - , , , .- ,,.,-.w.~m,,. -, ,,--w-, ,,,-77,,,,w.,,..w,., ,,,. w w-q:v.-e v y s ., r".y ~ ,,
| |
| | |
| Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following determinations:
| |
| * The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should includa a statement in the environmental impact statement of the following type:
| |
| Th: staff has reviewed the available information on the water use impacts from operation.
| |
| Based on this review, the staficoncludes that there are no significant environmental impacts.
| |
| * 1he impact is adverse but can be mitigated by spectfic design orprocedure modifications that the reviewer has identifled and determin:d to be practical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Ibvironmental Project Manager and the appropriate ESRP 9.4 reviewer for verification that any proposed modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance.
| |
| The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists should be provided to the reviewet for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfsdly mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be muided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the appropriate ESRP 9.4 reviewers that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is required.
| |
| The reviewer should padicipate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer should give this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that suflicient informatiori has been provided in accordance with the relevant requiretrents and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Dased on the a,pplicant's analysis and description of the hydrologic alterations resulting from plant operations, the staff concludes that the characterization of the hydrologic system is valid and adequate to evaluate the impacts of the plant operation and water uses.
| |
| V. IMPl_EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 40 CFR 6 Appendix A " Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination Systems."
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 5.2.2 10 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ! [
| |
| t l
| |
| I o
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers." I i
| |
| U.S. Water Resources Council. " Floodplain Management Guidelines for implement;ng E.O.11998," j 40 FederalRegister 6030(l978). l i
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I916. Preparation ofEnvironmentalReportsfor Nuclear Powr Stations. l i
| |
| Clean Water Act, as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control l Act). i Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Depanment of Ecology,92 1911, Supreme Coun of t'se United States, $10 .
| |
| U.S.1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.LW. 3450 (January 10, i 1994). i
| |
| : -i f
| |
| 6 i
| |
| L 3
| |
| 4 7
| |
| I August 1997 5.2.2-11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) {
| |
| - . . , , . . . . . . - - _ _ . _ _ . - - _ . - - . _ _ - . - - . _ , . - . _ - . . _ - , . . . , - . . _ . - . - . - - . . , _ - - - . , . . - - . ,4
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 f U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O,m [ ,% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
| |
| $J COOLING SYSTEM IMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-Nono I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the cooling system impacts of station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.3.1 through 5.3.3.2.
| |
| (\ Review Interfaggs None. ,
| |
| Data and Informatine1Nceds ne reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement [
| |
| from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCF CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductoiy paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation: ,
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| i August 1997 5.31 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ~
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 7m '" % .,s ,
| |
| (m) F.c e :!:"d,W.".t,.:,,f",.t:.%'7,t:r.':f ggig,,g' w.eam -
| |
| .%v..ma... *an.:~:
| |
| - . . . :.s,.t.'s.e.n,t.,,.2e.ti, vu
| |
| '.*.''{f.st%:'.*t.R!21.'h',b.":".
| |
| ~
| |
| ,,*ga.ng,,,4., p,,,g,*,
| |
| ,i.n..n. *w - c v... ,,, *i...- w ...-.~ wi.
| |
| 8"~~Mnn;it's"icta:,i.*,"'2.,N.".C",,.ve' *totu' "*"""" " """~' "'*"'"'
| |
| | |
| s Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identined above are as follows:
| |
| * %ere are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP, Technical Rationale De technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential cooling system impacts is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organir.ation and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS He reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) 6hould introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.3.1 through 5.3.3.2 He paragraph (s) should list the types of information to be presented and describe their relationships to infortnation presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. lhiPI rMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. IETERENCE 10 CFR 51.70,"Drafl environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.32 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O,, /',,,,,'$. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.1 INTAKE SYSTEM REVIEW RESPO QS!!3!LITIES Primary---Civil I ogineering and Geosciences Branch Secondary-Not e
| |
| : 1. AREAS _QE.P;IVIEW This e v!ronmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory pr..agraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the impacts of the intake system during station operation. De scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 53.1.1 and $3.1.2.
| |
| Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager,
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 30 reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulatiom
| |
| . 10 CFR $1.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5J.1 1 NUREO ISSS (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN If**ygd,'## 1'!nt*4*."J.*i'?n'Sta,d,'r.'"*,lMd.*."M.'%fJh'o?!h*h*ls." *nL".'&''d " u*!'.. ..,i oi m\ i (d
| |
| ' :Pi r t?!,',".*#.=''Y'2 iL.,222,7,W."'*pd.,'r M'"""**""''"''"''""'d ni##1*J C.'#roLEcon..
| |
| fj ;;t"c'alf.ctl:'Jed*a'-
| |
| '' "**"''''*"'d''"'''''"*"*''"*""*"'''
| |
| l ,7n%'i'* d nU"so7.%n''.'3"d.*4,I.*nt." d'"' ""* ''* *d "'''*d'* *"' ** **"'**''''* '' ****** d''' *****"'' *"' **
| |
| l d d 8:=f.L*."$#.':t'E"ci.'E!I.ifJ,T.*,"$.T!'OA ">'lnI' .
| |
| d i? c$%"$N* """""' ""*'"' "'#''"'
| |
| ( -
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specine criteria necessary to meet the regulations identined above are as follows:
| |
| * Dere are no regulatory positions specinc to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Ratid The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's intake system impacts is discussed in the follow >dg paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| Ill. REY 1EW PROCfDURES ne material to be prepared is informational in nature and no speclue analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION Fil{ DINGS He reviewer ofinfonnation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. He paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.2. He paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specined portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. RETERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact st tement-genu.ai."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.12 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| NUREJ 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COVIMISSION O Q') ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| $W*****) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.1.1 HYDRODYNA 7 DESCRIPTIONS AND PHYSICALIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Civil Engineerirg and Geosciences Branch Secondary-None
| |
| !. AlmAS OF REVIEM' His environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs description ofintake hydrodynamics and analysis and as, r sment of predicted physical impacts caused by the flow field induced by the intake system.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include consideration of the spatial and temporal
| |
| (' distribution of the surface-water body flow field and the physical effects of the flow field induced by intake system operation. The review should be in sumelent detail to describe intake hydrodynam!cs to the extent necessary for subsequent assessment of predicted intake system impacts to aquatic blota, in addition, the review <r should assess potential inMke system physical impacts (e.g., bottom scouring, induced turbidity, silt buildup) and evaluate how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process.
| |
| When necessary, the reviewer should identify and evaluate alternative designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate or avoid predicted adverse impacts.
| |
| Review Interfatgg ne reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 23.1. Obtain descriptions of the hydrology of the region surrounding the proposed plant site (specifically, the hydrology of the surface water bodies that will be affected by the intake system).
| |
| August 1997 5.3.1.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN .
| |
| m I.J.".".* .a%",',2.*.C."4,%T.:f,!."J" .ot%:"'* ??,*.*oi.'2*." ":"J:ll.W.*f".*,A"
| |
| .ri o, (a i . 4,@J'*'",',*
| |
| g g ,.o,g,g, ,y;'"&,*h. i.
| |
| A*
| |
| . oi .,.., .".2.=o, 6.r
| |
| . .g'y. ,,h. :.:';.rf.
| |
| . on ' ,.ois sow.,o c'2.o 7 gg;w,.4;g.* , ,i.o. .n. . 4 .sr . .. .n, .. . ...,o,o.4.i. e.,o oi. .no i.
| |
| 8:"J2".'ao*. tM:fE"n't . r.4" .T',!*4 ."ded.7c' 'Wa!* """"" ""*" "*'*'"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 2.4.2. Obtain descriptions of the baseline aquatic ecology for the surface water bodies in the area surrounding the proposed plant site that will be alTected by the cooling system intake system.
| |
| . ESRP 3.1. Obtain descriptions of the layout of the proposed plant (specifically, the layout of the main water bodies, including locations of all intakes and discharEes).
| |
| . ESRP 3.31 Obtain descriptions of the expected water use of the proposed plant.
| |
| . LSEP.x 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Obtain descriptions of the cooling system of the proposed plant.
| |
| . ESRP 5.2.2. Provide input related to potential water use restrictions caused by operation of the intake systern.
| |
| * ESRP 5.3.1.2. Obtain input regarding the potential for impacts of the induced hydrodynamic Dow field to aquatic biota (which will be used to determine the appropriate extent of the hydrodynamic description requi.ed for the environmental impact statement [EIS]).
| |
| . ESRP 5.3.2.1. Obtain descriptions of the physical impacts to surface water bodies caused by the discharge system of the proposed plant (if the same water bodies are used for intake to the cooling system).
| |
| . ESRPs 5.3.1.2 and 5.3.21. Provide a description of the intake system hydrodynamic flow field.
| |
| . ESRP 5.E.1. Provide a summray of the physical impacts related to the presence and operation of the intake system, e ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts that have been identified and evaluated for consideration in the lleensing process.
| |
| * ESRos6.3 and 6.6. Provide input regarding the need for and possible limitations on any monitoring activities as a result of the presence or operation of the cooling intake system, e ESRP 9.4. Provide a list of adverse physical impacts that could be mitigated or avoided through alternative intake system designs or operational procedures, and assist in determining appropriate alternatives, e ESRP_101 Provi6 a summary of the unavoidable adverse physical impacts that are predicted to occur as a result ofintake system operation.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 53.1.1 2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| - Data and Informadan Nands i
| |
| The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specine factors, and the degree of detail should be modi 0ed according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * bathymetry and sediment characteristics in the vicinity of the intake structure (s)(from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| * maps depicting station layout with respect to the water body, including locations of all intakes and discharges (from ESRPs 3.1 and 3.4.2)
| |
| * Intake now rates and velocities as a function of plant operating conditions (from ESRP 3.4.2)
| |
| * detailed drawings of the intake structure (s), including the relationship of the structure to the water surface (normal and minimum levels)(from ESRP 3.4.2) e ambient cwent patterns in the vicinity of the proposed intake structure (s)(from ESRP 2.3.1) e descriptions of other intake system design and performance characteristics affecting hydrodynamics (e.r., horizontal and vertical approach velocities, geometry ofintake canals, submerged riprap) (from the environmental report [ER))
| |
| ( . descriptions of spatial and temporal alterations of the ambient flow Deld and of any other physical hydrologic effects induced by Intake system operation (from the ER).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the hydrodynamic physical impacts at the proposed plant sites are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 33 CFR 322 with respect to dennition of activities requiring permits
| |
| + 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on Goodplain and wetlands protection e 40 CFR 122 with respect to NPDES permit conditions for discharges including storm water discharges
| |
| + - 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole source aquifer
| |
| * Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| ; August 1997 5.3.1.1-3 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 7g ue- - +-%---- a-- --y. eg-, 4= Tr e y p
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above ue as !
| |
| follows:
| |
| * Compliance with environmental gaality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a !
| |
| substitute for and does not negate the rrquirement for NRC to w eigh the environmental impacts of I l
| |
| the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to corsider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment l of equatic impacts is availchle from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conlunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own lmpact determination.
| |
| * Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson County PUD #1 vs.
| |
| Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the U.S. Supreme Court granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the States' role in regulating water rights.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 provides guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water-qur.lity issues.
| |
| Ischnical Rationale The technical rationale fer evaluating the applicant's hydrodynamic descriptions and physical impacts is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of the hydrodynamic and physical impacts of the cooling system intakes is essential for the evaluation of potential impacts to the environment that may result from plant construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| 111. REVIEW i ROCEDURES The reviewer's description ofintake hydrodynamics should be linked to the environmental descriptions provided by ESRPs 2.3.1,3.3, and 3.4 to ensure that water body characteristics affecting intake hydrodynamics are described in sufficient detail to allow prediction of the flow field induced by the operation of the intake system. The reviewer's analysis of physical impacts ofintake system operation should be linked to the environmental descriptions and impact analyses of ESRPs 2.4.2,5.3.1.2, and 5.3.2.1 to ensure that those environmental factors most likely to be affected are described in sufficient detail to permit assessment of the predicted changes or impacts. The extent of the description ofintake hydrodynamics and analysis of physical impacts should be governed by the magnitude of potential intake system impacts to aquatic biota.
| |
| NUREO-1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.1.14 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| ~ :
| |
| lataka Hydedwaande Dameriptian j he reviewer should develop a description of the intake hydrodynamics as follows: [
| |
| . (1) Conduct a simple hydrodynamic analysis (e.g., calculations of the induced potei.tial now Dold by [
| |
| standard procedures and prepare an intake system hydrodynamic description. j
| |
| * Discuss this with reviewws for ESRPs 2.4.2 and 5.3.1.2 to determine its adequacy for use in !
| |
| o predicting intake system impacts to aquatic blota. !
| |
| t t
| |
| * When you detamine that the induced flow fields will result in only minor impacts on aquatic biota (or that no biota will be impacted), this portion of the analysis is complete.
| |
| (2) When you detennine that the simple hydrodynamic analysis is insufficient (e.g., the analysis results l In predictions of significant adverse impact, there are large populations of"imponant" aquatic blota -
| |
| in the vicinity of the intake), prepare a detailed analysis ofintake hydrodynamics consisting of
| |
| ^
| |
| . a review of any applicant supplied flow field predictHe or e a revieww. prepared prediction of the induced flow field based on modeling procedures.
| |
| e Consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 2.4.2 and 5.3.1.2 to detennine the extent of the surface-water body to be analyzed. l
| |
| * For once-through cooling systems, consult with the revieww for ESRP 5.3.2.1 to ensure that the area of the water body to be analyzed is suffic!. nt to permit analysis of potential recirculation of .
| |
| discharged cooling watw.
| |
| * Provide a quantitative description of the induced flow field taking into account the ambient cunents.
| |
| * Provide velocity vectors or other descriptors showing the areal extent of the region affected by the induced flow field.
| |
| PhvalcalImpacts ofIntakes The reviewer should analyze the physical Impacts of the intake system as follows:
| |
| (1) Identify and analyze physical changes resulting from intake :: stem operation, including j
| |
| e - shoreline erosion -
| |
| . bottom scouring ''
| |
| ; August 1997 , 5.3.1.15- NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) ;
| |
| 5
| |
| - - -J,, ,,--t- -- wmn v., e ,r. --~wd.-,ru.m#,~,vw,m,-rv-,,ww.,.,,,,.--w -, ,*...w~n.m ,..--% --- - , --
| |
| | |
| e induced turbidity
| |
| * silt buildup.
| |
| Staff experience has indicated that the impacts associated with these physical changes are miaor, and mitigative action or consideration of alternatives has not been required.
| |
| (2) Unless adverse impacts have been identified, no further evaluation is required.
| |
| 'ihe reviewer shou i ensure that the description of the intake flow field is adequate to serve as a basis for the impact assessment of ESRP 5.3.1.2 and for providing flow patterns necessary for the assessment of potential heated water recirculation conducted in ESRP 5.3.2.1.
| |
| "Ihe reviewer should ensure that analyr,es involving mathematical or physical modeling ofintake flow fields are appropriate for the specific situation being modeled, have been verified or shown to be conservative, and are documented and referenced. The reviewer should consider the procedures of Regulatory Guides 4.4 and 1.125 in making this evaluation. For analyses involving less-detailed procedures than mathematical or physical models, the reviewer should ensure that the procedures used were appropriate for the specific situation and were adequately conservative.
| |
| For specific physical impacts identified by the " Review Procedures" section, the reviewer should evaluate each impact with regard to water standards and guides or good operating procedures for intake systems. Unless potentially severe impacts have been identified, no further evaluation is required.
| |
| IV, EVALUATION FINDINGS
| |
| 'Ihe EIS should provide the following: (1) a physical description of the induced hydrodynamic flow field resulting from operation of the intake system,(2) a description and assessment of physical impacts resulting from intake system operation,(3) the basis for the staffs review and analysis, and (4) staff evaluations and conclusions. The extent of the hydrodynamic description input to the EIS should be governed by the potential for impacts on aquatic biota ( ESRP 5.3.1.2). The extent of the physical impacts to be included should be determined by the results of the '' Review Procedures" section in identifying potentially significant changes.
| |
| The following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| . hydiodymmic description of the intake induced flow fields, including effects of ambient flow patterns. Tables or figures may be used.
| |
| . a description and assessment of the analysis technique used a the intake flow conditions that may result in severe impacts on aquatic blota
| |
| . a description and assessment of potential physical impacts.
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.1.16 August 1997
| |
| | |
| = _ _ . . - . -_ -
| |
| {'}
| |
| y Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following conclusions:
| |
| * The impact is minor undmitigation is not required. When impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement in the environ nental impact statement of the following type:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information on the physical imputs of operating the cooling system intake system. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no rignificant environmerital impacts.
| |
| * The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by spec @c design or procedure mod $ cations that the reviewer has identified anddeterminedto bepractical. For these cases, the : viewer should consult with the project manager and the reviewer for ESRP 9.3.2 for verification that any proposed modifications are p.actical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance. The reviewer should piepare a list of verified modifications, measures, and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists will be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be molded. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewer for ESRP 9.4 that an analysis and evaluation of altemu r designs or procedures are required. The reviewer should participate in any such analysis and evaluation of attematives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical. If no such attematives can be identified, the reviewer should provide this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1 i -
| |
| V The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statemer* to be included in the EIS:
| |
| llasH on the applicant's description of the methodologies used to conduct a hydrodynamic an..pa of the intake system of the proposed plant's cooling system, the staff concludes that characteriration of the physical effects of the hydrodynamic flow field induced by the intake system is valid and adequate to evaluate the impacts of the plant operation on the aquatic blota in the affected surface water body.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION 1he method described herein will be used by th. staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, cxcept in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable altemative for complying with 8pecified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 33 CFR 322," Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 40 CFR 6, AppenJix A," Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."
| |
| t Vl August 1997 5.3.1.1 7 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination Systems."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 1.I?$, Rev l. I978. PhysicalModelsfor Design and Operation ofHylraulic Strwtures and Systemsfor Nuclear Power Plants.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.4. I974. Reporting Procedurefor MathematicalModels Selectedfor Predict Heated Efluent Dispersion in Natural Water Bodies.
| |
| Clean Water Act, as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act).
| |
| , Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,921911, Supreme Court of the United States, 510 U.S.1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 426 L. F,d. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| O NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.1.18 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE'>1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| (') [$....) ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.1.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEhtS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environrnental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW ,,
| |
| His environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs analysis and assessment of potential plant intake system impacts on aquatic ecosystems.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include an analysis of the effects of entrapment, impingement, and entrainment in sufHelent detail to allow the reviewer to predict potential impacts on "important species," and to evaluate the significance of such impacts. The review should be extended to V consider the effects of altered circulation patterns end reentrainment of heated effluents if these effects are determined to be significant.
| |
| Review Interfacts The teilewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.4.2 Obtain a description of the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the site, especially those resources potentially affected by the cooling water intake system.
| |
| * ESRP 3.1. Obtain information about the power plant's external appearance and layout in enough detail to support the analyses made in ESRP 5.3.1.2.
| |
| * ESEE.142. Obtain a description of the cooling system and its operational modes in enough detail to
| |
| , support the analyses made in ESRP 5.3.1.2.
| |
| August 1997 5.3.1.21 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONh1EN'fAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN m 5.'2"'M:,"lE:,d!,T.'.? d *
| |
| ~'T- f.".*T*"27."id I"n*w "'"4*":@f.1'.''2d 'd:
| |
| %"'""**""*"'d , ' ,7 We*#%%io*2l"uido[f,*f-?.*n*f.f%:,'f.74*d."i (V fallldTfJ E2.0*TJ.", Ji.JJ" onm
| |
| .*d
| |
| '"d'"'*""'*"'"'""'''**""***"*''"*"""*"'d
| |
| .P.u.b.0.eh.d.
| |
| tn in nvl., non con nt.1 n t n.d rd,i n ..v.t.w pl.n. wlN b. ,.vt..d p.,lodic.Oy, .. .pprop,ict., to .ccommod.t. comm.ntt .nd to -
| |
| 8=1,t"em:t'4*a'.", at* ,',T s.*u'd" V.*mLd;d.Td c '?ts'u.' """""' **'" "*"'''"'
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 5.2.1. Obtain information regarding hydrological alterations from operation and the adequacy of the plant water vipply so that an evaluation ofimpacts to the aquatic ecosystem from the cooling -
| |
| system intake can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 5.2.2. Prov8Je information regarding impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from the coolig system intake so that an evaluation of impacts of operation on plant water use can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 5.3.1.1. Obtain infonnation regarding physical impacts caused by the flow field induced by the intake system so that an evaluation of imat. cts on the aquatic ecosystem from the cooling system intake can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of potentially adverse impacts of the cooling system intake on aquatic biota and a list of applicant commitments to time these adverse impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 6.5 2. Provide a discussion of any preoperational baseline monitoring programs necessary to assess impacts ofintake system operation.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4.2. Provide a list of adverse impacts ofintake system operation that could be mitigated or avoided through alternative system design, locatian, or operation, and assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide a summary of the unavoidable adverse impacts on aquatic biota that are predicted to occur as a result ofintake systcm operation.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments of aquatic re:ources that are predicted to occur as a result ofintake system operation.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station specific factos and the degree of detail should be modified accerding to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . susceptibility of"important" aquatic species (as defined in Table 2.4.2-1) to entrainment, entrapment, and impingement (from the environmental report [ER] and the general 70erature) e the economic value of the species for local or regional commercial and rec eational fisheries. For species that are commercially or recreationally valuable, estimates of natural survival rates up to those life stages at which the species are recruited to the harvestable or parent stocks (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies).
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.1.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . for those "important" species po'entially affected by plant operMon, estimates of the regional if standi ig stocks (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencits).
| |
| * for once-through systems, transit time from the intake structure to the point of discharge to a receiving wa cr body (from the ER).
| |
| Besides the specific site and vicinity information listed here, additional data will be needed to review the impacts on the aquatic ecology from operation of the cooling intake system. This background informa-tion can be found in ESRPs 2.3.1 and 2.4.2 and concerns "important species" as well as the hydrological and ecological conditions or, and in the vicinity of the site.
| |
| Additional information about the plant design and operating procedures should be taken from other ESRPs, including 3.4.2,5.3.1.1, and 5.3.2.1. These sections describe components of the cooling system and the hydrodynamics and physical impacts of the intake end discharge.
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A Acceptance criteria for the review of construction or refurbishment impacts on aquatic resources in the vicinity of the site and transmission corridors are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| A . 10 CFR 51.45 with respect to ERs and the analysis of potential impacts contained therein
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.75 with respect to descriptions of the environment affected by the issuance of a construction permit
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.95 with respect to the preparation of supplemental EISs in support of the issuance of an operating license
| |
| . 10 CFR 52, Subpart A, with respect to descriptions of the environment affected by the issuance of an early site permit 40 CFR 122 with respect to NPDES permit conditions specified in the Clean Water Act
| |
| . Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 with respect to natural resources and land or water use of the coastal 70ne Endangered Species Act of Ic73, as amended, with respect to identifying threatened and endangered r . species, critical habitats, and initiating formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
| |
| )
| |
| v' August 1997 5.3.1.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| * Federal Water Follution Control Act (FWPCA)(as amended) and commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act w!*h respect to restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 with respect to consideration of 0sh and vcildlife resources in the planning of development projects that affect water resources
| |
| . The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG 1437), which concluded that the effects of cooling system intake operation (entrainment of fish and shellHsh in early life stages and impingement of fish and shellfish for plants with closed cycle, cooling tower heat-dissipation systems, and the entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplank-ton) on aquatic resources are minimal, and plant specific evaluations an: not required at the license renewal stage. However, the entrainment ofjuvenile fish and shellfish, and impingement of fish and shell0sh, for plants with once through or closed-cycle cooling pond hect-dissipation systems as well as impacts on threatened or endangered species do require plant speciSc evaluations.
| |
| * Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 with respect to the protection of marine mammals
| |
| = Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 with respect to the dumping of dredged materialinto the ocean Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, contains guidance to the applicant concerning the analysis of potential impacts of operation of the cooling water intake system. The reviewer should ensure that the applicant's analysis is sufficient to evaluate impacts during station operation.
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 4.7 contains guidance concerning the ecological systems and biota at potential sites and requin:s that their environs be sufficiently well known to allow reasonably certain predic.
| |
| tions ofimpacts and that there are no unacceptable or unneces:;ary deleterious impacts on populations of important species or on ecological systems from the construction or operation of a nuclear power station. This guide also provides regulatory positions concerning entrainment, impingement, or other forms of entrapment and efrects of cooling systema on aquatic species migration routes.
| |
| = Regulatory Guide 4.8 with respect to the environmental surveillance program.
| |
| * Compliance with environmental qwdity standards and requirements of the Cleaa Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental in' pacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.1.2-4 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| } in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost -
| |
| balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the L
| |
| . NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant
| |
| * - exponise) will conduct its o_wn assessment and use it in its determination of the overall benefit-cost -
| |
| 1
| |
| ~ balance.
| |
| : C Memorandum of Understanding Between the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the NRC for the :
| |
| . Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants (40 FR 37110) with respect to the NRC exercising the primary. ;
| |
| ; responsibility in conducting environmental reviews and in preparing EISs for nuclear power stations. l However, the Corps of Engineers will participate with the NRC in the preparation of EISs by helping -
| |
| to draft material for sections covering (1) coastal erosion and other shoreline modifkations, (2) silta- '
| |
| tion and sedimentation processes, (3) dredging activities and disposal of dredged materials, and (4) location of structures affecting navigable waters, I Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's plant system impacts on aquatic ecosystem intakes l
| |
| [
| |
| is discussed in the fo. lowing paragraph:
| |
| The EIS should include an analysis that considers the environmental effects of the proposed cooling water intake system and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental O
| |
| V effects, as well as any environmental benefits that may result from the proposed action. Following the acceptance criteria listed above will help ensure that the environmental impacts of the proposed cooling water intake system are considered with respect to matters covered by such standards and requirements. -
| |
| ~ Ill REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| ! The impacts from coo'ing water intake are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennit system. The Clean Water Act requires that the location, design, .
| |
| construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure reflect the best technology available for minimizing environmental impacts. Responsibility for making this determination rests with the EPA or. ,
| |
| with its designees.
| |
| In the most practical terms, the reviewer's final evaluation is determined through professionaljudgment
| |
| , based on the pertinent data and analyses, The reviewer may refer to earlier NRC environmental reviews
| |
| : . In which evaluation ofintake system operational impacts has been important.
| |
| l The reviewer should take the following principal steps to perform the analysis:
| |
| (1) Identify the "important" aquatic organisms and their life stages susceptible to entrapment, impinge-ment, or entrainment, coordinating efforts with the reviewer of ESRP 2.4.2 to ensure that these
| |
| ~
| |
| _p susceptible "important" species are also described in that ESRP, .
| |
| k[ August 1997 5.3.1.2-5 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) w -
| |
| m).wi-e -- H- % v w -y wy.-- p 3
| |
| | |
| (2) Estimate the levels of susceptib?ity in either qualitative or quantitative terms, or both. Methods for quantifying entrapment and impingement susceptibilities are not well developed; therefore, it may be necessary to draw on the experience of comparable, currently operating power stations to predict whether the potential is high, medium, or low for the proposed plant. Methods for quantifying entrainment susceptibilities are available; however, they are generally applicable to specific habitat.
| |
| species-station characteristics.
| |
| . Ensure that assumptions made in available model developments are valid for the case under review.
| |
| * Consider habitat type in determining levels of susceptibility.
| |
| (3) After identifying the "important" species and determining their susceptibility, estimate the survival rate- for those species imp:nged or entrained, by relying on experience at other stations. Certain species have been shown to be especially fragile (e.g., threadfin shad, menhaden, bay anchovy),
| |
| whereas some shellfish are much hardier (e.g., blue crab and penacid shrimp).
| |
| * Consider the design and proposed operation of any proposed screen wash and fish return system.
| |
| . Consider the potential value of such a system, if a return system is not proposed.
| |
| . Assume 100% mortality for all entrained biota, considering the ibliowing:
| |
| - For once-through systems, hov- er, you may perform an analysis using a refined estimate of mortality and factoring in snecks tolerances to thermal, chemical, mechanical, and pressure stresses; transit time through the system; and plant operational characteristics.
| |
| - For the special case of a multipurpose cooling pond for which makeup water is provided from another water body, the impacts should be considered at t oth the plant intake and the source water intake.
| |
| (4) Consider the potential for altered hydrodynamic characteristics induced by inlet system operation (e.g., altered circulation patterns) to affect attraction and entrapment of aquatic biota, and consult with the reviewer for ESRP 5.3.1.1 to determine the extent and seasom i variation of any such alterations.
| |
| (5) Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 5.3.2.1 to determine if theie is any potential for the recirculation of heated effluent from the plant discharge system. If recirculation irpredicted, analyze the potential effects of increased impacts of entrapment, entrainment, and impingement.
| |
| (6) In this final step, estimate the magnitude of the potential impingement and entrainment impacts on the species populations and the aquatic ecosystem.
| |
| NUREG-1553 (DRAFT) 5.3.1.2-6 August 1997 O
| |
| l
| |
| * Use the results of Step 3 as the starting point (i.e., the potential station cropping rates for
| |
| ('' )
| |
| phytoplankton, zooplankton, and meroplankton, including fish eggs and larvae, and juvenile stages of"important" species).
| |
| * Consider these cropping rates in relation to natural mortality rates, reproductive rates, and standing stock estimates for the species populations.
| |
| * Consider other existing stresses (cumulative mortality) to the fragile species (e.g., impacts of other electrical generating stations sited nearby).
| |
| In general, the entrainment cropping of phytoplankton and zooplankton will not impact these communi-ties due to the short reproductive cycles for these species. More detailed consideration should be given those species with annual reproductive cycles such as most fish and shellfish.
| |
| The reviewer may assume, for a first approximation, that plant cropping translates directly to a reduction in the harvestable or parent stocks. Where possible, this impact should be expressed in quantitative units such as (1) catch per unit effort; (2) harvestable stock by weight; (3) recruitment in numbers; (4) dollar values; (5) numbers or percentages of specific size, age group, or life stage. The reviewer may use more refined analyses (e.g., population modeling, compensation factors) when results suggest that additional precision is needed.
| |
| O IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS V
| |
| He depth and extent ofinput from ESRP 5.3.1.2 to the EIS will be governed by the attributes of the aquatic ecological resources that could be affected by operation of the station's heat dissipation systems, and by the magnitude of the expected impacts on these resources. This section of the EIS should present (1) a list of adverse impacts of cooling system intake operation to aquatic ecosystems, (2) a list of the impacts for which there are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and the associated measures and controls, (3) the applicant's commitments to limit these impacts, and (4) the staff's evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's measures and controls exist to limit adve se impacts. This information should be summarized for the reviewer of ESRP 5.10.
| |
| The staffs analysis may be provided by referencing the aquatic biota descriptions of ESRP 2.4.2, and describing in brief detail the impacts on those biota that are "important" and susceptible to entrainment, entrapment, or impingement. Types, life stages, and relative abundance ofimpacted "important" biota should be described, along with specific aspects of giroposed intake system operation responsible for such impacts on these blota. This section should provide estimates of survival from these intake system impacts and estimates of the relative or absolute losses to the impacted populations Siaff conclusions should contain an evaluation of the significance oflosses to the populations of "important" species, including a determination of whether or not these losses will constitute an adverse impact that should be mitigated or avoided. This section may include a summary of staff consultations a
| |
| ( l with the appropriate NPDES administrative agencies having responsibilities under the FWPCA. Any L ,'
| |
| August 1997 5.3.1.2-7 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| studies or environmental investigations performed by these agencies that address intake system impacts should be described or referenced.
| |
| If any threatened or endangered species will be potentially affected by the operation of the cooling water intake system, an informal consultatien with the appropriate Federal agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service) must be arranged. The EIS should contain a summary of the results of such consultations if they occur.
| |
| If the reviewer verifies that sufTicient information has been provided in accordance with the guidance provided by this ESRP sectior., then the evaluation will support one of the following concluding statements, to be included in the EIS:
| |
| . The staff has reviewed the available information relative to potential impacts of the cooling water intake system on the site's aquatic ecology. Based on this review, the staff has concluded that the impact is minor and mitigation is not needed.
| |
| . The staff has reviewed the available information relative to potential impacts of the cooling water intake system on the site's aquatic ecology, Based on this review, the staff has concluded that the impact is adverse but can be mitigated by specific design or procedure modifications that the reviewer has identified and determined to be practical.
| |
| . He staff has reviewed the available information relative to potential impacts of the cooling water intake system on the site's aquatic ecology. Based on this review, the staff has concluded that the impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such magnitude that it should be avoided.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.75, " Draft environmental impact statement--construction permit."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.95," Supplement to final environmental impact statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpart A,"Early Site Permits."
| |
| 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination Systems."
| |
| NUREG-IS5$ (DRAFT) 5.3.1.28 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| i r
| |
| i Regulatory Guide 4 2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Powr Stations. ;
| |
| : Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev.1, 1975. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Powr Stations.~ .
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.8. 1975 Preparation ofEnviromental TecimicalSpecyIcationsfor Nuclear Pour -
| |
| Plants.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| }
| |
| Endangered Species Act, ns amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean ,,
| |
| Water Act). .
| |
| e l' - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended,16 USC 1361 et seq.
| |
| Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended,33 USC 1401 et seq.
| |
| i- -- -
| |
| , , Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps.of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the U.S. Nuclear 4
| |
| f
| |
| (
| |
| Regulatbry Commission for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants,40 Federal Register 37110 (August 25,1975).-
| |
| t- Second Memorandum of Understanding and Policy Statement Regarding Implementation of Certain -
| |
| NRC and EPA Responsibilities,40 FederalRegister 60115 (December 31,1975).-
| |
| U.S. Nuelcar Regulatory Commisslon (NRC), 1996. Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statementfor License Renewal ofNuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vol.1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| s p ,
| |
| , fN -
| |
| -1
| |
| )L,
| |
| : August 1997- 5.3.1.2-9 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| , 4 , . ~ , - ., -- . . . .-.- , --
| |
| | |
| .u l
| |
| NUREG 1555
| |
| . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| _( p;) / penny \ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD f REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.2 DISCHARGE SYSTEM REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the impacts of the discharge system during station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2,2.
| |
| r
| |
| [x Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| =
| |
| 10 CFR Sl.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5.3.2.I NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmental standard review plans are prope. red for the
| |
| "
| |
| * a '"**
| |
| : eL" a "R*:"',:
| |
| .O)
| |
| , ;,*t/c#" :s'an*"s%*T;fo'Fn/t*m*t4',:2:a*2:t /'e huldance ommisalon'a reguations and of the office L' M; @ 7 nst. 2.TWa" .* '"""#~""*"'' '" *"*~'"""""""'*'"""**"'''"*""~""'
| |
| Published enviror. mental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect now information and experience, omrr[es a t c'e f u ser ctor R g a$1 Was n .DC 0
| |
| | |
| {~-
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluation of the applicant's discharge system is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| til. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to infonnation presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS, V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70, " Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I 1
| |
| l NURED 1555 l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "Qv
| |
| /',,,,h . ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD i
| |
| =\,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.2.1 THERMAL DESCRIPTION AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic !* sues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's description and assessment of the proposed plant's hydrothermal discharge and associated physical impacts.
| |
| 'Ihe scope of the review directed by this plan should include the analysis of temporal and spatial temperature distributions in the receiving water bodies and any potential physical impacts (e.g.,
| |
| increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, sedimentation) on receiving water bodies resulting from the O)
| |
| ( plant's thermal discharges. Where such discharges may be mixed with thermal discharges from existing station steam-electric generating plants, the reviewer should determine the incremental impact (either beneficial or adverse) attributable to the proposed plant. The review should be in sufficient detail to predict and e.ssess potential impacts and to discuss how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the reviewer should identify and evaluate alternative designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate adverse impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| + ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain descriptions of the hydrology of the region surrounding the proposed plant site (specifically, the hydrology of the surface water bodies that will be affected by the discharge system).
| |
| August 1997 53.2.1-1 NUREG ISS5 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '* d d ' ' *'
| |
| biIc".3 p.rt of w e IIspE."fN*.'n*",0EnNn'tla
| |
| " r.#*[w* '$r'llSI.'Ir N.Ypl5Ntl."YhN.'"docuSYnts elk' Wit.5:n?.!*/J*4"! ,"P.,lF.lra?LO"7.t"!,',".p'*''":"@***S"4 $ lTc'EUfa"ll<!J2# n.
| |
| (
| |
| C)S n*."$ 7J d'a.'"*C " s#15'id * *"**"""'" ''' *'*"""""d' ' ' " ' * " " * ' ' " * " " " * " ' "
| |
| r7 dei"Ilti!""We'n"J'JD,ll,*e!" "'*"* *"' "* """d P*d d'""Y' *"""'d*''' '"" """ d**" *""*""#
| |
| * E2"I.".'Jo*"!fW:123.'Ja'*fc*#R.*s.*uR*Jf."#d'i de*Bd 'MM.* """ '"* " S ""*'*" "**"''' *
| |
| | |
| = ESRP 2.3 2. Obtain descriptions of the regional water uses (e.g., the location and nature of water users and water-use areas) fcr the area surrounding the proposed plant site (specifically, the uses of the turface water bodies thu vdll be affected by the discharge system).
| |
| * ESRP 2.4.2. Obtain descriptions of the baseline aquatic ecology of the surface water bodies that would be affected by the proposed plant.
| |
| * ESRP 2.7. Obtain descriptions of the meteorology at the site of the proposed plant.
| |
| * ESRP 3.1. Obtain descriptions of the layout of the proposed plant (specifically, the layout with respect to the main water bodies, including locations of all intakes and discharges).
| |
| = ESRPs 3.31 and 3.3.2. Obtain descriptions #5e expected water use of the proposed plant.
| |
| * ESRPs 3.41 and 3.4.2. Obtain descriptions of the cooling system of the proposed plant.
| |
| * ESRP 5.2.1. Obtain descriptions of the operational hydrologic alterations that will support the descriptions of the discharge thermal plumes.
| |
| . ESRP 3.3.1.1. Obtain descriptions of the physical impacts to surface-water bodies caused by the intake system of the proposed plant (if the same water bodies are used for discharge to the cooling system).
| |
| * ESRP 5.3.2.2. Obtain input regarding the potential for impacts of the thermal discharges on aquatic biota (which will be used to detennine the appropriate extent of the thermal discharge description required for the environmental impact statement (EIS]).
| |
| . ESRPs 5.3.1.1 and 5.3 'L2. Provide results of the staff's thermal-plume analyses.
| |
| * ESRPs 5.4 and 5.5. When requested, determine and provide predicted dilution factors at specified locations.
| |
| . ESkP 5.8.1. Provide a summary of the physical impacts related to the presence and operation of the discharge system.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Supply a list of recommended measures and controls to limit or minimize adverse discharge system physical impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 61. Provide a discussion of any required preoperational baseline monitoring programs necessary to assess physical impacts of discharge system operation.
| |
| * ESRPs 6.3 and 64. Provide input regarding the need for and possible lim.iion on monitoring activities as a result of the presence or operation of the cooling discharge system.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.1 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (,)
| |
| ('O ESRP 9.4.2. Provide a list of adverse physical impacts of discharge system operation that could be e
| |
| mitigated or avoided through alternative system design or operational practices and procedures, and assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide a list of the unavoidable adverse impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed operational activity.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modined according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following information should be obtained:
| |
| . receiving surface water bodies bathymetry of the water bodies that may be affected by operation of the plant discharge system, with detailed data in the vicinity of the discharge (from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| - maps depicting station layout with respect to water bodies, including the locations of all intakes and discharges (from ESRP 3.1) p - maximum, average-maximum, average, average minimum, and minimum monthly temperatures f I in the water bodies (from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| Q
| |
| - erosion characteristics and sediment transport (including rate, bed and suspended load fractions, and gradation analyses)(from ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| - for freshwater streams: maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum, and mini-mum monthly flow rates; historical drought stages and Dow rates by month,7-day once-in-10-years low flow; important short duration Ductuations (e.g., diurnal release variations from peaking operation of upstream hydroelectric piant, diurnal temperature variations); velocity and temperature distributions (horizontal and vertical) near the discharge structure and downstream to the area of total mixing (from the environmental report (ER) and ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| - for lakes and impoundments: description of the lake or impoundment geometry; location and elevation of impoundment outlets; elevation-area capacity curves; summary description of operating rules; maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum, and minimum monthly indow and out0ow rates; temperature distributions (horizontal and vertical); and seasonal variations of density-induced currents (from ESRP 2.3.1) for estuaries and oceans: seasonal variations in the shoreline and bottom geometry due to sediment transport; tidal current patterns (velocities and phases), range, and excursion; nontidal circulation patterns including frequency distributions of current spec:1, direction, and persistence; (q)
| |
| /
| |
| v August 1997 5.3.2.13 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| and temperature and salinity distribution (horizontal and vertical) including temporal variations.
| |
| For estuaries, maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum, and minimum monthly river 0., charge and flushing characteristics (from ESRP 23.1).
| |
| + meteorology, including
| |
| - onsite meteorological data (from ESRP 2.7)
| |
| - NationalOceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)NationalClimatic Data Center meteorological data for the nearest National Weather Service (NWS) station (from ESRP 2.7)
| |
| - the elevation ofinstruments measuring wind speeds, wet bulb temperatures, and humidities (from ESRP 2.7).
| |
| . discharge structure (s), including
| |
| - detailed drawings of the discharge structure (s), including relationship of structure (s) to the water surface (normal and minimum) and water-body bathymetry (from ESRP 3.4.2)
| |
| - water flow rates, velocities, and temperatures in the discharge stream (s) as a function of operating conditions (from ESRP 3.4.2).
| |
| . applicant's mathematical models (from the ER), including
| |
| - theory, assumptions, and basis for applicability
| |
| - procedures used to estimate model parameters (e.g., diffusion coefficients)
| |
| - model verification (if any)
| |
| - the applicant's predicted temperature distributions, areas for isotherms, dilution rates, and time of passage through plume.
| |
| + applicant's physical models (from the ER), including physical model facilities (e.g., dimensions of the plume and flow rates)
| |
| - modeling techniques and scaling relationships
| |
| - data collection and analysis techniques (e.g., number and locations of temperature probes, infrared mapping)
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 53.2.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| , I O - l prototype verification (if any) j 1the applicant's flow fields and temperature distributions for critical and average hydrological I i
| |
| ' conditions.-
| |
| q 4
| |
| iII,' ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Astance criteria for the review of thermal impacts at the proposed plant sites are based on the relevant requirements of the following regulations:--
| |
| * 33 CFR 322 with respect to definition of activities requiring permits ,
| |
| * 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, with respect to procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection -
| |
| : . 40 CFR 122 with respect to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for discharges including stonn water discharges -
| |
| * 40 CFR 149 with respect to possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or above a sole-source aquifer 40 CFR 423 with respect to effluent limitations on existing and new point sources
| |
| = Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal water laws and water rights.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above ate as follows:
| |
| . Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts, if an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost balance. If no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting' authority and other agencies having relevant '
| |
| expertise) will determine the impact.
| |
| = Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be
| |
| . considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In Jefferson County PUD #1.vs.
| |
| , Department of Ecology (U.S. Supreme Court Case), the U.S. Supreme Court granted the States -
| |
| : additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the State's role in regulating water
| |
| : rights.-
| |
| )-
| |
| .^d ? August 1997 : 5.3.2.1-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) u , . _u~ s - _ _ _
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2 contains guidance on the format and content of ERs including hydrology, water use, and water-quality issues.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's thermal description and physical impacts is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| A detailed and thorough description of:he thermal and physical impacts of the cooling system's discharge is essential for tbc evaluation of potential impacts on the environment that may result from plant, construction, operation, or refurbishment.
| |
| 111. REVIEW JiOCEDURES The reviewer's analysis of the thermal discharges should be linked to the environmental descriptions provided by ESRPs 2.3,2.4.2,2.7,31. and 3.4 to ensure that the physical environmental factors most likely to be impacted by the propot .nant operation are described in sufficient detail to permit assessment of the predicted impacts.
| |
| The reviewer should take the following steps to complete the analysis:
| |
| (1) Coordinate with the reviewer for ESRP 5.3.2.2 to ensure that those biotic environmental factors (e.g.,
| |
| aquatic biota) most likely to be impacted by the thermal discharge are described in sufficient detail to permit assessment of the predicted changes or impacts. If the proposed plant is to be located at a station with an existing generating plant and the proposed plant thermal discharges will be mixed with thermal discharges from the existing plant, limit the analysis (and subsequent evaluation) to the incremental impacts resultmg from operation of the proposed plant.
| |
| (2) Determine dilution factors at specific receiving water body locations when requested to do so by the reviewers for ESRPs 5.4 or 5.5.
| |
| (3) Consider impacts that may result from operation of the following:
| |
| * once-through cooling systems starting at the condenser discharge a cooling towers, including helper towers, starting at the point of the cooling-tower water blowdown
| |
| = spray canals, including helper spray canals, starting at the point of the spray-canal water blowdown
| |
| ,
| |
| * cooling lakes and multi-purpose cooling ponds. starting at the point oithe condenser discharge NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| '
| |
| * 5 cooling ponds used only for heat dissipation, starting at the point of pond discharge to receiving :
| |
| . [2Y A. - water bodies. _
| |
| p . .
| |
| - (4) Gear the degree of sophistication and the extent of the analysis to the level of the anticipated
| |
| ' impacts. -
| |
| * If the thermally affected discharge area will be relatively small and have low ecological impacts -
| |
| thbn use simple methods of analysis and conservative assumptions.
| |
| * If the available ' data indicate a significant potential for problems such as development of a _
| |
| thermal block, recirculation of heated effluent to the cooling water intake and thermal buildup, . >
| |
| discharge plumes attaching to shorelines; violation of thermal standards, or important impwts to e
| |
| biota, then perform a hydrothermal analysis sufficient to produce a sound basis for evaluating the
| |
| : _ potential environmentalimpacts.
| |
| : (5) Base analysis of the hydrothermal data on the applicant's mathematical and/or physlal models and on field or tracer studies performed by the applicant.
| |
| * Consult Regulatory Guides 4.4 and 1.125 to analyze the applicant's mathematical or physical-models.-
| |
| ~
| |
| 'e if the reviewer's evaluation of these data verifies the validity of the applicant's approach and i results, this should constitute an adequate independent analysis, t
| |
| . If the reviewer is unable to verify the applicant's results by this method, perform an independent-assessment, using the methods described buow, L : (6) Select an appropriate modeling procedure based on the following considerations:. (1) the type of f: outfall and discharge characteristics, (2) physical characteristics of the receiving water bodies, =
| |
| (3) hydrological flow regimes, (4) hydrodynamic characteristics of the receiving water, (5) water-use patterns in the vicinity of the station, (6) quantity and temperature of the effluents, (7) meteorology, and (8) thermal assimilative capa :ity of the receiving waters.-
| |
| 2 See EPA'(1993) and Fisher et al. (1979) for discussions on the applicability of a vari;ty of >
| |
| mathematical thermal discharge models.
| |
| . ? Also sonsider new models or improved existing models when selecting a mathematical model.-
| |
| . (7) Assess physical changes resulting from the discharge system operation, including shoreline erosion, bottom scouring, increased turbidity and siltation.
| |
| * If no severe impacts can be predicted, no further analysis is necessary.
| |
| (? r U " August 1997 53.2.1-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l 3:
| |
| ~~ , _ . . - _.m - . ..- , - _ - - - - . - , . - -
| |
| | |
| . If potentially sevare impacts are identified, consider using mathematical modeling or physical modeling to quantify them.
| |
| (8) Determine compliance with applicable regulations. l l
| |
| l
| |
| + Where required consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native i American tribal agencies. 1 l
| |
| + Become familier with the provisions of the Second Memorandum of Understanding between l NRC and EPA.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Input from this ESRP review to the EIS should include: (1) a description of the thermally affected area, (2) the public disclosure of physical impacts resulting from the discharge system,(3) the basis for the staff analysis, and (4) stafievaluations and conclusions . The following information should usually be included in the EIS:
| |
| * a hydrothermal description of the affected wea
| |
| + tables or figures depicting isotherms, areas within the isotherms, streamlines, streaklines, or velocity vectors as a function of temporal variations
| |
| + descriptions of thermal blocks, recirculation, discharge plume attachment to shorelines, thermal buildup, violation of standards, and potential impacts such as increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, or sedimentation.
| |
| He reviewer should verify that sufficient information has been provided in acco* dance with the relevant requirements and that the evaluation supports the following type of statement to be included in the EIS:
| |
| Based on the applicant's description of the methodologies used to conduct a hydrothermal analysis of the discharge system of the proposed plant's cooling system, the staff concludes that characterization of the physical efTects of the hydrothermal discharges is valid and adequate to evaluate the impacts of the plant construction and operation on the aquatic biota in the affected surface-water body environment.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION ne method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.1-8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| LVI. REFTRENCES 33 CFR 322,
| |
| * Permits for Structures and Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States."
| |
| 40 CFR 6,- Appendix A," Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection."- 3 40 CFR 122," EPA Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination Systems."
| |
| 40 CFR 149," Sole Source Aquifers."-
| |
| 40 CFR 423," Steam Electric Power Generrting Point Source Categony." ,
| |
| e Regulatory Guide 1.125, Rev 1.1978. PhysicalMudelsfor Design and Operation ofHydraulic Structures and Systemsfor Nuclear Power Plants.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation of Environmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Clean Water Act, as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act).
| |
| Fischer, H. B., E. J. List, R. C. T. Koh, J. Imberger, and N. H. Brooks. 1979. Mixing in Inland and p Coastal Waters, Academic Press, New York.
| |
| z' Jciferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology,92-1911 Supreme Court of the United States, 510 U.S.1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L,W. 3450 (January 10, 1994).
| |
| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1993. Cormix Version 2,10 Users Manual, p-.
| |
| I( -
| |
| August 1997 5.3.2.1-9 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| . _ . . . ,, -c vn - - , - ., .m - .~ m
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S.' NUCLE /!M REGULATORY COMMISSION -
| |
| C)' /#,,,5- ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD .
| |
| ***#)REVIEW PLAN-OFFICE OF NWLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.2.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ..
| |
| REVIEW RESPOrJSIBILITIES ;
| |
| Primary---Generic Issu s and Environmental Projea Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. hREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESP.P) directs the staffs description, quantification, and assessment of potential thermal, physical, and chemical stresses to aquatic organisms that may occur as a result of plant cooling system discharges to receiving water bodies. He principal objective of this ESRP is to predict and assess impacts to "important" aquatic populations in the vicinity of the station and evaluate the significance of such impacts. "important" resources are defined in ESRP 2.4.2, Review Procedures.
| |
| (
| |
| (.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include the analysis of alterations to the receiving water body resulting from plant thermal, physical, and chemical' discharges in sufficient detail to predict and determine the nature and extent of potential impacts on aquatic ecosystems.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer shotild obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain information about the hydrology of the site and environs in sufficient detail to allow analysis ofimpacts on the aquatic ecosystem from cooling system discharge.
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.3.~ Obtain information conceming water quality at or in the vicinity of the site, in sufficient detail to detennine impacts on the aqut. tic environment, especially as they relate to the cooling system and discharge.
| |
| August 1997 - 5.3.2.2-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN M""""*"'d,'32,''',2.n.2mL*:::%".'.",ttr*fw:U",ofa'.'n'ar":::::ll#P,*p" *?.. ,,o,
| |
| /7 !,'" c"* :' . ,= c a' '" % nviron m .ni.i g iLtl2"?
| |
| ;og g g 2J2,g/"
| |
| g g ;.r.,':t. ."n.k",M
| |
| : o. Tw
| |
| * onm ni n.i . ?.a.,47.'.p. ,:i.n. r. a.v.o 1. e,.,#.tn o, e. 2
| |
| ,g.ng,, ggy.n. w .. w ,.w ..,. .,,,,,n. .. io .wommus . ..m ni. .no i.
| |
| d d 8:=r.4 "smim.'.", .'".** rtJ" .*J %de:n.T o'tB&" """' '* "* ""*"" "***"'
| |
| -___.-.a_.___._____-__i - - - - _ E_._a
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 2.4.2. Obtain information about the aquatic environment to determine the aspects of the aquatic environment that could potentially be impacted by operation of the cooling discharge syitem.
| |
| . ESRP 3.6.1. Obtain information concerning chemicals or biocides used in relation to tlm cooling system that could potentially impact the aquatic ecology at the site and its environs.
| |
| . ESRP 5.2.1 Obtain information regarding hydrological alterations from operation and the adequacy of the plant water supply so that an evaluation ofimpacts on the aquatic ecosystem from the cooling system discharge can be con.pleted.
| |
| * EhRP 5.2.2 Provide information regarding impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from the cooling sys em discharge so that an evaluation ofimpacts of operation on plant water use can be completed.
| |
| . HSRP 5.3.2.1. Obtain information about physical impacts and thermal plumes in enough detail to determine potential impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
| |
| . ESRP 5.5.1. Provide infonnation regarding impacts on the aquatic ecosystem from the cooling system di:: charge so that an evaluation ofimpacts from discharce of nonradioactive emuents can be completed.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Supply a list of applicant commitments and sthff evaluations of measures and controls to Umit adverse discharge-system aquatic impacts.
| |
| . ESRPH2. Provide a discuns!on of any preoperational baseline monitoring programs necessary to ensess impacts of discharge system operation.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4.2. Provide a list of adverse impacts of discharge system operation that could be mhigated or avoided through alternative system design, location, cr operation, and assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide a summary of the unavoidab!! Myerse impacts on aquatic biota that are predicted to occur as a result of discharge system epmtion.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments of aquatic resources that are predicted to occur as a result of discharge system operation.
| |
| Data and Infomtation Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factorr, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following types of data or infonnation should usually be obtained:
| |
| NUREG ISSS (DRAFT) 5.3.2.2 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| L
| |
| , j T
| |
| b *D thermal '
| |
| t
| |
| . data on tempwatm-duration mo-tality relationship of susceptible "important" aquatic species (from the environmental report [ER] and the general literature) c -o
| |
| - i additional information about thermal characteristics as they relate to the discharge system taken hom other ESRPs, including ESRPs 2.4.2 and 5,3.2.1, which describe the aqua @J ecology of the
| |
| . site and its environs and the physical impacts of the discharge system,
| |
| ,.. chemical e tolerances of the "important" aquatic species identified in ESRP 2.4.2 to acute and chro,ile
| |
| : exposure to chemicals in the plant discharge (from the ER and the general literature)
| |
| ' tolerances of"important" aquatic species identified in ESRP 2.4
| |
| * to acute and chronic exposure -
| |
| - to dissolved gases (from the ER and the goiwral literature)
| |
| - additional information on the biological effects of chemical alterations to the receiving water ;
| |
| body obtained from other ESRPs, including ESRPs 2.3.3 and 3.6.1, which describe the water
| |
| - quality of the site and chemical and blocidal nonradiological wastes.
| |
| y physical, including information regarding biological effects of physical alterations to the receiving water body obtained from other ESRPs, including ESRPs 2.3.1 and 5.3.2,1, which discuss the hydrology of the site and the physical impacts of the discharge system.
| |
| e a description of the condenser cooling system because its configuration can dete mine which permits must be acquired and the severity ofimpacts on particular aquatic organisms or systems
| |
| . a description of applicable State and Federal (40 CFR 423) effluent guidelines and the thermal -
| |
| standards or limitations applicable to the water body to which the discharge is made (including maalmum permissible temperature, maximum permissible temperature increase, mixing zones, and maximum rates ofincrease and decrease) and whether and to what extent these standards or limitations have been approved by the Administrator of the EPA in accordance with the Federal
| |
| . Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
| |
| 3.
| |
| L11, ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
| |
| .. Acceptance criteria for the review ofimpacts to aquatic ecosystems from the discharge system are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| a' '10 CFR 51.45 with respect to ERs and the analysis of potential' impacts contained therein
| |
| <.f .
| |
| ' August 1997. 5.3.2.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) a
| |
| $ --Y* P W w 4 -_w s ,e mie f i-+--u- a- Aww --*w+pe1- *+v u=t+3r
| |
| | |
| e 10 CFR 51.75 with respect to analysis of impacts to the terrestrial environment affected by the issuance of a construction permit
| |
| . 10 CFR 52, Subpart A, with respect to enalysis ofimpacts to the terrestrial environment affected by the issuance of an early site permit
| |
| . 10 CFR 51,95 with respect to the preparation of supplemental environmental impact statements (EISs) in support of the issuance of an operating license
| |
| * 40 CFR 122 with respect to EPA administered programs, especially the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
| |
| * Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 with respect to natural resources, and land or water use of the coastal zone
| |
| * Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, with respect to identifying threatened or endangered species and critical habitats and formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
| |
| * Clean Water Act,(Federal Water Pollution Control Act [FWrCA] Amendments of 1972, Sections 402 and 316[a]), with respect to restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife resources and the planning of development projects that affect water resources
| |
| * The Generic Environmental impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1437), which concluded that the effects of the discharge system (cold shock, heat shock for plants with cooling tower based heat-dissipation systems, thermal plume barriers to migrating fish, premature emergence of aquatic insects, stimulation of nuisance organisms, and the distribution of aquatic organisms as a result of thermal discharge) on aquatic ecology resources are minimal, and plant specific evaluations are not required at the license renewal stage. Howeve , impacts on threatened and endangered species and impacts of heat shock for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems do require plant specific evaluations.
| |
| * Marine Protection, Research, ud Sanctuaries Act of 1972 with respect to the dumping of dredged material into the ocean
| |
| * Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 with respect to the deposition of debris in navigable waters, or tributaries to such waters.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| k
| |
| (% Regulatory guidance and specific criteria to meet the requirements identined above are presented in the aN }! following guidance documents:
| |
| Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the .
| |
| proposed action which are available for reducing the adverse impacts, if en environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessrhent in its determir.ation of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit cor,t balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertisc) will conduct its own assessment and use it ir its determination of the overall benefit cost balance.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.7 contains guidance on factors that should be considered in the site selection process, in specific regard to cooling tower drift, this guide states "The potential loss ofimportant terrestrial species and other resources should be considered."
| |
| . Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, and the USNRC for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants, with respect to the NRC exercising the primary responsi-bility in conducting environmental reviews and in preparing EISs for nelear power stations.
| |
| -p flowever, the Corps of Engineers will participate with the NRC in the preparation of EISs by helping Q- to draft material for sections covering (1) coastal erosion and other shoreline modi 6 cations, (2) siltation and sedimentation processes,(3) dredging activities and disposal of dredged materials, and (4) location of structures affecting navigable waters.
| |
| Techrical Ratic.nale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential plant discharge system impacts to the aquatic ecosystem is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| The EIS needs to contain an analysis that considers the environmental effects of the cooling water discharge system and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental '
| |
| r effects, as well as the environmental benents of the proposed action. Adhering to the acceptance criteria listed above will help ensure that the environmental impacts of the cooling water discharge system will be considered with respect to matters covered by such standards and requirements.
| |
| 111, REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| - Regulation ofimpacts from cooling system discharges is accomplished via the NPDES permit system administered by the EPA and the permitting States under Sections 316(a) and 402 of the FWPCA (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). The Clean Water Act requires that discharge system August 1997 - 5.3.2.2-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| operati9a must ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving water body. Responsibility 4r making this determination (or for reassigning the responsibility) rests with the EPA.
| |
| Discharge system impacts on aquatic biota may result from the effects of thermal, chemical, and physical alterations to the receiving water body. Major alterations are usually confined to a limited discharge area (the mixing zone), whereas lesser alterations may extend over a larger portion of the receiving water body. Adverse effects on blota that are transported through, migrate through, or are attracted to the mixing zone may be acute or chronic and impacts may be reflected as changes in the populations of "important" species and in the structure and function of the ecosystem.
| |
| The reviewer should evaluate the impacts of the plant's discharge system impacts of the plant using the following steps:
| |
| (1) Identify the susceptible "important" aquatic species and identify the alterations of receiving water body characteristics that may affect the aquatic biota.
| |
| (2) Determine and assess the levels of potential biological impacts.
| |
| * Consider the biological effects of thermal, chemical, and physical alterations to the receiving water body on the identified "important" aquatic species, including combined effects (e.g.,
| |
| thermal plus chemical effects) and the potential for gas bubble disease.
| |
| . Give particular attention to the relationship of these stresses to life history requirements (e.g.,
| |
| growth, reproduction, migration).
| |
| . Evaluate the discharge system impacts of the plant operated as authorized by the NPDES permit.
| |
| Procedures for reviewing specific impacts of thermal, chemical, and physical alterations are listed below.
| |
| Analyze the impacts for the parameter when considered alone and the impacts for the parameter when combined with other parameters. TF e review should be based on general habittt types such as a rivers and streams a lakes and reservoirs a estuaries
| |
| . seacoast.
| |
| Thermal Effects The reviewer should consider species in the vicinity of the station and .neir susceptibility to thermal elfects.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.2-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| .- . - . . - . - - . - .- - - _ - - . - -. - . - - - - - - . - ~
| |
| b ,- ,3 r
| |
| O *(1)' Consider the following:
| |
| 4 0 '
| |
| - * ; maximum sustained temperatures for each season that are consistent with maintainhg desirable .
| |
| Jlevels ofproductivity ; :
| |
| i
| |
| * maximum levels of metabolic acclimation to warm temperatures that will permit return to i
| |
| B : ambient winter temperatures if artificial sources of heat cease -
| |
| I e temperature limitations for survival of brief exposures to temperature extremes, both upper and j
| |
| - lower - .
| |
| q
| |
| _ 1 +1:if spawning or nursery areas are affected, restricted temperature ranges for various stages of reproduction, including (for fish) gonad growth and gamete maturation, spawning migration, . .
| |
| . release of gamete, development of the embryo metamorphosis, emergence, :4 other activities of early life stages such as commencement ofindependent feeding byjuveniles, and temperature
| |
| , . requiredi
| |
| * ' thermal limits for diverse compositions of species of aquatic communities, particularly where
| |
| ! nulaance growths of certain organisms create reduction in diversity or where important food 4
| |
| sources or chains are altered .
| |
| e thermal requirements of downstream aquatic life where upstream warming of a cold water -
| |
| source will adversely a%ct dawnstream temperature requirements 4
| |
| + areal extent of the plume
| |
| . percent of unaffected area
| |
| . ' physical concentrating factors.
| |
| (2) Identify the most thermally intolerar.t "important" species expected to be affected.
| |
| (3) Quantify the magnitude of potential thermal impacts to the aquatic ecosystem.
| |
| [ : .(4) Evaluation of thermal impacts, addressing the folicwing recommendations:
| |
| * Growth of aquatic species should be maintained at levels necessary for sustaining actively.
| |
| . : growing and reproducing populations if the maximum weekly average temperature in the zone inhabited by the species at that time does not exceed one-third the range between the optimum temperature and the ultimate upper incipient lethal temperature of the species, and the .
| |
| _ temperatures above the weekly average do not e>.ceed Ae criterion for short-term exposures.
| |
| August 1997 5.3.2.27 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) ti
| |
| -_-.,__..m.. . _ _ _ _ . . , . . . . . _ . . , . . . .,~,m . _ __, ._. ,- . _ - , , _ - - . . . . _ . . _ . . . _
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| * After the specific limiting temperatures and exposure times have been determined by studies tailored to local conditions, the reproductive activity of selected species should be protected in thon areas in which (1) temperature regimes required for gonad growth and maturation are preserved; (2) no temperature differentials are created that block spawning migrations, although some delay or advancement of timing based upon local conditions may be tolerated;(3) tempera-tuas are not raised to a level at which necessary spawning or lacubation temperatures of winter spawning species cannot occur; (4) sharp temperature changes are not induced in spawning areas, either in mixing zones or in mi:.ed water bodies (the thermal and geographic limits to such changes will be dependent upon local requirements of species, including spawning microhabitat, e.g., bottom gravels, littoral zone, and surface strata); (5) timing of reproductive events is not altered to the extent that synchrony is broken where reproduction or rearing of certain life stages is shown to be dependent t.pon cyclic food sources or other factors at remoto locations; and (6) normal patterm of gradual temperature changes throughout the year are maintained.
| |
| . Nuisance growths of organisms may develop where there are incr:ases in temperature or alterations of the temporal or s; stial distribution of heat in either the receiving water bodies (e.g.,
| |
| rivers, lakes) or in onsite cooling ponds. Some nuisance conditions may be created by operation of cooling ponds that may not affect receivin , water body biota, but that may affect the aesthetic quality of the site and vicinity. The reviewer should consider such factors (e.g., odors from algal or macrophyte growth and decomposition)in making this evaluation. There should be careful evaluation of all factors contributing to nuisance growths at any site before establishment of thennal limits based upon this response, and mperature limits should be set in conjunction with restrictions on certain other factors (e.g., eutrophication).
| |
| Chemical Effects The reviewer should consider species in the vicinity of the station and their susceptibility to chamicals released.
| |
| (1) Consider the following parameters:
| |
| . acute toxicity a chronic toxicity a accumulation
| |
| . biomagnification
| |
| . sublethat and behavioral effects.
| |
| (2) Detennine if applicant needs to perform bioasseys for important chemicals such as copper, chlorine, or related components, and scale inhibitors based on site-specific conditions.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.28 August 1997
| |
| | |
| g . ._ _- _ _ _ . . , _. _ _ . _. _ - .. _ _
| |
| n + ,
| |
| 4 j
| |
| y ~
| |
| ' (3) Compare the concentrations of chemicals at the' discharge points with concentrations of the same ' t
| |
| (
| |
| N . chemicals in ambient waters. ,
| |
| t - * : Consider dilution and mixing of chemical discharges / j
| |
| ~
| |
| ' *? Obtain estiEates of concentrations at various distances from the release point.
| |
| * Assess the effects of variable environmental and plant operation conditions on Injury or mortality of suspectable organisms.
| |
| ,
| |
| * Determine the potential for bloconcentration, biomagnification, and interacting effects for certain chemicals.
| |
| (4) Determine the biological losses from chemical strees based upon e . plume configuration
| |
| * - time and concentration
| |
| * ~ worst and average conditions.-
| |
| (5) Determitie iflosses of either resident or migratory species will occur given proposed specifwations for chemical releases.
| |
| ; (6) Evaluations of chemical impacts should address the following:
| |
| 0'
| |
| * the possible environmental effect of certain chemicals, like chlorine (hypochlorite), chlorination byproduct.2, other biocides, and scale and corrosion inhibitors
| |
| * alternatives to the blocide treatment of condenser tubing.
| |
| U Physical Effects
| |
| ! The reviewer should consider species in the vicinity of the station and their susceptibility to physical effects.
| |
| 3-
| |
| - (1) Consider the following parameters:
| |
| -
| |
| * reduction in' density, species composition, and community structure of the benthos
| |
| ~
| |
| * -- loss or alteration of habitat
| |
| * alteration of migratory pathways.
| |
| , I (2) Consider the potential effects of the following on habitat loss and species cc:nposition
| |
| [f _
| |
| * altered current patterns F
| |
| \'
| |
| , LAN st 1997- -
| |
| 53.2.2-9 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 4
| |
| ~.: ..
| |
| }
| |
| i
| |
| . . _ , _ ., . - _ , , . , . . - -- , - . . _ , . ,- - . , . , . . . , , . . .,-,..,.-_i y ., ,-
| |
| * current velocity e littoral drift e scouring e siltation e increased turbidity
| |
| . gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) e low dissolved oxygen e predation e parasitism e disease among organisms exposed to suMethal stresses.
| |
| (3) Note effects associated with loss or alteration of habitat and the resultant potential reduction in species composition and community structure.
| |
| (4) Evaluation of physical impacts should address the following:
| |
| e potsntial loss or alteration of unique habitat e potential efTects of altered migratory pathways e potential effects of other biotic changes.
| |
| IV. EVALUA110N FINDINCS Input from the ESRP 5.3.2.2 review to the EIS should (1) a list of adverse impacts of cooling system discharge operation to aquatic ecosystems,(2) a list ofimpacts for which there are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and the associated measures and controls, (3) the applicant's commitments to limit these impacts, and (4) the staff s evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's measures and controls to limit adverse impacts. This information will be summarized by the reviewer of ESRP 5.10.
| |
| The staffs analysis may be provided by referencing the aquatic blota descriptions of ESRP 2.4.2 and describing in brief detail the efTects on biota that are "important" and susceptible to thermal, chemical, or physical impact. Types, life staps, and relative abundance ofimpacted "important" biota should be described, alol wit! specific aspects of the proposed discharge system operation responsible for imp. cts on these biota. This section should contain estimates of survival from these discharge system impacts and estimates of thn xlative or absolute losses of the impacted populations. Documentation of informal or formal consultations that took place with the appropriate regional offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service, or with appropriate State agencies or affected Native American tribes to determine the extert of potential impacts on aquatic species on and in the vicinity of the site should be included in tne FIS.
| |
| Staficonclusions shot.ld evaluate the significsnce oflosses to the populations of"important" species, l including e 4 :armination of whether or not these losses will constitute an adverse impact that should be l
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.2 10 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| C mitigated or svoided. Any studies or environmental investigations that address' discharge system impacts ,
| |
| should be described or referenced. The reviewer should ensure that measures and controls to limit or l avoid impacts are consistent with the NPDES permiti l if the reviewer verifles that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the guidelines of ,
| |
| this ESRP section, then the evaluation supports the following types of concluding statements to be ;
| |
| i 4
| |
| included in the staff's EIS' The sinff has reviewed the available information rek.tive to lmpacts to the aquatic environmen* on or i
| |
| in the vicinity of the site. The staff concludes that the list and description of impacts is adequate to ,
| |
| comply with 10 CFR $1.45. The data are also sufficient to support an evaluation of potential impacts . !
| |
| to the aquatic environment that could result from plant operation. j V, IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES i
| |
| 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report." l
| |
| '~
| |
| 10 CFR $1/15. "DraA environmental impact statement--construction permit." ;
| |
| 10 CFR $1.95, " Supplement to the final environmental impact statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpart A,"Early Site Permits."
| |
| 4 40 CFR 122," EPA' Administered Permit Programs: The NPDES Pollution Elimination Systems." ,
| |
| 40 CFR 423. " Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category."
| |
| Regulatory Oulde 4.7, Rev. 2. I995. GeneralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq. ,
| |
| Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Environmental Protection Agency.1973. Water Quality Cr/reria 1972. Committee on Water Quality .
| |
| . Criteria, National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Enginesring, EPA-R3 73 033, Ecological Research Series, Washington, D.C. -
| |
| l
| |
| .e i August 1997' $.3.2.2 1 i NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) i
| |
| :w. . , ~ ;. w. -,a....-.~=,-. - - - - ;_---.--.-,;..-..:.=. .w,-...
| |
| | |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean Water Act).
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| Marine Protection, Research, ar.d Suctuaries Act, as amended,33 USC 1401 et seq.
| |
| Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants. 40 FederalRcgister 37110, (August 25,1975).
| |
| Resource Conservation and Recovery, as amended,42 USC 6901 et seq.
| |
| Second Memorandam of Understanding and Policy Statement Regarding implementation of Certain NRC and EPA Responsibilities. 40 FederalRegister 60115 (December 31,1975).
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG 1437 Vol.1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| O NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.2.2 12 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 ,
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| ( ) [ ,,,, \)ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ***** OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.3 HEAT DISCitARGE SYSTEM REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-Nono
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff s preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the impacts of the heat discharge system during station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.3.3.1 and 5.3.3.2.
| |
| ., Review Interfaces
| |
| (
| |
| None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITEPIA
| |
| 'lhe reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| e 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preraration of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5.3.31 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN f."fall '22d 'tet.t.%%**f.':f/"
| |
| m '.i',12"*Mffofh*.'02.":**iL".*fi4*" .
| |
| ''*".. p.i ot Q l..J 7 *16-y g gO.M:,!:*/2,;1,.*;r.,P.%.?2.,.'27.Y.,',*
| |
| giy ,g.,w. n.
| |
| * oi . .nu o ="U.&'"",t.o'irf.
| |
| . s.v e c'2.o i i',t.,
| |
| ni.i l,:. pion .
| |
| g y g , g ,,, y ,,, g . p . n ..i. s o m .s ,. .. ,,op, ..io . . - os. .no i.
| |
| " d 8.","n,o*i.L"ut':f'w'*2"' 3hi#ii*w"'
| |
| . .7.,h4.*M,$".T cTai* """* '" " 8 ""*'*" "**'''"Y
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as 1 follows: l l
| |
| e Here are no regulatory positions specific to 'his ESRP.
| |
| l l
| |
| Technical Rationale j
| |
| Re technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's heat discharge system is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUA'I1ON FINDINGS Re reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory parsgraph for the EIS. He paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRP 5.3.3.1 and 5.3.3.2. The paragraph (s) thould list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.32 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| NUREO 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
| |
| (j /p.n.sq1
| |
| # ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,'****/ OFFICE REVIEW PLAN OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.3.1 IIEAT DISSIPATION TO TIIE ATMOSPIIERE REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Secondary-Nonc
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW
| |
| 'Ihis environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the stairs consideration of vapor plumes from heat d!ssipation systems that may have physical or aesthetic impacts due to the increased moisture and chemical content of the air, the nature and extent of these increases, and the significance of their potential environmental impacts to man's activities in the site vicinity. If a potential impact isjudged to be significant, thl plan should provide a basis for evaluating appropriate mitigation measures or alternative heat transfer system designs.
| |
| The scope of the review directed by this plan should include prediction and assessment of the following:
| |
| . length and frequency of elevated plumes
| |
| . frequency and extent of ground level fogging and icing in the site vicinity
| |
| . solids deposition (e.g., drift deposition) in the site vicinity
| |
| . cloud formation, cloud shadowing, and additional precipitation
| |
| . interaction of the vapor plume with existing pollutant sources located within 2 km of the plant
| |
| . ground level humidity increase in the site vicinity.
| |
| August 1997 5.3.3.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAIT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN f"N"'"*T.,*2d.aotN#'.%%*t":d,!%0*,d"*A:'ff.E"'L*.'h',%"."a*
| |
| 17 'fA:,f/,.*2" * .' d l.W*,"JZ" e,=,,m.n,,,'s""''*. s"0. .."2. W..T,y. m ar'a***.o:'i.r,!.t..,%.t.LT,',p- C'O.f
| |
| ~
| |
| ]t .. .
| |
| g.ogwggy.o. == w .*.o .sv. .. p,w.i., i. =. 4.i. -.oi. .od i.
| |
| 8:=f.".'4."$,tt':ft'"' ",0!!!!,*R't J" .To". J.Tf4*o.T d d c*nn!* """"" " * ""'*" "**'"Y
| |
| | |
| ggylew Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers ofinfonnation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 1.2. If a natural draft cooling tower is used for heat dissip: tion, determine if the applicant has obtained FAA approval for construction of the cooling tower if the cooling extends more than 60.96 m (200 ft) above ground level.
| |
| * ESRP 211. 2.5.3. and 3.1. Consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 2.2.1,2.53, and 3.1 to determine locations for which cooling system imput analyses should be performed.
| |
| * ESRP 2.7. Obtain appropriate meteorological data for evaluating cooling system impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 3.4. Obtain a description of the cooling tystem from the reviewer for ESRP 3.4.
| |
| * ESRPs 5.1.1. 5.1.3. 5.21513.2 and 5.8.1. Provide input to the reviewers for ESRPs 5.1.1,5.1.3, 5.2.2,5.3.3.2, and 5.8 describing the heat dissipation system, including emuent quantities and visual impacts, in sumclent detail to permit the assessment of their effects on the terrestrial ecosystem and socioeconomic concerns.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Summarire the recommended measures and controls required to limit adverse impacts of operating the heat-dissipation system, and give the summary to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| e ESRPs 9 4.1 and 9.4.2. Provide a list of adverse heat dissipation or cooling water system impacts that could be evolded through alternative heat dissipatior, system design or operational procedures, and assist in identifying appropriate alternatives, e ESRP 10.1. Provide a summary of any unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from operation of the heat dissipation system, including a description of the significance of the losses.
| |
| Data and information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. Data or information about the following topics should usually be obtained:
| |
| (1) cooling tower e
| |
| physical characteristics (from the environmental report [ER]) including
| |
| - principal physical dimensions, including exit diameter
| |
| - elevation of all tower bases above sea level NUREO 1555 (DRAIT) 5.3.3.12 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| i i I
| |
| . height of the tower _ f
| |
| < . nuenber of fans (for mechanical drsA) and, if reversible, sobedule of operation in cold !
| |
| womhw. !
| |
| 1
| |
| * estimated performance characteristics (for design and off design)(from the ER) including t
| |
| . alt and water mass flow rates at tower omission point j
| |
| . offlux speed
| |
| . temperature of water entering and leaving the tower i
| |
| . temperature of air leaving the tower
| |
| . amount of heat released [
| |
| .; . performance curves (supplied by the tower vendor). ,
| |
| e estimated driR characteristics (from the ER) including
| |
| . drlR rate for both design and off de:lgn weathw conditions, at fbil load
| |
| . expected slie distribution of drlR droplets (from the genwal litwature) .
| |
| . concentration of dissolved and suspended solids in tower basin. !
| |
| i e onsite meteorological data (from ESRP 2.7) ;
| |
| t
| |
| * predicted chemical intwaction of the cooling tower plume (s) with existing pollutant sources }
| |
| located within 2 km of the plant (from the ER). i 4 4 (2) cooling lakes and canals or spray canals, including monthly and annualjoint frequency distribution i tables of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability based on onsite data (from ESRP 2.7) l (3) cooling system effects, including
| |
| * a description of or reference to the applicant's analytical technique for determining cooling l system opwational characteristics (from the ER)
| |
| * predictions of the following cooling system effects at site and vicinity locations (e.g., ,
| |
| agricultural areas, residential areas, highways, and station facilities) described in ESRPs 2.2.1, l 2.5.3, and 3.1 (from the ER): ;
| |
| i
| |
| . annual plus seasonal and/or monthly elevated plume lengths ;
| |
| . annual plus seasonal and/or monthly amounts of salt deposition l
| |
| . annual plus seasonal and/or monthly additional hours of fossing and icing i
| |
| . potential weathw modification in twms of cloud formation and shadowing
| |
| . annual plus seasonal and/or monthly increases in humidity, ,
| |
| August 1997 - ,4.3.3.13 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) ;
| |
| l
| |
| . _ __ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o
| |
| | |
| (4) similar heat-dissipation systems, including operating experience for similar heat-dissipation systems located within 50 km (31 mi) of the site (from the ER and the general literature) or from systems having Eenerally similar climate and meteorology (from the general literature).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of the impacts of heat dissipation on the atmosphere are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| . 10 CFR $1.71(d) with respect to the review of environmental issues associated with heat dissiption to the atmosphere
| |
| . 10 CFR $1.95 with respect to the post-construction review of environmental issues associated with heat dissipation to the atmosphere
| |
| * 10 CFR 51, Appendix D, with respect to stafigeneric findings for review of environmental issues associated with heat dissipation to the atrnosphere for license renewal
| |
| * 10 CFR $2.18 with respect to review of environmental issues associated with heat dissipation to the atmosphere for early site permits 10 CFR $2.89 with respect to review of environmental issues associated with heat dissipation to the atmosphere for combined licenses.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * %e reviewer should ensure that heat-dissipation system impacts have been identified and described in sufficient detail to enable the reviewers for ESRPs 5.3.3.2 and 5.8.2 to evaluate and assess the environmental effects resulting from heat dissipation system. The reviewers for these plans should be consulted as part of this evaluation.
| |
| * Re staff hr.s used operational data to review several potential environmental impacts associated with cooling systems. He results of these reviews are presented in NUREG 1437 and codified for use in environmental reviews associated with license renewal in 10 CFR $ 1.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.3.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (~')
| |
| g rachaical marion ia <
| |
| ne technical rationale for evaluating applicant's impacts from heat dissipation to the atmosphere is ;
| |
| discussed in the following paragraphs: l Compliance with sections of 10 CFR 51 and 52 involves staffidentification and evaluation of the environmental effects of heat dissipation to the atmosphere. Factors that affect the potential environmental effects include cooling system type, design specifications, and climate. !
| |
| ne staff should determine applicability of the results of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)(NRC 1996) reviews of operational data to evaluation ofimpacts associated with heat dissipation to the atmosphere in environmental reviews by comparing the applicant's plant .
| |
| design and/or site environment with the ranges of designs and environments considered in the OEIS.
| |
| The level of staff review of site / design specific data should be determined on the basis of the applicability of the conclusions in the OEIS and the conclusions reached in the OEIS.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES ne reviewer should analyze the applicant's estimates of the atmospheric effects of cooling system operation. He reviewer should consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 2.2.1,2.5.3, and 3.1 to determine those locations for which analyses should be performed.
| |
| ,[
| |
| (1) Evaluate the potential impacts on transportation caused by fogging and icing on the basis of the predicted additional hours of fogging and icing resulting from heat dissipation system.
| |
| * When these additional hours represent a significant fraction of the naturally occurring hours (determined by the reviewer for ESRP 2.7) and the affected transportaticsn routes will be used by the general public, identify and evaluate means to mitigate the impact.
| |
| (2) Compare predictions of the occurrence of plume interaction with
| |
| * existing pollutant sources
| |
| + weather modification in terms of cloud development
| |
| . shadowing
| |
| . humidityincreases e increased precipitation due to cooling tower plume or drift with operating experience at other sites.
| |
| (3) Evaluate any unusual heat dissipation system impacts (e.g., drift deposition on switch yards and other structures) not considered by the reviewers for ESRPs 5.1.1,5.1.3,5.3.3.2, and 5.8.1, and identify and evaluate means to avoid or mitigate any such impacts that are sufficiently adverse to
| |
| - warrant this action.
| |
| m August 1997 5.3.3.15. NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) . ,
| |
| . , _ _ , , , , ~ - . . , - ~ . - , w- .
| |
| | |
| (4) For spray canals, existing literature values for drih deposition rates may be used. Drin from a cooling pond or lake need not be considered.
| |
| (5) Use the following references to fmd appropriate models for conducting any additional analyses needed:
| |
| * See Hanna et al.1982 and 11 anna 1984 for information on the atmospheric impacts of heat dissipation.
| |
| * See Carhart et al.1982 for an evaluation of models that predict the rise and length of plumes from natural dran cooling towers. The best models of the period predict the visible plume rise within a factor of 2 and plume length within a factor of 2.5 about 50% of the time.
| |
| * See Carhart and Policastro 1991 for a more recent model for natural dran and mechanical cooling towers that predicts the plume rise within a factor of 2 about 75% of the time and visible plume length within a factor of 2.5 about 70% of the time.
| |
| * See Carhart et al.1992 for the use of this model in predicting the long shadowing and resultant decrease in solar radiation caused by cooling tower plumes.
| |
| * See Policastro et al.1994, which extends the description to use of the model for estimating seasonal and annual cooling tower impacts including drin deposition, icing, and fogging.
| |
| (6) Perform any necessary independent analysis of additional hours of ground level fogging, icing, drin, humidity increase, and deposition of pollutants generated by offsite sources.
| |
| * The need for this analysis will depend on the seriousness of the potential impact, the level of confidence in the applicant's model, and the extent, epplicability, and representative nature of the available meteorological data and observational experience at operating stations.
| |
| * Coordinate this analysis with the reviewers for ESRPs 5.1.1,5.l.3,5.3.3.2, and 5.8.1 to ensure that appropriate heat dissipation system factors are considered and to avoid duplication of any environmental analyses.
| |
| (7) For an independent analysis, use the following procedure:
| |
| * For towers, use hourly onsite meteorological data, tower performance specifications, and an appropriate model to generate information on the spatial distribution of the elevated plume, annual plus seasonal and/or monthly estimates of ground level fogging, icing, and drin deposition as a function of distance and direction from the tower. These data should be compared with the meteorological data provided by the reviewer for ESRP 2.7 to determine the i additional amount of ground level fogging and icing, and to calculate the amount of drin )
| |
| deposition for the appropriate site vicinity locations, O'
| |
| i NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.3.1 6 August 1997 l
| |
| I i
| |
| | |
| i f
| |
| l
| |
| , e For cooling systems unploying spray canals w a cooling pond, assume the following: l t
| |
| . De plume will exist as smund level fog, but will evaporate within 300 m or liA 2 become j stratus for wind speeds grenew than 2.2 m/sec. f
| |
| ' N plume will exist as fog ovw the pond, liAing to become stratus for winds less than or equal to 2.2 m/sec. - ;
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS l
| |
| - Input from this ESRP review to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should contain the following ;
| |
| information: ;
| |
| * reference to the ESRP 3 A description of tlw applicant's proposed heat dissipation system, including [
| |
| a statement to locate the systar on the station site and its distance hem site and vicinity locations ;
| |
| that could be affected by heat dissipation system operation
| |
| . predictions of the following for the affected site and vicinity locations:
| |
| . additional amount of ground level fogging and icing 8
| |
| - annual and/or monthly amount of driA deposition in sm/m or drin concentration in mg/m' ;
| |
| - cloud development and cloud shadowing
| |
| \ . weathw modification in terms ofincreased precipitation ,
| |
| - humidity increase i
| |
| . intwaction of the heat dissipation system plume with existing pollutants. .
| |
| These predictions should be compared with recorded climatological data and observations Aom opwating sites with similar climatological features.
| |
| Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following detaminations: I
| |
| * Me inqpact is mime and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement in the environmental impact statement of the following type: 7 The staff has reviewed the available information on heat dissipation to the atmosphere from
| |
| - cooling system operstion. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts.
| |
| * ; ne ingpact is adverse but can be mitigated by drsign orprocedure mod $ cations that the reviewer
| |
| - har identpedanddetermined to bepnsetical. For these cases, the revieww should consult with the .
| |
| pmject managw and tlw reviewer for ESRP 9.3.1 for verification that the reviewer's modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance. The reviewer should
| |
| 'G .
| |
| August 19977 _
| |
| 5.3.3.17 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| . _ . , ._..._s__-_._ . _ . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ . _. ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
| |
| | |
| prepare a list of veri 0ed modifications and measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact.
| |
| These lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| * The !mpact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, andis ofsuch magnitude that it should be avolded. When impacts of this nature are identined, the reviewer should inform the reviewer for ESRP 9.3.1 that an evaluation of shernative designs or procedures is required. The reviewer should participate in any such evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical, if no such alternatives can be identined, the reviewer should provide this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.l.
| |
| If the staff relies on undings in the GEIS, appropriate statements of the following type should be included in the EIS:
| |
| The staff 0nds that the cooling system design and the environment in the vicinity of the site are within the ranges of designs and environments evaluated in the GEIS (NRC 1996), and that there are no apparent special c!rcumstances of the site or design that wauld invalidate the generic conclusions related to environmental effects of heat dissipation to the atmosphere in the GEIS.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of eonformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with speciDed portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| 10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A. " Environmental effect of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.71, " Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.95 " Supplement to final environmental impact statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52,"Early Site Permits; Standard Design Cenifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.18," Standards for review of applications."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.89," Environmental review."
| |
| 'NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.3.18 August 1997
| |
| | |
| _ . _ _. . ~ . ._ - _.. _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ .
| |
| i i
| |
| r Carhart, R.Ai, AJ. Policastro, and S. Ziemw.1982. " Evaluation of rr.athematical models for natural. --
| |
| drsA ecoling toww plume dispersion." Atmospheric Env/ronment 16(l):67 83.
| |
| F Carhart, R.A. and AJ. Policastro.1991. "A second generation model for cooling tower plume rise and ;
| |
| disprsion- 4. Single sources." Aimospher/c Environment 25A(8):15591$76. !
| |
| i Carhart, R.A., AJ. Policastro, and W.E. Dunn.1992. "An improved method for predicting seasonal and [
| |
| 1- annual shadowing from cooling tower plumes." Atmospheric Environment 26A(15):2545 28$2. j Hanna, S.R., G.A. Briggs, and R.P. Hosker, Jr. 1982. Handbook on Atmospheric D@slon. DOE / TIC. ;
| |
| 11223, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. - !
| |
| ; Hanna, S.R., ; 1984. " Atmospheric Effects of Er.wgy Generation." In Atmospher/c Science andfoner Production. D. Randerson, ed. IX)E/ TIC 27601, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
| |
| Policastro, AJ., W.E. Dunn, and R.A. Carhart.1994. "A Model for Seasonal and Annual Cooling i Toww Impacts " Atmospheric Environment 28(3):379 395. ,
| |
| ~ U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmental /mpact Statementfor ;
| |
| License AenewalofNuclear Plants. NUREG 1437, Vol.1, Washington, D.C. l
| |
| ?
| |
| ?
| |
| 9 t
| |
| ' fR ^ August 1997 5.3.3.19 - NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| : a i
| |
| -- - -e., *-,re,- 3 - eve we m = m e . , E m -+ e e ~ +=w,-e- = , , - - -* e-w - >e.- -~d.- v*---* r r---**6re-- w wr w*-a+e-*-5,r+
| |
| | |
| NUREO.1555
| |
| ~
| |
| U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| , ,,,\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD C') l
| |
| [h*****) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.3.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS REVIEW R PSPONSIBILITIES Primaheneric issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This envlronmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs identification and evaluation of impacts to terrestrial ecosystems induced by the operation of heat dissipation systems, especially cooling ;
| |
| towers and cooling ponds. The scope of the review directed by this plan will be limited to consideration of the operational aspects of heat dissipation systems in sufficient detail to form a basis for assessing potential operational impacts.
| |
| ( Rgylew Interfacu The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.4.1. Obtain descriptive material on the terrestrial ecology of the site and vicinity to support the analyses made in ESRP 5.3.3.2.
| |
| . ESRP 3.4.2. Obtain specific information about the cooling system necessary to assess impacts to the terrestrial environment.
| |
| . ESRP 5.1.1. Provide drift prediction data that can be used to assess land use impacts, i ESRP 5.3.3.1. Obtain information about heat dissipation to the atmosphere necessary to determine impacts to the terrestrial environment.
| |
| August 1997 5.3.3.21 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDADD REWf V PLAN
| |
| '"**""*"'d,To"**."*,0,#*",.t.Tl,ES"J,* "' .".":i".47.Ta ''*" ,.i .,
| |
| (_
| |
| x 1**k*",.".'.".nL@4*t.
| |
| g,gggy4,g . "2 o* ?'"'"""**."h. m.m. .
| |
| ,4 ,
| |
| .b&.,a,T,
| |
| . s.v O
| |
| ,f..fmt"*r*J'.'" J2i.
| |
| w ..i p.,i i..a r. ,i.i.... . v. . i.
| |
| g g ,.n g a g g . ia.n.
| |
| lI 2"""*"''"Moui CA'; ft,"n*",J' A*J:C:iT'cTas" """* "" ** ""'*" "**'"Y
| |
| | |
| + ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts to terrestrial blota that are to be evaluated in regard to the licensing process and a list of applicant commitments to limit these impacts.
| |
| + ESRP 611. When potential adverse impacts due to heat-dissipation are predicted, provide preoperational baseline monitoring program elements.
| |
| + ESRP 9.4.1. Provide a list of adverse environmental impacts that could be mitigated or avoided through use of alternative heat dissipation system designs or operational procedures, and assist in determining appropriete Alternatives.
| |
| + ESRP 10.1. Provide a summary cf the unavoidable impacts to tenestrial ecosystems that are predicted to occur as a result of operation of heat dissipation systems.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments of terrestrial biota that are predicted to occur a9 a result of the operation of heat dissipation systems.
| |
| ])ata and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| + concentration and chemical composition of dissolved and suspended solids in cooling tower basins or spray canals on a seasonal basis (from ESRP 3.4.2) e isoplcths of deposition at ground levels on a seasonal basis. Isopleths should extend to values at least as low as I kg/halmo (from the environmental report [ER] and ESRP 5.3.3.1).
| |
| . a lisi and description of the "important" terrestn pecies and habitats that may be affected by the heat-dissipation system (from ESRP 2.4.1) e descriptions of natural and managed plant communitier on the site and within offsite isopleths above 20 kg/halyr (from ESRPs 2.4.1,5.3.3.1, and the site visit)
| |
| + annual precipitation and its dissolved solid concentration within the drift field (from the ER)
| |
| + prediction ofincreased frequency and distribution of fog and icing (fron- ESRP 5.3.3.1) e shoreline vegetation expected to develop along the shore of new cooling takes and pondt Wom the ER and consultation with Fedeal, State, and local agencies)
| |
| . proposed other uses of cooling ponds and reservoirs (from the ER).
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.3.2 2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| i O "--
| |
| Acceptance crheria for the review ofimpacts on terrestrial ecosystems fWm the heat dissipation system .
| |
| 1 t l
| |
| are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR $1.45 with respect to ERs and the analysis of potential impacts contained therein j i
| |
| a 10 CFR $1,75 with respect to analysis ofimpacts on the ternstrial environment affected by the ;
| |
| luuance of a construction pennit
| |
| * 10 CFR $2, Subpart A, with respect to analysis ofimpacts on the ternstrial environment affected by the issuance of an early site permit 5
| |
| -
| |
| * 10 CFR $1.95 with respect to the preparation of supplemental environmental impact statements j (EISs) in support of the issuance of an operating license ;
| |
| i
| |
| * Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, with respect to identifying threatened or endangered species and critical habitats and formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife -
| |
| Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife ;
| |
| resources and the planning of development projects that affect water resources j
| |
| * NEPA, Section 102(2), with respect to ensuring that detailed EISs are prepared for mejor Federal actions affecting the quality of the environment and that appropriate consideration is given to the !
| |
| environmental effects of these decisions.
| |
| Regulatory guidelines and specific criteria to meet the regulations and identified above are as follows: ,
| |
| i e Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev 2, contains guidance for the preparatic,n of ERs. With respect to the l heat dissipation system, it specifies that detailed descriptions of the expected effects of the system on !
| |
| the local environment with respect to fog, icing, precipitation modifications, humidity changes, cooling tower blowdown and drift, and noise should be included in the ER. De reviewer should ensure that the appropriate data and analyses are provided in the ER. ]
| |
| l
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.7 contains guidance on factors that should be considered in the site selection process, in specific regard to cooling tower drift, this guide states "De potential loss of importara i terrestrial species and other enounces should be considered." .}
| |
| * Regulatory'Oulde 4'.11, Rev. I contains technical information for the dealgn and execution of- 'f terwstrial enviionmental stmlies, the results of which may be appropriate for inclusion in the I
| |
| applicant's ER De reviewer should ensure that the appropriate results concerning potential effects of the heat dissipation system on the terwstrial environment are included in the ER. f
| |
| \ t
| |
| - [w-i
| |
| - August 1997 5.3.3.23 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| .[
| |
| i f
| |
| _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ ____ _ .J
| |
| | |
| i 4
| |
| {
| |
| * The Generic Environmer.talImpact Statement to: 1.lcense Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG 1437), whleh concluded that the effects of cooling tower operation on terrestrini resources (icing, fogging, salt dri A) are minimal, and plant specinc evaluations r.re not required at the license renewal stage.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's impacts from heat dissipation systems to terrestrial ecosystems is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| The EIS needs to include the results of an analysis that considers the environmental effects of the proposed heat dissipation system and the alternatives available for rcJucmg or avoiding adverse environmental effects. Any environmental benents that may result from the operation of the heat-dissipation system should also be included. Following the acceptance criteria listed above will help ensure that the environmental impacts of tFe proposed hcat dissipation system aie considered with respect to saatters covered by such standards and nequirements.
| |
| 111. IGVIEW PROCEDURPS ne depth and extent of the input to the EIS will be governed by the environmental characteristics of the terrestrial ecology that could be affected by operation of the station's heat dissipation systems, and by the magnitude of the expected impacts to the terrestrial environment.
| |
| The most apparent effects of heat-dissipation systems on terrestrial ecosystems are those associated with cooling tower of spray pond operation. These include the effects of vapor plumes, icing, and salt driR on the terrestrial ecosystems. The potential for bird collision with cooling towers should be addressed by the reviewer for ESRP 4.3.1. To date, at stations using once through cooling systems, no adverse impacts to terrestrial ecosystems have occurred that require mitigating actions. In circumstances where once-through cooling is proposed, the analysis may terminate without further consideration unless unusual environmental circumstances make ana<ysis more unnecessary.
| |
| (1) Consider the impacts of drill deposition on plants.
| |
| * Drin deposition has the potential for adversely affecting plants, but the tolerance levels of native plants, ornamentals, and crops are not known with precision.
| |
| * General gmdelines for predicting elTects of drin deposition on plants suggest thet many species have thresholds for visible leaf damage in the range of 10 to 20 kg/ha'mo of Nacl deposited on leaves during the growing season.
| |
| * These effects can be altered by the frequency of rainfall, humidity, type of salt, and sensitivity of species.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 533.24 August 1997
| |
| | |
| !]. i I
| |
| t
| |
| * Uw maps of the she and vicinity showing driA isopleths that were produced by recosntwd drin. i dispersion models to define arms of possible botanical hduty, j U e Use an order-of magnitude approach, as follows, to analyre operational impacts from salt driA:
| |
| l
| |
| . : Deposition of salt driA (Nacl) at rates of 1 to 2 kg/ha/mo is genwelly not damaging to . ;
| |
| Pl ants. !
| |
| 1 Deposition rates approachinir or exceding 10 kg/ha/mo in any month during the growing anson could cauw luf damage in many species.- >
| |
| . Deposition rates of hundreds or thousands of kg/halyr could cause damage sufficient to ;
| |
| suggest the ned for changes of tower basin salinities or a twvaluation of toww design, j depending on the amount ofland impacted and the uniqueness of the temistrial ecosystems expected to be exposed to drin deposition. j (2) Consider the detrimental effects incrased fogging could have on local vegetation if the incrase in f humidity induces an hicrease in fungal or other phytopathological infections. Increased icing can j cause physical damage to vegetation due to increased structural pressure on tree branches or by }
| |
| damaging fruit or leaf buds.
| |
| . Uw an ordw of magnitude approach as follows to analyw operational impacts from fog or ice: j Fogging or icing of vegetation on the order of a few hours per year is genwally not uvere.
| |
| . Fogging or icing on the order of tens of hours per year may cause detectable damage to vegetation. ,
| |
| - Fogging or icing occurring for hundreds of hours pu year could be severe enough to suggest I the nwd for design changes, depending on the amount ofland impacted and the uniqueness of the terrestrial ecosystems expected to be exposed to drift deposition.
| |
| *. Considw soil saliniation:- h
| |
| . 'Ihe risk from this source is generally considered to be low, :
| |
| a
| |
| . In arid areas (deserts), salts could accumulate in soils over long time intervals and cause (
| |
| - damage, ;
| |
| (3) Consider the impact to twrestrial'blota when new shoreline habitats are created along ponds and !
| |
| reservoirs built for cooling purposes. Riparian tree / shrub communities that form around these new ponds or reservoirs may attract "important" species.
| |
| {
| |
| OV August 1997 5.3.3.25 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) h
| |
| [
| |
| . . . . -. ,-. , - . , , _ . - . . . . . , , . . , . , ..-..m_ . . . . _ - . . . . . -..;.-..-.__-.=.,.....,_ . . _
| |
| | |
| if endangered or threatened spec ies could be affected, agency level formal or informal consultation with the U.S. l'ish and Wildlife Service is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS This section of the EIS should be planned to accomplish the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of any expected impact to the terrestrial ecosystem as a result of the operation of the heat dissipation system;(2) presentation of the basis of staff analysis of the project; and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, evaluations, and conditions regarding terrestrial ecosystems. These conclusions should include:
| |
| * a list of adverse impacts of cooling system heat dissipation to terrestrial ecosystems e a list of the impacts for which th.re are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and associated measures and controls e the applicant's commitments to limb these !mpacts e the staffs evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's measures and controls to limit adverse impacts.
| |
| This information should be summarized by the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| Evaluation ofimpacts should result in one of the following conclusions:
| |
| * Due impact is minor and mitigelion is not required. I(the degree ofimpact falls into the first order category (a few hours oficing or fogging each year or a few kilograms of salt drift per hectare per year), the reviewer may conclude that these impacts are not of sufficient magnitude to warrant further evaluation.
| |
| * The impact is adverse but can br mitigated by design andprocedure modifications. Iithe degree of impact falls within the second arder category (a few tens of hours per year increase in fog or ice or a few tens of kilograms of salt / rift deposition per hectare per year), the reviewer may conclude that the effects are adverse and thst mitigating actions should be considered. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with ihe Environmental Project Manager (EPM) and the reviewer for ESRP 9.4,1 for verification thet the modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance. The rrviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and measurec and controls to limit the corresponding impact These lists should be given to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| * The impact is adverse and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be avoided, ifit cannot be mitigated. I(
| |
| l the degree of expected impacts falls within the third order category (hundreds of hours ofincrease in fog and lee or hundreds of kilograms of salt drift per hectare per year), the reviewer may conclude NUREG 1$$$ (DRAFT) $.3.3.2 6 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| p
| |
| (- that the impacts of operation are sumelently adverse that consideration of attemarive de;igns or locations to avoid the impact is warranted. When impacts of tinis nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the EPM and the reviewcr for ESRP 9.4.1 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is needed. The reviewer should participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered pract i cal. If no such attematives can be identified, the reviewer should provide this conclusion to the reviewer for F.SRP 10.1.
| |
| V. IMPI FMENTATION 1he method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's segulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable i
| |
| alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51.45," Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.75," Draft environmental impact statement-construction permit."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.95," Supplement .o final environmental impact statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpait A,"Early Site l'cnnits."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Pont Stations.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev,2. I995. LineralSite Sultabilityfor Nuclear Power Stations. Second Proposal.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. l. I977. Terrestrial EnvironmentalStudiesfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Endangeied Species Act, as amended.16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 UP". 661 et seq.
| |
| Natio, al Env!ronmental Policy Act, as amended,42 USC 4321 et seq.
| |
| U.S. Nuci at Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmentalimpact Statementfor License f.enewalofNuclear Plants. NUREG 1437, Vol. l, Washington, D.C.
| |
| p)
| |
| \
| |
| '" August 1997 5.3.3.27 NUREO-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 U.S. NUr; LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| ,f. . ..s\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD (v ) i ,
| |
| REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ***** OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.3.4 IMPACTS TO MAN REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Oc seric issues and Environmental Projects Isranch Secondary-None
| |
| : l. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's evaluation of the human health impacts associated with the plant's cooling syste..s. This includes impacts from thermophilic micro-organisms and from noise resulting from the operation of the cooling system.
| |
| The scope of this ESRP section includes (1) background information on thennophilic microorganisms that could negatively affect human health,(2) methods for evaluating the potential for an increase in the
| |
| 't numbers of thermophille microorganisms as a result of thermal discharges, and (3) the potential for noise resulting from the plant's cooling system. Noises that are generated by the pla it's paging system, or from transmission wires and associated rubstations are addressed in ESRP 5.6.3 and are not discussed further in this section.
| |
| ReviewInterfA tta lhe revic"/cr should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 3.Qand 3.4.2, Obtain a description of the cooling system and its operational modes and components, including estimated noise levels.
| |
| * ESRP 5.311. Obtain an indication of the temperature increases expected for the aquatic environments that are subject to the plant's thermal discharges.
| |
| August 1997 5.3.41 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENYlRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN n0 I
| |
| * f_s 6 I.""5=EI."U'Mv"Nd 7.w.~em:. ,v.rmeuma.w::
| |
| ewa=nM.Dlt$e"nE$r'p'ow''.S*pfu*."Yh!..*lo u'Unt.'.".M!li.USEbi.tYt@
| |
| '~ "~-'" ~~~m ~~ ~" r" <~~:=~ 'n-~~-'"
| |
| O' mxwr.ww.,::"
| |
| =nea:=w:x ~ -~ ~" ~ ~ - ~~ -~
| |
| P"',",,c:,rnetta.M=tc.'@de".T cTdt """"" " ' ""*" "**'""'d
| |
| * liSRP110. Provide any mitigation mwures that should be employed to (l) minimlie poteritial impacts caused by increased numbers o' deleterious thermophilie microtganisrns as a result of thermal discharges and (2) minimize potentially unacceptable noise levels resulting from operation of the cooling system.
| |
| Data and Informational Needs information about the following subjects should usually be obtained to perform this review:
| |
| * thennophilic microorganisms the ultimate heat sink for the plant (i.e., a cocling pond, lake, canal, small river [ flow rate less than 9 x 10* cubic meters per year (3.15 x 10'8 cubic feet per year)), large river, or ocean)(from ER or ESRP 3.4.1) the temperature increases expected for the aquatic environment that is subject to the plant's thermal discharges (from ER or ESRP 5 3.2.1)
| |
| . the results of any anclyses that have been made for the presence of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms. These include the enteric pathogens, Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp., as weli ca Pseudomonas acr/g/nosa and thermophille fungl. In addition, analyses for the presence of unusually high concentrations of the normally present Legionella sp. (Legionnaires' disease bacteria) and the free living amoebae of the genera Naeg/cria and Acanthoamoeba should be cited (from the ER or the applicant.)
| |
| . a list of the outbreaks of waterborne diseases in the United States during the previous 10 years in the vicinity of the plant. This list is published regularly by the Centers for Disease Cont of and can be obtained from the Centers for Disease Control or from gen & SIS.
| |
| . an evaluation of any available data conceming the occurrence and concentrations in the vicinity of the plant of any of the deleterious thermophille microorganisms listed above and a determination of whether or not any of them are present under conditions and in locations that might be harmful to members of the public who come in contact with them, if such an evaluation exists, it may be obtained from the applicant or from the State Public flealth Department in the State in which the plant is being constructed.
| |
| * noise the type of cooling system, specifically, whether the plant has cooling towers and whether they are natural draft or mechanical draft (from ER or ESRP 3.4.2) the distance to the nearest offsite residence and to the site boundary (from the reviewer of ER or ESRP 2.5.1).
| |
| NUREO.1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.4-2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| i ll ACCEPTANCECRHERIA Acceptance cdteria for the analysis and evaluation of the nonradiological health impacts of the cooling I system on immens are band on the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51 with respect to the need to assess the impact oflicense renewal on public health from thermophille organisms in the affected watw, if the applicant's plant uws a cooling pond, lake, or . !
| |
| canal or ifit discharges Nto a river that has an annual average flow rate ofless than 9 x 10* :n'/yr !
| |
| (3.15 x 10'8 ft'/yr). !
| |
| Technical Rationalt f t
| |
| 'The technkdrationale for evaluating the applicant's description of nonradlulogical health impacts of the }
| |
| cooling system on humans is discussed in the following paragraphs for both thumophilic 2 microorganisms and for noist:
| |
| 'thrmaphilic Micmarganimma-Microorganisms that are associated with cooling towns and thwmal discharges can have negative _ impacts on human health. 'Ihe presence and numbus of these ,
| |
| organisms can be increased by the addition of heat, thur they are called thermophille organisms. ;
| |
| These microorganisms include the enteric pathogens Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp. as well as t 4
| |
| hemdomonar aeruginasa and thwmophilic fungl. 'Ihey also. include the bacteria Legionella sp.,
| |
| which causes Legionnaires' disease, and free-living amoebae of the genere Naegleria and j '
| |
| Acanthomoeba. Exposure to these microorganisms, or in some cases the endotoxins or exotoxins produced by the organisms, can cause illness or death. .
| |
| . , , 40 CFR 141.70 regulates maximum contaminant levels of various microorganisms including ;
| |
| Legionella in public drinking water systems. Howevw, there are no regulations that could be tied to t p microorganisms that are associated with cooling towns or thermal discharges. Other than the need i to assess the impact of thumophilic microorganisms on license renewal, there are no acceptance criteria associated with microbial organisms that may exist in the cooling system and that could >
| |
| affect human health.' No Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other legal .
| |
| standards for exposure to microorgamsms exist at the present time.- !
| |
| i hielse-There are no Federal regulations for levels of noise for public exposures. When noise levels I are below the levels that result in hearing loss, impacts have beenjudged primarily in terms of ,
| |
| adverse public reactions to noise. The Department of Housing and Urban Development >
| |
| i (24 CFR 51.101(a)(8)) uses day night avwage sound levels recommended by EPA as guidelines or ;
| |
| goals for outdoors in residential areas. Noise levels are acceptable if the day night average sound 3
| |
| ' level outside a residence is less than 65 decibels.
| |
| \ ' A'ugust 1997- 5.3.44 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) g.
| |
| +- _
| |
| _ _ _ .: . z._. w._ .a 22,._. _.w c a . ., .. . _ _ _ -. a -. _._ m u. . .. . _ ;. - _ . _ .._.a.._
| |
| | |
| lil. REVIEW PROCEDURES This procedure applies to the review of applications for construction permits, operating licenses, combined licenses. The procedures for review of thermophylic microorganisms also applies to license renewal applications. The review procedures for impr. cts from microorganisms are discussed separately from the procedures for impacts from noise.
| |
| Thermonhilic Microorganisms Consideration of the impact of thermophilic microorganisms on the public health is important, especially for those plants using cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small rivers because the operation of these plants may signliicantly increase the presence and numbers of thermophilic organisms. Additional information regarding these organisms can be found in the Appendir.to this ESRP. The following review precedures should be used.
| |
| (1) If the plant does not use a cooling pond, lake, or cant. or discharges to a small river (flow rate less than 9 x IOS m'/yr [3.15 x 10u fWyr]), then conclude that there will not be a detrimental impact from the thermal discharges on the concentration levels of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms and, therefore, further analysis is not necessary.
| |
| (2) If the plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharges to a small river as described above, then further analysis of any available data woeld be api,ropriate, especially if the plant is located in the southern regions of the United States. At the minimum,
| |
| . Consult with the State Public Ilealth Department.
| |
| . Review any records associated with waterborne disease outbreaks in the region.
| |
| (3) Ifit appears to be likely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase the number of deleterious tnermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a public health problem, then request that the applicant consider mitigative measures to minimize the potential impacts.
| |
| . Mitigative measures may include retting up and executing a monitoring program for deleterious thermophilic microorganisms
| |
| - limiting public access to areas afTected by the plant's thermal discharges (such as prohibiting public swimming in the mixing zone of the river)
| |
| - the use of respirators by plant workers to protect against mists from cooling towers or dusts inhaled during cleaning processes.
| |
| . Analyze any mitigative measures and forward them to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.4-4 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| f p
| |
| j
| |
| - The authority for environmental noiw control was given to the States in the 1972 Noise Control Act. . !
| |
| When noies levels are below the levels that twalt in hearing lon, impacts have bwn judged primarily in j tenne of advwn public reactions to tow noin. The principsi souren of nolw fro'n plant operations -
| |
| include natural draft and anochanical draft cooling towws. Othw occasional noise sounces may include auxi'lary equipment such as pumps to supply cooling water from a remote raservoir, Genwelly poww ,
| |
| plant sites do not iesch in offsite noise levels grwt'r than 10 dB(A) abova %ckground (NRC 1996).
| |
| Noise level increases laiser than 10 dB(A) would be expected to lead to ..itaference with outdoor speech
| |
| [
| |
| communication, particularly in cural arms or low. population areas wlere the day night background nolu ;
| |
| level is in the rense of 45 55 dB(A). Surveys around major sources of nolw, such as major highways or _ l airports have found that when the day. night level incrums beyond 60 to 65 dB(A), noiw complaints !
| |
| , - Incream significantly. Nois. levels below 60 to 65 dB(A) are considered to be of small significance [
| |
| L(NRC 1996). !
| |
| i w
| |
| 4 (1) Become familiar with the applicable State noise limits for residential areas and other types ofland l
| |
| use.- .
| |
| (2) Determine whethw the plant has or will have cooling towers.
| |
| l e lf no cooling towws are anticipated, then the analysis is con.plete.-
| |
| - . t
| |
| * !r' cooling towns are prnent, then compere the anticipated day night everege level ofnoise ,
| |
| determined at the site boundary (based on the dB(A scale)) from the cooling towers with ;
| |
| applicable State noin limits.
| |
| . If no State noise limits are available and if the day night noise levelis below t>0 to 65 dB(A), !
| |
| then no furthw analysis is nuded. j
| |
| . -. If the noise levels exceed the State noin limits or in the absence of such limhs if the day night ,
| |
| noin level exceeds 65 dB(A), then request that the applicant propose measures for mitigating the -
| |
| impact from the noise. Analyre these mitigatien measures and forward them to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| r s
| |
| IV.- EVALUATION FINDINGS nnaphille Micenargamlama l
| |
| When the reviewer dotamine: that the applicant's plant does not fall within the parameters discussed -
| |
| : above (voos a cooling pond, lake, or canal or uses once through cooling systems with discharges to other -
| |
| than small rivers), tlwn the reviewer should provide a statement for the EIS almilar to the following:
| |
| I August I'997.
| |
| 5.3.45 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) e 4 h
| |
| - a, - .. , r- . - . w . - , , - -. . - ~ . . ...u _ _ _ . _ . . . - - . . - . . _ --
| |
| | |
| Th applicant's plant utilizes a cooling system as described in ESRP 3.4.1. Because this system does not use a cooling pond, !ake, or canal or discharges to a river with a flow rate below 9 x 10* m'/yr (3.15 x 10'8 fl'/yr) there is little potential for a detrimental increase in thermophilic microorganisms that would have a deleterious effect on public health (NUR.EG 1437). Therefore, no further enslysis is necessary, if the reviewer determines that the applicant's plant does fall within the parameters given above, i.e.,
| |
| uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or uses once-through cooling with a discharge to a small river (9 x 10* cubic meters per year [3.15 x 10u cubic feet per year]), then the reviewer should
| |
| . Provide the results of the anayses and evaluation given above, including the results of the consultation with the State Public Ilealth Department, related to any regional outbreaks of waterborne diseases.
| |
| . Discuss any mitigative measures that should be used to minimize negative human health impacts resulting from a potential increase in the levcis of deleterious thermophilic microorgai isms.
| |
| Eche When the reviewer determines that the applicant's plant does not have mechanical or stural draft cooling towers, then the reviewer should provide a statement for the EIS similar to the following*
| |
| The applicant's plant utilizes a cooling system as described in ESRPs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 that does not depend on a cooling tower. Thus, the noise levels related to operation of the cooling tower are not pertinent to this plant.
| |
| When the reviewer determines that the applicant's plant does have natural or mechanical draft cooling towers and has determined that the day night noise level emanating from the towers during operation is below 65 dB(A) at the site boundary, then the reviewer should provide a statement for the EIS that is similar to the following:
| |
| The day night noise leve! that are anticipated from the plant's cooling tower are less than 65 dB(A) to the site boundary, which is considered to be of small significance to the public. Tims, no mitigation atteinatives are necessary.
| |
| When the reviewer determines that the cooling towers from the applicant's plant will produce day night noise levels above 65 dB(A) at the site boundary, the reviewer should describe the magnitude of the noise levels and the mitigative factors that will be employed to reduce the levels below 65 dB(A).
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) $.3.4-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| e l V, IMPIIMENhMON f The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, ucopt in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable {
| |
| - ahomative for complying with specired portions of the regulations.
| |
| t VI. REFERENCES i 10 CFR $1,"Envite e al Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory l Functions."
| |
| .i 24 CFR 51," Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development." .f i
| |
| ' 40 CFR I41.70," General requirements."
| |
| . Centers ior Diseene Control (CDC).1996. Surveillancefor Waterborne Disease Outbreaks-United States, 1993 1994. M.H. Kramer, B.L. Herwaldt, O.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, D.D. Juranek. Source:
| |
| MMWR 4$(SS.1): 133. April 12,1996.
| |
| U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1996. Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms andNatural i Torier 1992 (Bad Bug Book). Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, Washington, D.C. ;
| |
| ('Oj U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) - 1996. Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statemes for License RenewalofNuclear plants. NUREO 1437, Vol.1. Washington, D.C. t d'
| |
| 4 r g.
| |
| c-aC p) J- s August 1997f 5.3.47 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) l y
| |
| f y
| |
| _s , , _ - - . ,.e.e,.6- w ,,,.yr _., ,,...,--_m. , , ,,.m,, , . .#,,,, ,. r ,,-,my,..,_,, ,, u , ., ._, ,.,, , ,,ym,,,, -w,,.., ,-,,w.7,m-
| |
| | |
| APPNDIX Thermophilic Microorganisms - Background Microorganisms that are associated with cooling towers and thermal discharges can impair human health.
| |
| These microorganisms are called thermophilic organisms because their presence and numbers can be increased by the addition of heat.
| |
| The microorganisms Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp. are enteric pathogens. The methods of testing these microorganisms (as well as the microc ~'anisms Pseudomonas aeruginosa and thermophilic fungi) are known and their presence in aquatic u : tonments can often be controlled. In addition, the inhalation or ingestion of small quantities of these organisms would not impair the health ofindividuals that are not immunosuppressed. However, the inhalation of endotoxins and exotoxins, which several of these organism produce may theoretically make healthy ir3dividuals sick, even though such illnesses have not been identified in power o' ant workers (NRC 1996).
| |
| Other microorganisms normally present in surface water, but not as easily controlled, include the bacteria Legionella sp., which causes Legionnaires' disease, and free living amoebae of the genera Naegleria and Acanthamoeba. Some of the known cases of Legione8! Js were traced to the acrosolization of watecborne Legionella sp. by cooling towers and evaporative condensers. Legionella is normally found in natural surface waters and thus it is not surprising that they are found in even greater numbers in water from cooling towers and evsporative condensers. This type of equipment can amplify Legionella sp. concentrations and disperse the pathogen through aercsolization (NRC 1996).
| |
| Naegler/afowleri causes primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) and acanthamoeble keratitis and Acanthamoebic uveitis cause granulomatious amoebic encephalitis (GAE). GAE is a particular risk for persons who are immunodeficient, although infections have occurred in otherwise healthy individuals (FDA 1996). He primary infection site is thought to be the lungs. The organisms that are in the brain are generally associated with blood vessels, suggesting vascular dissemination (FDA 1996). Only 100 to 200 reports of PAM have occurred worldwide (NRC 1996). Sources ofinfection for PAM general ;
| |
| include heated swimming pools, thermal springs, and a variety of naturally or artificially heated sm %
| |
| waters. During 1993 to 1994, only one case of PAM was reported by the Centers for Disease Contro (CDC 1996). The one case was caused by N. fowler / and was associated with swimming in both a waste-
| |
| ' vater holding pond and in the Rio Grande River.
| |
| A study of cooling waters from 11 nuclear power plants and associated control source waters indicated that only two sites were positive for the pathogenic Naegleriafowleri. In addition to testing for
| |
| ! pathogenic amoebae in cooling waters, the 11 nuclear power plants in the 1981 study were also studied for the presence of Legionella sp. In general, the artificially heated waters showed only a slight increase (i.e.,510-fold) in concentrations of Legionella sp. relative to source water, in a few cases, source waters had higher levels than did heated waters. Infectious Legionella sp. were found in 7 of 11 test waters and 5 of 11 source waters (NRC 1996).
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.3.4-8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| , _ . . - _. . _. -. ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ . _ _ _ ._ _ _..
| |
| s '. \
| |
| f
| |
| =
| |
| 4
| |
| .f j[ } An additional. study oflegionella sp. presencs in the environs of coal-fired electric power plants showed l
| |
| AA #
| |
| that Legionella was only infrequently found in locations that were not adjacent to cleaning operationsc lt i ,
| |
| . was concluded that exposure to Legionella sp. from power plant operations was a po:ential problem for: .
| |
| ' part of the workforce, but that it would not be.a public health issue because concentrated aerosols of thei j bacteria would not traverse plant boundaries (NRC.1996).- ._
| |
| [
| |
| ; Because the route'ofinfect6nivith Naegleria sp. is through inhalation, workers exposed to aerosols that - 3 could harbor thi_s pathopn should have respiratory protection.1 Although the observed risk from N. -
| |
| )bwlerlis low, heavily used bodicef fresh water merit special attention and possibly routine raonitoring . [
| |
| for pathogenic Naeglerla,; necause Naegleria sp. concentrations in fresh water can be increased by .
| |
| thermal additions,' nuclear pawer plants that utilize cooling lakes, canals, ponds, or small rivers may
| |
| . _ enhance the naturally occurring thermophille organisms. - :
| |
| i Although this issue is largely unnudied, the staff recognizes a potential health problem stemming from heated efhentsi Factors that affect the distribution oflegioncl/a and the free-living pathogenic -
| |
| [ amoebae (l_ncluding Naegktla sp.) are not _well understood. Rapid tests for their detection and ,
| |
| : procedures for their control are not yet available. However, since Legionellosis is a respiratory disease and because the route ofinfection by N.fowlerlis through the nasal passage, the use of appropriate respiratory protection is a necessity for controlling any potential exposure. Occupational health questions are currently resolved using proven industrial hygiene principles to minimize worker exposures
| |
| = to these organisms in mists of cooling towers. Public health questions require additional consideration, G
| |
| specifically for plants using cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small rivers (having an average annual flow' 7
| |
| Q rate ofless than 3.15 x 10" cubic feet per year (9 x 10'' cubic meters per year) because the operation of these plants may significantly increase the presence and numbers of thermophilic organisms (NRC
| |
| :1996). <
| |
| t' E
| |
| J o
| |
| t August 19971 534-9
| |
| .. . NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| +-
| |
| ...-,.m, , l , ,%-L~.,- - -- ., .s ,. .,.,, . -i
| |
| | |
| p' NURE21555
| |
| ,,,,, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C') 3} ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD v p, g,**"*/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.4 RADIOLOGIC /.f IMPACTS OF NORMAL OPERATION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW
| |
| 'Ihis environmental standard review plan'(ESRP) directs the staff's preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the enviror. mental impact statement (EIS) that describes the radiological
| |
| 'mpacts of normal station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.4.1 through 5.4.4.
| |
| Review Interfaces V
| |
| None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Enviromaen.tal Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph papared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| a 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5.4-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN ra for n el reviNo1 e ear power s. se en er m ie avell ble t t A the Commission's pokcy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of re lagrocedures and phbt ;es.
| |
| c as part of c e with h is n t7e red. e n tar r rv 'ans are eyed to e era of$n'v onmental
| |
| (/ Reports for Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| ,TA"d;"a=.Ta'tatt##,0;" '""' ""' ""'"d PModially, u appmpdme. to uconunodenanmentund to 6 d d 8:=7.T:,t"a#t:f4*me'#arJ!,*n"74.'2n Ve*m'n;d.*B c'Wsn* """* *"* " * ""*'*" "''"'""'
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to mw. .e regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Dere are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale Technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of radiological impacts of normal operation is discussed it, the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the reltvance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111 REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.4.1 through 5.4.4 The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMP 1 FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the stafT in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI, REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.4-2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| NUREO 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U f$,,,,,} ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| (,*****/ REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.4.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITlfiS Pr: mary--Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW Thir environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's identification and description of the environmental pathways by which radiation and radioactive effluents can be transmitted from the pro-posed plant to living organisms. The scope of the review directed by this plan should include consi6 era-tion of(l) the pathways by which gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents can be transported to individual receptors and (2) the location of these receptors. The scope should also include quantita'.ive g\ information on the production of major types of foods within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant and the
| |
| (
| |
| expected consumption of these foods by the population projected to be living in this area five years from the date of the licensing action under consideration. The review should be sufficiently detailed to pro-vide input to other reviews relating to radiation dose estimates, radiological impacts, and envirorunental monitoring and to pennit the determination ofindividual and population doses and their comparison with the requirements of 10 CFR 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation," and 10 CFR 50.
| |
| Ecriew Interraces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the fol-lowing ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.2. Consult with the reviewer to verify the present annual milk, meat, and vegetable
| |
| . production.
| |
| August 1997 5.4.1-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ! A toeporMbl. f r WrevtYwsfe tear e plan Th se ocu nts availe e put c se part of 7 1%%,""',".'o?.f2,@J*J'*E".3*.7,Jt.a#uT7 ',"le n :'* n :i';s*"!.,i aai: rd <J"j.w pi.as .i,t."e*4*E.d i l c) p.,,,;<;g g , w ,g ,g g <,od. Th. viroam ai i =sv of rra f-
| |
| .P.u. bashed.
| |
| t m nvi,ro,nm.en.tal.
| |
| o m u o od .s, standard oc.. r.evi.w plans will b. revis.d p.rlodiceRy as appropriate. to accommodate comm.nts end to 8"m"o":".'a
| |
| . "8,tr:r'a&'%itti"t,"5.*eL6Va$d.rs'TBtis** """* ** " ""*" "*'"'""'
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| . ESRPs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. Consult with the reviewer to verify the transit times and dilution factors at each appropriate receptor location and transit t;mes to unrestricted area boundaries and diluted stream flows at these boundaries.
| |
| . ESRP 2.5.1 Request that the reviewer 2.5.1 verify the population distribution data for the year of interest.
| |
| . ESRP 2.7. Obtain the atmospheric transport and diffusion calculations at each receptor location.
| |
| . ESRP 3.5. Request that the reviewer 3.5 verify the efiluent release points for liquid and airborne releases. The reviewer sbauld also verify the sources of direct radiation of onsite out-of plant waste.
| |
| Note: This interface does act apply for early site permit applications.
| |
| . ESRP 4.5. Obtain the construction work force collective annual dose.
| |
| . ESRP 5.3.2.1. Obtain the predicted dilution factors at specified locations.
| |
| . ESRP 5.4.2. Provide the exposure pathway data, including receptor locations, population distribu-tions, food production, processing and consumption data, and atmospheric and hydrological data, as required to estimate both individual and population doses.
| |
| . ESRP 5.4.4. Provide the site specific pathway exposure data as required to estimate the radiation exposure to biota other than man.
| |
| . ESRP 6.2. Provide a list of receptor locations to be considered in evaluating the applicant's pro-poed preoperational radiological monitoring program or an existing radiological environmental monitoring program.
| |
| . ESRP 7.1. Provide information regarding the anticipated exposure pathways.
| |
| Data and Infonnation Needs he following data and information should usually be obtained to determine the site-specific exposure pathways:
| |
| . the distances from the reactor to the following points or areas for each of the 22%-degree radial sectors centered on the 16 cardinal compass directions (from the environmental report (ER]);
| |
| nearest site boundary
| |
| - to a distance of 8 km (5 mi), identify the receptor and its location for the nearest residence, milk l cow, milk goat, meat animal, and vegetable garden larger than 50 m2 l
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| is ) - when the applicant proposes elevated releases of radioactive effluents as defined in Regulatory
| |
| '"' Guide 1.111 the location of all milk cows, milk goats, meat animals, residences, and vegetable gardens larger than 50 m' out to a distance of 5 km (3 mi) e for the applicable locations noted above, the grazing seasons (give dates) and fraction cf daily intake of cows, meat animals, and milk goats derived from pasture or fresh green chop during the grazing season. The fraction of the year that leafy vegetables are grown, ne average absolute humidity in grams per cubic meter during the growing season (from the ER).
| |
| . the nearest present and known future locations from which an individual can obtain aquatic food and/or drinking water (from the ER) e the nearest present and known future shoreline areas that an individual can use for recreational purposes (from the ER) e for the two locations noted immediately above, the transit time of each plant discharge stream con-taining liquid radwaste discharge from the point at which the stream enters an unrestricted area to the identified location, and the estimated stream dilution at that location. Where reconcentration of liquid radwaste may occur, a description of such locations and the estimated reconcentration factors (from the ER).
| |
| [ for each liquid radwaste discharge, the transit time from input to a plant discharge stream to the point
| |
| (])
| |
| at which the stream enters an unrestricted area and the stream discharge in cubic meters per second (from the ER) e the following distributional data for each of the 22%-degree radial sectors centered on the 16 cardinal compass directions for radial distances of 2,4,6,8,10,20,40,60, and 80 km (l.2,2.5,3.7,5,6.2, 12,25,27, and 50 mi) from the reactor (from the ER):
| |
| - projected population for 5 years from the time of the licensing action under consideration (see Figures 2.5.1-1 and 2.5.1-2 in ESRP 2.5.1)
| |
| - present annual meat p.oduction'(kglyr)
| |
| - ' present annual milk production (liter /yr)
| |
| - present annual vegetable production (kg/yr)
| |
| - the applicant's estimate of direct radiation doses from such sources as boiling water reactor (BWR) turbines and outdoor radwaste storage tanks.
| |
| . the present commercial fish and invertebrate catch (in kg/yr) from waters within 80 km (50 mi) downstream (or 80-km (50-mi) radius for lake or coastal sites) of the plant radwaste discharge; major catch locations, their distance from the plant radwaste discharge, and the amount caught within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant that is consumed; transit time from the point at which the discharge stream enters an unrestricted area to each major catch location, the estimated dilution at each loca-tion, and the basis for calculating transit time and dilution (from the ER)
| |
| {p
| |
| 'J
| |
| /
| |
| August 1997 5.4.1 3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| l
| |
| * present and known future drinking water intake locations within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant radwaste discharge (downstream or radius); the transit time and estimated dilution at each major location, the basis for calculating transit time and dilution, and the populations served or the daily water consump-tion at each location (from the ER)
| |
| + the irrigation rate (liter /m'/ month), crop yield (kg/mi), annual production (kg/yr), and growing period (days) for irrigated land using water withdrawn within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant radwaste discharge (downstream or radius) when crop production has the potential for contributing 10% or more to individual or population doses because ofliquid effhents; the crop type and its use (e.g., human consumption, meat animals), total crop production (by type) within the 80-km (50-mi) distance, and the amounts consumed within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant; transit time from the point at which the discharge stream enters an unrestricted area to the points of withdrawr.1, estimated dilution at each withdrawal point, and the bases for calculating transit times and dilution factors (from the ER) e unusual animals, plants, agricultural prt.ctices, game harvests, or food processing operations having the potential for contributing 10% or more to eithe+ individual or population doses (examples are harvesting Asiatic clams found in the surface water intake of a municipality, harvesting seaweed,
| |
| [e.g., moss) in areas affected by liquid effluents, growing sweet potatoes in excess of any other food crop, producing most of the region's potatoes in the general vicinity of the reactor, producing deer in a game management area in quantities comparable to beef and pork production), and food processing operations involving large quantities of water (e.g., the annual production and water supply sources for breweries and bottling plants (from the Ell).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRrrERIA Acceptance criteria for analping the radiological impacts of normal operations with respect to exposure pathways are based on the relevant requiremems of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 50 with respect to guidelines for assessing radiological impacts from normal operations.
| |
| Note: This criterion is not applicable to early site permit applications.
| |
| 40 CFR 190 with respect to exposure pathways.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| + Regulatory Guide 1.109 with respect to calculating individual and population doses from routine effluents 1
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.1-4 August 1997 O
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| - ann. -.-< + ~+ a a .
| |
| .r. n g n - . _ , ,+ r a. v . > ,~.aw.a. . . .a+, n.. nev -..au..au, a w a , -.m u .. n y _ 1 Tacitmical Rationale L .N .
| |
| ''he
| |
| - technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's exposure pathways is discussed in the following ,
| |
| paragraph: .
| |
| To adequately evaluate the radiological impact of radiological releases from a light water-cooled . :
| |
| 4
| |
| - reactor, the exposure pa hways, including receptor locations, should be determined; Receptor
| |
| , locations include areas having populations such as schools, hospitals or residences, or they may be locations at which plants or anim'als that become food for the public may be exposed to either -
| |
| direct radiation or contamination.' Parameters necessary to determine the exposure pathways to -
| |
| calculate the does (in Section 5.4.2) include the population of the a&cted area (assumed to be within an_80-kilometer _ [50-mile) radius), the distance from the reactor to the receptor location i' and the time required for the plume to reach the receptor locations. In some cases realistic
| |
| . assumptions should be made to determine the exposure pathways. All the assumptions umi in .
| |
| E ~ detennining the exposure pathways should be documented. His collection ofinformation forms the basis for calculating doses to individuals from' routine releases of reactor emuents so they I : can be compared to the guidelines for releases in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
| |
| - til,L REVIEW PROCEDURES L in this analysis, the reviewer should identify potential' pathways for the transfer of radioactive material (from the plant or plant-emuentleading to maximumstreams tocommitments individuals. and (2)The analysis shou
| |
| ' O. ' 1) identification of the pathways individual dose
| |
| - tion of the pathways that will be used to calculate the overall dose estimate due to plant oper. tion. Fig-identifica-ures 5.4.1-1 and 5.4,1 2 represent the usual pathways associated with the transfer of radioactive materials to individuals and other biota and should be used by the reviewer to determine on a site specific basis the pathways ofinterest for the proposed plant or site, ne following pathways should be considered:
| |
| e direct radiation from the plant (for determining compliance with 40 CFR 190), including onsite indepindent spent fuel storage installations and onsite waste facilities e for gaseous emuents:
| |
| y =
| |
| immersion in the gaseous plume -
| |
| : - Inhalation oflodines and particulates
| |
| ; ingestion of lodines and particulates through the milk cow, milk goat, meat animal, and vegetation pathways P - 1 radiation from iodines and particulates dopo ited on the ground.
| |
| . for liquid emuents:
| |
| - - - drinking water,
| |
| -. - -1 Ingestion of fish and invertebrates .
| |
| -1 shoreline activities for water containing radioactive emuents.
| |
| . August 1997 5.4.1-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| . - -. . .. . . . - - a- .- . - - -
| |
| | |
| I February 1979 GASEOUS EFFLUENT
| |
| $- NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
| |
| }
| |
| $d S S y, -.--
| |
| P d Direct g %'
| |
| { T g 4,,
| |
| 9, irradiation '
| |
| [
| |
| 2 FUEL TRdNSPORT
| |
| ~'
| |
| % bs? Iou',% Shoreline g to ~~
| |
| 4 ri, h$'.I Nh 4>g,,
| |
| eg#***s .. .. -
| |
| j$#
| |
| l\vi l f 't ,
| |
| i \"%,,,, } \ -
| |
| f_
| |
| ~
| |
| / k 7-$ >$rSCi!$
| |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| / ~
| |
| - 4
| |
| )
| |
| ~= l
| |
| -M
| |
| - wn u -- ,
| |
| 1 Figure 5.4.1 1. Exposure Pathways to Man 1
| |
| ! -NUREG.1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.1-6 August 1997 0
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| O GASEOUS EFFLUENTS NUCLEAR FACILITY n3 i
| |
| [ LIQUID .
| |
| EFFLUENTS I
| |
| /f
| |
| /fl\'N' d %y 4 57 t / h*$ )\ c
| |
| { s t/$;p ,
| |
| k T' ) ~
| |
| l
| |
| - # j np (' - ---- - '
| |
| O w t !
| |
| '~~
| |
| c -
| |
| -Ment in, sten
| |
| _%T ' _ = - _ . _
| |
| :(
| |
| 4 --
| |
| __-m, O Q'--
| |
| m ss N -_. _7t"> \,,
| |
| ' ~
| |
| SafinwD (Wise *A QR g" Figure 5.4.1-2. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Man August 1997- 5.4.1-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| In addition, ae reviewer should examine site specific data to look for any unusual pathways uniquely associated with the proposed plant; and when any such exist, the reviewer should include them in the analysis.
| |
| Pathways for Maximum Individual Doses To identify the pathways leading to maximum individual dose commitments, do the following:
| |
| (1) Based on information provided by the applicant, information obtained during the site visit, consul-tation with appropriate ESRP Chapter 2.0 raiewers, and consultation with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Natig e American tribal agencies, e Develop a list of" nearest" receptors as described in this ESRP.
| |
| . For each such location, categorize the important pathways (i.e., direct radiation or gaseous or liquid effluent) by which radiation can be transferred to the receptor.
| |
| (2) For gaseous pathways
| |
| * Give the location data to the reviewer for ESRP 2.7, Meteorology, for determining atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics needed to determine dose commitments at these locations.
| |
| * Give the reviewer for ESRP 2.7 assistance as needed to complete this interrelated portion of the environmental review. Note: For early site permits applications, consult with the ESRP 2.7 reviewer to determine a conservative effluent release point for the hypothetical plant.
| |
| (3) For liquid pathways
| |
| . Consult with the reviewer of ESRP 3.5 to complete the analysis of the information required in thls ESRP and with the reviewer of ESRP 2.3.1, to complete the analysis of transit and dilution times.
| |
| When these reviewers determiae that the applicant supplied values for transit time and dilution are conservative (e.g., with respect to stream flow and velocity), the applicant's data may be used without further analysis.
| |
| * For early site permit applications, consult with the reviewers of ESRPs 2.3.1 and 3.5 to deter-mine the optimum effluent release point given the applicant's general statements about proposed cooling systems.
| |
| = If the applicant's data are not conservative or if subsequent dose-estimations calculations and analyses made by the reviewers of ESRPs 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 predict that doses will exceed the
| |
| , NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.18 August 1997 i
| |
| {
| |
| | |
| f G .10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, guidel'nes, hydrological dispersion factors.
| |
| i request that the reviewer of ESliP 2.3.1 provide detailed :
| |
| * As needed, provide assistance to the reviewer of ESRP 2.3.1 to complete this interrelated portion :
| |
| of the environmental review.
| |
| Pathwavs for Ov-eall Done l To 16entify pathways that will be used to calculate the overall dose estimate, do the following:
| |
| e (1) Refer to the information identified in the " Data and information Noods" of this ESRP.-
| |
| * Base the review on information supplied by the applicant and supplemented by information obtained during the site visit, consultation with appropriate ESRP Chapter 2.0 reviewers, and l consultation with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies.
| |
| * Using these data, develop the appropriate exposure pathways and document all auumptions.
| |
| s
| |
| . Obtain assistance from and coordinate with the reviewer of ESRPs 2.3.1,2.7, and 3.5 in the same
| |
| ; manner as described for the review of maximum individual dose pathways.
| |
| ' O U (2) Ensure that the analysis of exposure pathways has resulted in the following identifications and
| |
| , determinations:
| |
| * the locations of all important receptors e the important exposure pathways to each receptor e atmospheric transport and diffusion calculations (by the reviewer for ESRP 2.7) at each appro-priate receptor location
| |
| * effluent release points, transit times to unrestricted area boundaries, and diluted stream flows at
| |
| . these boundaries (to be verified by the reviewer for ESRP 3.5). Note: For early site permit
| |
| - applications, certain assumptions may need to be made regarding effluent release points.
| |
| * transit times and dilution factors at each appropriate receptor location (to be verified in consulta-tion with the reviewer for ESRP 2.3.1)
| |
| * ; population distribution data for 5 years following the time of the license action being considered
| |
| - (to be verified by the reviewer for ESRP 2.5.1) .
| |
| p ,
| |
| August 19975 5A.1-9 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) .
| |
| 4 w ee- $- , ,y e,yi-+ ew--- ,-wue ''r=- --
| |
| ram 8i-e- -w--- w --
| |
| * present annual milk, meat, and vegetable production (to be verified in consultation with the reviewers for ESRP 2.2).
| |
| (3) As a final step in the evaluation process, consult with the reviewer of ESRP 5.4.2 to ensure that suffi-cient data have been provided to permit calculation ofindividual and population dose commitments.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Input from this ESRP resiew to the EIS should describe the following: (1) the typical pathways by which radioactive materials can be transported from the plant to receptors in unrestricted areas, (2) the pathways identified as important for the proposed project and a brief discussion of the staff s analysis to detemiine these pathways, (3) the nearest receptors identified by the reviewer, and (4) a brief discussion of food production and processing in the area. Use of Figures 5.4.1 1 and 5.4.12 is recommended.
| |
| V, IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commis-sion's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI, REFERENCES 10 CFR 20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
| |
| 10 CFR 50," Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1," Numerical Guides for Design Ohjectives and Limiting Conditions for Opera-tion to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light.
| |
| Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents."
| |
| 40 CFR 190," Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."
| |
| Regulatory Guide l.109, Rev.1. I976. Calculation ofAnnual Doses to Afainfrom Routing Releases of Reactor Effluentsfor the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with CFR .50, Appendix 1.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev. I 1977. Methodsfor Estin;ating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion ofGaseous Effluents in Routine Releasesfrom Light Water Cooled Reactors Regulatory Guide 1.113, Rev. l.1977. Estimating Aquatic Dispersion ofEffluentsfrom Accidentaland Routine Releasesfor the Purpose ofimplementing Appendix 1.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.1-10 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURED 1655 U .S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p, *"""\
| |
| s ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.4.2 RADIATION DOSES TO MEMBERS OF Tid PUBLIC
| |
| ' REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's estimation ofindividual and collective doses due to radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents released from the plant in the course of normal plant operation. The scope of the review directed by this plan should include calculation of(l) maximum individual doses and (2) total collective doses to the population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant for 5 years after the time of the licensing action being considered.
| |
| f~
| |
| (g) This information should be used to determine if the. plant radioactive-waste-management and effluent-control systems meet the design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appenaix 1, and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a. Note: This determination does not apply to early site permit applicants.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| i ESRP 2.3.1. Obtain hydrology data.
| |
| . ESRP 2.5.1 Obtain the population distribution for 80 km (50 mi) around the site for 5 years after the time of the licensing action being considered.
| |
| .' ESRP 27. Obtain meteorological data.
| |
| l August 1997 5.4.2-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN l f.".L*mW,4 2:2ni:n.0.':tr,ar :,d,'-'.W."# ."Mf;r2,"!!nt.'at*Rs.":2'J ttina " ur!'.. pa,t o,
| |
| ='
| |
| it2*r#.tn:,trat,23,lP.,"%2mte,',"!Jia:#'"t.:''*"*" :' "'**'
| |
| ec*mm:',i:pW8:'
| |
| !t
| |
| ! n()
| |
| k@la t'e'12,2." U:#:* " "**""*"'" ""*"*
| |
| nvir nm.ntal en d, ow plana wiu be revised periodicauy, as appropriate. to accommodate comments and to d
| |
| Po,mmt"amra:aa,'A= ta"g.T,N:Cd.t otan* """* '"* " 8 "*'*" "**"""'
| |
| | |
| i e
| |
| ESRP 3.5. Provide the calculated maximum individual and population dose commitments for comparison with the design objective guidelines of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1.
| |
| * ESRP 3.8. Obtain input on whether the environmental impacts of transportation of radioactive wastes meet the criteria of Table S-4 oi10 CFR 51 or whether a supplemental impact assessrnent will be needed, e ESRP 4.5. Obtain the construction work force collective annual dose for use in analyzing relevant doses to the public that would occur from plant operations.
| |
| * ESRP 5.4.1 Obtain receptor locations.
| |
| * ESRP 5.4.3. Provide the estimated maximum individual dose and population dose.
| |
| * ESRP 5.4.4. Provide atmospheric dispersion data, hydrological transport and dilution data, and dose data so that this reviewer can evaluate any potential radiological impacts to biota other than man.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The following data and information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * information related to exposure pathways (from ESRP 5.4.1), including
| |
| - receptor locations
| |
| - population distribution
| |
| - meteorological dispersion data
| |
| - hydrological dilution data.
| |
| . gaseous and liquid source-term data (from the ESRP for environmental impact statement [EIS] 3.5)
| |
| = exposure rates associated with onsite out-of plant storage of solid waste e applicant calculated dose data (from the ER)
| |
| * occupational radiation dose estimates (from the ER) a natural radiation doses that are generally applicable to the site (from the general literature)(NCRP 1987).
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.22 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| : 7. II.' ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA x '
| |
| T Aw.per.cs criteria'for the analysis and evaluation of doses resulting from radioactive gaseous and liquid >
| |
| ' effluents released during normal operations are based on relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| -e 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, with respect to determination of doses
| |
| . 10 CFR 50.34a _with respect to determination of estimated dose
| |
| . x 40 CFR 190 with respect to doses to members of the public as a result of exposures to discharges of
| |
| ' radioactive material, redon, and direct radiation from a site (as referenced in 10 CFR 20.1301 (d)).
| |
| s Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations as identified above are as
| |
| - follows:
| |
| . Regulatory Guide 1.109 with respect to determination of doses to the public. l Technical Rationale De technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's estimation of radiation doses to members of the public is discussed in the following paragraph:-
| |
| I ' All light water cooled reactors release small quantities of radioactive materials to the environment.-
| |
| ' The criteria for doses from liquid effluents and air dose from gaseous effluents for any individual in
| |
| * an unrestri;Ed area from all pathways of exposure are designed to provide a means of ensuring that effluent rehws from light water cooled reactors are below levels that could have a negative impact.
| |
| The doses to +Jaals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases and the doses to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant are assessed before plant operations to ensure that the plant design is so that effluent releases meet the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, criteria, 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| -He reviewer's analysis of doses is usually an iterative process in coordination with the reviewer for l ESRP 3.5 and adheres to the following general procedure.
| |
| (1) Calculate the dose to the maximally exposed individual and collective dose estimates.
| |
| J Forward these estimates to the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 for comparison with the design objectives and to evaluate the radwaste cost estimate described in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1.
| |
| If the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 determines that the doses do not meet these design objectives, i additional analysis may be needed and on this basis, source terms may be revised by the ESRP 3.5 ieviewer.
| |
| 4
| |
| : August 19973 5.4.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ,+-
| |
| !~
| |
| _ . , , e - -
| |
| | |
| . If the source terms are revised, use them to calculate another set ofindividual maximum doses and collective population doses and forward it to the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 for evaluation.
| |
| * Repeat this procedure until the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 determines that the applicant's radioactive waste-management system meets the design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1.
| |
| Est!mation of Doses from Gaseous nnd Liauid Radioactive Releasu in conducting the following analysis, the reviewer should be thoroughly familiar with the information and procedures specified in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and with the ASPAR and LADTAP computer codes used to estimate doses from gaseous and liquid radioactive releases. The following analysis procedure should be used:
| |
| (1) Assemble the gaseous and liquid source term data provided by the reviewer for ESRP 3.5, the receptor location and exposure pathway data (including hydrological and meteorological dispersion factors) provided by the ieviewer for ESRP 5.4.1, and any additional hydrological and meteorological data provided by the reviewcrs for ESIU's 2.3.1 and 2.7.
| |
| (2) For iodines and particulates in ga.cous effluents, examine the receptor locations, associated pathways, and relative deposition (D/Q) values. Select those locations expected to result in the maximum individual dose for innut to the GASPAR computer code.
| |
| (3) For noble gases in gaseous effluents, examine the normalized concentration (X/0) values at the site boundary for each of the 16 compass sectors that intersect land.
| |
| . For sites that have water boundaries, examine the meteorological atmospheric dispersion factors for 'and in sectors b yond the water boundary to determine it'any of these locations have higher factors than the other land site-boundary factors.
| |
| . Determine the location at which the meteorological atmospheric dispersion factor will result in the maximum beta and gamma air dose and the maximum total-body and skin dose to an individual.
| |
| : . Select data from this location for input to the GASPAR computer code.
| |
| l (4) For liquid pathways, examine the receptor locations, hydrological data, and associated exposure pathways to select the location expected to result in the maximum individual dose input to the LADTAP computer code.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.2-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ( ) _ (5) For the locations identined in items 2,3, and 4 above, assemble and enter the appropriate da'.a V'
| |
| needed to run the GASPAR and LADTAP computer codes.
| |
| * Ifinput data needed by these codes are lacking and cannot be supplied, use defauh values (as provided in Regulatory Guide 1,109) for these parameters.
| |
| * If either code is not suf0cient because some important pathways identined by the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.1 are not included in the codes, employ special calculations. These calculations may involve the review of available literature and developrnent of a model describing the pathway.
| |
| (6) When site specific conditions are so that it is not obvious thit 6ne particular location will result in maximum individual dose, select two or more locations for input to the GASPAR and LADTAP codes, then identify the " maximum" location based on the code outputs.
| |
| (7) Do not analyze the doses resulting from the transportation of radioactive material unless the reviewers for ESRPs 3.8 or 5.4 indicate that an analysis of these pathways is needed.
| |
| * When this is the case, extend the analysis to cover these pathways, using an analysis and evaluation procedure developed in consultation with these reviewers.
| |
| * An analysis of occupational radiation exposure froa the transportation of radiology materials is O not required.
| |
| U (8) Ar,alyze direct radiation doses to individuals in the vicinity of the site. During this analysis, evaluate the applicant's estimates of doses from direct radiation.
| |
| * If these estimates appear reasonable and justined, they may be used directly in the staff's analysis.
| |
| * If not, ask the applicant to submit additional information so that the staff can adequately evaluate these sources.
| |
| * The doses from direct radiation are combined with the doses from gaseous and liquid effluents,
| |
| * The dose is to be calculated at a point in the offsite environment. Each unit's contribution to the dose at that point should be added to determine the total. For example, contributions of stored waste to the dose at any point from each unit will vary depending on the distance from that unit to the point at which dose from the site is evaluated.
| |
| The following evaluation procedure should be used:
| |
| (1) Assess the computer outputs to ensure that data were entered properly and that the outputs appear o_ nonnal.
| |
| l )
| |
| cJ .
| |
| August 1997 5.4.2 5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (2) For noble gases in gascot.: efHuents from the GASPAR output, determine the maximum beta and gamma dose in air and the maximum dose to total body of an individual and dose to the skin of an individual. Identify the slic boundary location for :hese doses.
| |
| (3) For iodines and particulates released to the atmosphere, from the GASPAR output, determine the dose to any organ from all pathways. This dose should be for the age group (adult, teenager, child, or infant) receiving the highest dose. The dose should include the ground plane and inhalation pathways that are present at all receptor locations, plus those pathways that are applicable to the particular location. ne plume pathway from the UASPAR code is due to noble gases and is not included in the iodine and particulate release pathways. Identify the receptor location for these doses.
| |
| (4) For liquid effluents, from the LADTAP output, determine the maximum total body and organ dose to an individual. His dose should be for the age group (adult, teenager, or child) receiving the highest dose. It should be the sum of the pathways that are present in the vicinity of the site, although not necessarily at the same location. Thus, an individual Oshing in the plant outfall region is assumed to be obtaining drinking water from the nearest potable water intake affected by plant operation.
| |
| Identify the receptor location for these doses.
| |
| (5) From the GASPAR and LADTAP outputs, determine the dose to the total body from all pathways and the dose to any organ from all pathways.
| |
| (6) Compare the dose data from items 2 through 5 (above) with the dose data calculated by the applicant. For signincant differences, consult with the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 and with the applicant to determine the reasons for these variations.
| |
| (7) Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 to determine if the dose commitments calculated above meet the design objec'Fes of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR 50. If the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 determines that the dose does not meet these design objectives, the following procedure should be used:
| |
| . Ask the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.1 to re-evaluate the exposure pathway data. The objective of this re-evaluation is to determine if conservative estimates have been used, and if so, to see if more realistic pathway data can be identified that would result in decreased dose predictions. When more realistic input data can be identified, repeat the preceding review procedures of this ESRP and provide the reviewer for ES AP 3.5 with the revised dose calculations.
| |
| . If, upon re-analysis, the exposure pathway data are shown to be realistic or to still result in a prediction that doses will not meet 10 CFR 50 design objectives, request that the applicant commit to additional treatment equipment and efnuent control measures. When advised that such commitments have been made, the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 should calculate revised source terms, and you should repeat the preceding instructions to provide the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 with the revised dose calculations. Note: For the early site permits, this re-analysis is not necessary.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.2-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| n (9 Compare the doses from all pathways (including direct radiation) for all units at the site with the V() dose criteria in 40 CFR 190. If the doses from the site exc:ed the criteria in 40 CFR 190, request that the applicant commit to additional shielding or other source control measures as appropriate.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FIND 1HO.S Input from this section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) should present the calculated doses based on the exposute pathways determined by the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.1. The following information should usually be included in ESRP 5.4.2:
| |
| doses to individuals from the radioactive gaseous and liquid releases and direct radiation
| |
| * doses to the population within an 80 km (50-ini) radius of the plant from the radioactive gaseous and liquid releases e a discussion of or reference to the staff's analysis procedures and the parameters used in the staff calculations
| |
| + when required by the reviewers for ESRPs 3.8 or 5.4, estimated doses resulting from the transportation of radioactive materials, including a brief discussion of the reasons for and methods of the staff analysis I
| |
| O)
| |
| (/
| |
| * for occupational radiation exposure and for direct radiation and transportation of radioactive material when a separate dose calculation is not required, the inputs as given should be used
| |
| . as a general rule, the following figures and tables should be used in the EIS input:
| |
| - exposure pathways (by referring to ESRP 5.4.1) population distribution (by referring to ESRP 2.5.1)
| |
| - calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents (source term)(see Table 5.4.21)
| |
| - calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents (source term)(see Table 5,4.2 2)
| |
| - summary of normalized concentration and relative deposition values (see Table 5.4.2-3)
| |
| - annual maximum individual dose due to gaseous and liquid effluents (see Table 5.4.2-4)
| |
| - summary of hydrologic transport and dilution factors (see Table 5.4.2 5).
| |
| When the reviewer has determined that the maximum individual doses comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, a statement similar to the following should be used in the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information relative to the radiological impacts of normal operation with respect to dose. Tre staff concludes that the design objectives for release of radiological effluents are being r. set.
| |
| g3 5
| |
| d August 1997 5.4.2-7 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those et ws in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 20," Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
| |
| 10 CFR 20.1301," Dose limits for individual members of the public."
| |
| 10 CFR 50," Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1," Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Coaditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents."
| |
| 10 CFR 50.34a," Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluent-nuclear power re:ctors."
| |
| 40 CFR 190," Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."
| |
| National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).1987. Exposure ofthe Population in the United States and Canadafrom Natural BackgroundRadiation. NCRP Report No. 94.
| |
| Regulatory Guide i.I09, Rev. l. l976. Calculation ofAnnualDoses to Alanfrom Routing Releases of Reactor Effluentsfor the Purpose ofEvaluating Compliance with CFR 50, Appendix 1.
| |
| Regulatory Guide l.l12.1976. Analytical Afodelsfor Estimating Radioisotope Concentrations in Diferent Water Bodies.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Afethodsfor Demonstrating LWR Compliance with the EPA. Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR 19). NUREG 0543, Washington D.C.
| |
| l NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.28 August 1997 9'
| |
| | |
| r%
| |
| - Table 5.4 2-1. Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid Effluents *
| |
| -(
| |
| Release, Release, Nuclide C1/yr/ reactor Nuclide Ci/yr/ reactor Corrosion and Activation Products Fission Products (contd)
| |
| Na-24 5.7( 3)'** Ru 103 7( 5)
| |
| P 32 5.A( 4) Rh 103m 6( 5)
| |
| Cr Si 1.5( 2) Ru 105 7( 5)
| |
| ~
| |
| Mn 2.3(-4) Rh 105m 7( 5)
| |
| Mn 56 - 1.7( 4) Rh 105 3.7(-4)
| |
| Fe 55 3.3( 3) Ru 106 9( 5)
| |
| Fe 59 9( 5) Ag-do 2( 5)
| |
| Co-58 7.7( 4) Te 129m 1.2( 4)
| |
| Co-60 1.6( 3) Te 129 8( 5)
| |
| Cu-64 1.5( 2) Te 131m 1.3( 4)
| |
| Zn-65 6.5( 4) Te 131 2( 5)
| |
| Zn-69m 1.l( 3) 1 131 8.3( 2)
| |
| Zn-69 i.2( 3) Te 132 2( 5)
| |
| Zr 95 5( 5) 1 132 8( 5)
| |
| Nb-95 7( 5) 1 133 2.2( 2)
| |
| []
| |
| - W 187 Np-239 3.3( 4) Cs 134 1.3( 3) 2.9( 3)
| |
| .\ j 1.3( 2) 1 135 Fission Products Cs136 5.5( 4)
| |
| Sr-89 3.2( 4) Cs-137 2.9( 3)
| |
| St90 2( 5) Da-137m 2( 3)
| |
| SR 91 1.2(-3) Ba-140 1.l( 3)
| |
| Y 91m 7.8( 4) La 140 5.5( 4)
| |
| Y 91 2( 4) La-141 1( 5)
| |
| St92 4( 5) Cc 141 1( 4)
| |
| Y 92 4.3( 4) Cc-143 4( 5)
| |
| Y 93 1.3( 3) Pr143 1.2( 4) 7.r-95 2( 5) Cc 144 1.8(-4)
| |
| Nb-95 2( 5) All others" 6( 5)
| |
| Mo-99 4.l( 3) Total (except 11-3) 1.9( 1)
| |
| Tc 99m 5.6( 3) - 11 3 15 (a) Exponential notation: 5.7t 3) = 5.7 x 104 (b) Nuclides whose release rates are less than 104 Cl/yr/ reactor are not listed individually but are included in the category "All others."
| |
| *The values are illustrative only.
| |
| Note: Values will also be converted to Bq/yr/ reactor in the final version of the ESRP.
| |
| t U August 1997 5,4.2-9 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| Table 5.4.2-2. Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Emuents (Ci/yr/ reactor)*
| |
| Building Ventilation Weste-Cas Glad Seal and Mechanical Nuclides System Reactor Redwaste Turbine Vacuum Pump Total Ar 41 25 25 Kr.83m 5 87 92 Kr 85m 1800 6 68 150 2000 Kr-85 270 270 Kr 87 6 130 $20 660 Kr 88 670 6 230 520 1400 Kr 89 2200 2200 Xe-13 t m 74 74 Xe 133m 17 7 24 Xe 133 11000 130 10 250 2500 14000 Xe-135m 92 650 62 800 Xe 135 72 45 650 9201 1700 Xe 137 2700 2700 Xc.138 14 1400 2l00 3500 1 131 1.9( 1)* 5( 2) L9( 1) 1.l( 1) 5.4( 1) 1133 7.5( 1) 1.B( 1) 7.6(1) 3.2( 1) 2.0 113 - - - - - 71 C-14 8.0 1.5 9.5 Cr 51 3( 4) 9( 5) 1.3( 2) 1.3( 2)
| |
| Mn-54 3(*) 3(-4) 6( 4) 3.9( 3)
| |
| Fe-59 4( 4) 1.5( 4) 5( 4) 1.l( 3)
| |
| Co 58 6(-4) 4.5(5) 6( 4) 1.3( 3)
| |
| Co-60 1( 2) 9( 4) 2( 3) 1.3(-2)
| |
| Zn-65 2( 3) 1.5( 5) 2( 4) 2.2( 3)
| |
| Sr-89 9( 5) 4.5(-6) 6( 3) 6.l( 3)
| |
| Sr 90 5( 6) 3( 6) 2( 5) 2.8( 5)
| |
| Zr-95 4( 4) 5( 7) 1(-4) 5( 4)
| |
| Sb-124 2( 4) 5( 7) 3( 4) 5( 4)
| |
| Cs-134 4( 3) 4.5(5) 3( 4) 3(-6) 4.4( 3)
| |
| CslJ6 3(-4) 4.5(-6) 5(5) 2(-6) 3.6( 4)
| |
| Cs-137 5.5(-3) 9(5) 6( 4) 1( 5) 6.3( 3)
| |
| B* 140 4( 4) 1( 6) 1.l( 2) 1.l(5) 1.I( 2)
| |
| Ce 141 1( 4) 2.6(5) 6(-4) 7.3( 4)
| |
| (a) Less than 1% of total nuclide.
| |
| (b) Less than 1.0 Curic/yr/ reactor for noble gases and carbon 14; less than 10d Curie /yr/ reactor for lodine.
| |
| (c) Exponential notation: 1.9( 1) = 1.9 x 104
| |
| *The values are illustrative only.
| |
| Note Values will ahn be converted to Ba'vr'r actor in the final version of the ESRP_
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.2-10 August 1997 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| i l
| |
| Table 5.4.2-3.; Summary of Normalized Concentration and Relative Deposition - '
| |
| -. Values for Selected Locations * :
| |
| l l Normalized Relative :
| |
| Concentration,- Depesition. .'
| |
| 8 Location
| |
| * _ SourceM x/Q(sec/m ) D/Q (m 8)
| |
| Nearest site land boundary A - 5.6 x 104* 9.2 x 10**
| |
| (0.61 km SW') ' B 2.5 x 104* ~ 4.0 x 104*
| |
| Nearest residence, garden, A 2.1 x 10'' 3.3x10**
| |
| animal meat, and milk _ B. 9.4 x 10d* 1.4 x 104* ,
| |
| animal (1.5 km SW')
| |
| (a) The doses presented in the following tables are corrected for radioactive decay and cloud depletion from' deposition where appropriate, in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.111. " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion 'of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water Reactors," July 1977.
| |
| (b) " Nearest" refen to that type oflocation at which the highest radiation dose is expected to o* ?.ur from all appropriate pathways.
| |
| (c) Source A is contienus stack release; Source B is periodic stack release,4 times /yi c J4 hrs duration each.
| |
| 'The values are illustrative only.-
| |
| 4 4
| |
| (
| |
| August 1997.' 5.4.2-11' NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) _
| |
| i-
| |
| )
| |
| _- 4 .-_,s ..
| |
| | |
| $. Table 5.4.2-4. Annual Dose to a Maximumly Expocl Individual b
| |
| f
| |
| <.n Radieiedine and Particulates im Gaseces Emments*
| |
| n
| |
| $ Location Pathway Tatal Body U Nearesr'd Fann Residence, Milk Cow, Ground Deposit Inhalation Milk (Infant) 0.092 mremfyiluit and Meat Animal (3.2 mi NW)* <D 01 mrerdyr/ unit
| |
| ] 0.024 mrem /yr/ unit Totals 0.12 mrem /yr/ unit Liquid Effintets
| |
| 'otal Body Any Orgas Nearest Drinking Water-Cooling Lake Water Ingewion 0.1 mrern/yr/ unit <0.1 mrem /yr/ uni.
| |
| Nearest Fish at Cooling Lake Fish Ingestion 1.2 mremfyr/ unit 0.7 mremfyr/ unit ut Irrigated Foods Vegetation, Milk, and Meat (Adult) <0.1 mrera./yr/ unit <0.1 mremfyr/ unit a
| |
| N to Totals 1.4 mrem /yr/ unit I.0 mrem /yr/ unit Noble Cases in Gaseous Emments*
| |
| Total Body Skin Gamma Air thee Beta Air Dose Nearest" site boundwy (1.2 mi_ S)* 4.3 mrem /yr/ unit 6.8 mrem'yr/ unit 6.4 mradly: soit 2.6 mrad /yr/ unit (a) " Nearest" refers to the location at which the highest radiation dose to an individual from all applicable pathways has been estimated.
| |
| (b) " Nearest" refers to that site boundary locats.n at which 6e highest radiation doses due to gaseous ef%ents have been estimated to e-:ctv.
| |
| *The values are illustrative only.
| |
| Note- These values will be convertal to appropnate SI units in the final version of the ESRP.
| |
| n
| |
| ~
| |
| e e O O
| |
| | |
| - -- - - _ ~ . - . - . ~ . . . - _ . . . - -.-. -- . . - - . - .
| |
| p e
| |
| ?
| |
| I
| |
| ~'
| |
| (
| |
| L
| |
| .i
| |
| ^
| |
| [ ,
| |
| ': Table SM.2 5. Summary of Hydrologic Transport and Dilution of Liquid Releases
| |
| * Transit Time Dilation - '
| |
| Location. (Hours) Factor .
| |
| ' ~
| |
| Nearest municipal water intake- 10' . .- 160' '
| |
| (Lincoln,' Any State) - -
| |
| Nearest shoreline (plant outfall) 0,1
| |
| * l' (a) See Regulatory Guide 1.112," Analytical Models for -
| |
| L Estimating Radioisotope Concentrations in Different Water
| |
| = Bodies,".May 1977. 3 '
| |
| i **fhe values are illustrative only.
| |
| il
| |
| 'e h
| |
| t i.
| |
| J -.
| |
| s
| |
| .: f ..
| |
| 1 August 1997 : ~ 5,4.2-13
| |
| ; NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| If ,
| |
| s
| |
| : q. --
| |
| .<L,- -. . .---___,...4.- .,_m , --, _ _ _ - . , , , . . _ ~ .
| |
| 1.~.mJ.~.-...,+ ,
| |
| | |
| l NURE31555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION !
| |
| O,, _ [,,,,,% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD '
| |
| fg***** - REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.4.3 IMPACTS TO MAN REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch
| |
| . Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's preparation and presentation of a summary analysis and evaluation of the radiological impacts on individuals due to radioactive effluents released from the plant in the course of normal operation, g The scope of the revirw diruted by this plan shorH include (1) a comparison of the maximan
| |
| (' individual doses estimated by the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.2 with the design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I,(2) a comparison of the maximum individual doses for all pathways (including direct radiation) estimated by the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.2 with the requirements in 40 CFR 190, and (3) an evaluation of the collective dose for the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.3.2. Obtain water use information to support the analysis of dose to man from waterborne sources.
| |
| * ESRP 5.4.2. Obtain the estimated individual and collective doses.
| |
| . ESRP 5.4.4. Provide informatir a on the maximum site specific doses to man.
| |
| Aug:st 1997 5.4.31 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEK PLAN d* " *'
| |
| n '"*3ffi r #2* "ti 4'e"*/i: 7l3"d 'n'e'"pt."%:""12*e'nts p at"le":On*ileTre*g" u'."es ,e,s .,
| |
| 8Pc'o's#Jef,"l:'JNAe17
| |
| !jL
| |
| \ If=
| |
| g Pent.f22fld's p"re,Po,Ta"udWetto,'4?/J""b'"
| |
| hghem la not reged. The environmental standardNv i p:ene are keyed to Prepara Publi or re ow piens will be revised pe,todiceNy, as appropriate, to accommodate commente d to 8:=l"a"as?t,*21'e7lcTireae%'",,N::Cd.*o"d c *s"nt'"""'''"'" ""d"'"**'''"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 7.1. Provide the dose consequences and health effects ~c'a.ted with normal operational releases. ,
| |
| i
| |
| + ESRP 10.4.2. Provide a summary of the maximum individual and collective dose estimates.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The following o . a and information should usually be obtained:
| |
| * radiation dose data (from ESRP 5.4.2), including
| |
| . maximum individual doses from liquid efDuents maximum individual doses from gaseous ef0uents
| |
| . maximum individual doses from direct radiation sources
| |
| . collective doses 16 4hc population within 80 km (50 mi) of tha plant
| |
| - occupational collective doses.
| |
| * natural radiation doses that are generally applicable to the site (from NCRP [1987]).
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for determining the radiological impacts to individuals from releases during routine operations including anticipated operational occurrences of the reactor are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, with respect to radiological impacts to individuals from the radiological efiluent releases from reactors
| |
| * 10 CFR 20.1301 with respect to the guidelines for radiological efnuent releases from reactors.
| |
| Note: In accordance with the statement of considerations for 10 CFR 20 (FR 23360), demonstration of complisnce with the limits of 40 CFR 190 is considered to be in compliance with the 0.1 rem limit (10 CFR 20.130l).
| |
| * 40 CFR 190 with respect to the requirements that relate to 10 CFR 20.1301(d).
| |
| Regulatory guides and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identined above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 1.109 with respect to determining doses to the public from reactor efnuents
| |
| * NUREG.0543 with respect to comparing doses to 40 CFR 190 requirements.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.32 August 1997
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ?
| |
| o (v) Tachalcal Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's raditiegical impacts on Individuals resulting from potential effluent releases from the plant is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| De basis for determining whether an applicant's radioactive waste management system meets the design criteria in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1, consists of analyzing the dose to the public from the reluses from the teactor. His evaluation is based on determining the annual maximum individual dose to a member of the public in the vicinity of the reactor and comparing it against the Appendix I ,
| |
| design criteria. In addition, the individual doses from direct radiation sources are added to the doses from emuent releases for all units at the site and are compared with the 40 CFR 190 limits. These doses, along with the estimated annual releases from the reactor are compared against the design criteria. De determination of exposure psthways from ESRP 5.4.1 and doses from ESRP 5.4.2 provide input to this evaluation.
| |
| -111. REVIEW PROCEDQ&ES .
| |
| The reviewer's analysis of radiological impacts to individuals should be based on the dose estimates preps. red by the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.2 that have been evaluated by the reviewer for ESRP 3.5 and determined to be within the design objective guidelines of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1. The reviewer should complete the following steps when analyzing radiological impacts.
| |
| (1) Prepare a table that compares these doses, on a per unit (individual reactor) basis, with the Appendix 1 design objectives, using the format shown in Table 5.4.3 1.
| |
| (2) Detennine the 30-km (50 mi) collective iotal body doses per reactor unit for liquid emuents, noble
| |
| - gas emuents, and radiciodines and particulates, and compare these doses to the natural radiation i,ackground for'this population.
| |
| (3) include an estimate of the collective occupational dose using the format of Table 5.4.3 2.
| |
| (4) Consult with the reviewers for. TPs 3.5 and 5.4.2 to verify the accuracy and completeness of the summary table based on Talle 5.4J l.
| |
| - (5) Verify the availability and accuracy of the following data that should be included as input to the ,
| |
| environmental impact statement (EIS):
| |
| + the maximum individual doses and the collective doses to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant, based on individual reactor releases l'
| |
| * the individual and collective doses due to tetal natural background radiation to the population within 80 km (50 mi)of the plant AJ .
| |
| August 1997 5.4.33 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) e Mqm..-r - M-^- yt e. -y -A--Tc v--r
| |
| | |
| e the estimated occupational collective dose.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS I A t -tement similar to the following should be used in the EIS:
| |
| )
| |
| 'ihe radiological impact to man associated with normal operation of the plant, includir.g anticipated operational occurrences, will depend on the manner in which the radioactive-waste management system is operated. Ilased on the staffs evaluation of the anticipated performance of this system, it is concludu! that the system as proposed is capable of meeting the dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1. Table 5.43 1 compares the calculated maximum individual doses, based on radiological efnuera source terms that reDect the anticipated system performance, with these design objectives. In accordance with 10 CFR 20.130l(d), licensees must meet the provisions of 40 CFR 190. This standard specifies that reactor operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that the annual dose equivalent does at exceed 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body,0.75 mSv (75 mrem) ia the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other organ of any member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted, to the gencial environment from uranium fuel cycle operations, and to radiation from these operations. Table 5.43 2 compares the doses from all pathways including direct radiation from n!! units at the site to the 40 CFR 190 limits. The staff has also concluded that the collective doses of
| |
| * person sievert /yr (_, person rem /yr) to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant,(Table 5.43 3), including the annual estimated collective occupational dose, are not significant when compared with the annual collective natural radiation background doses of
| |
| * person sievert /yr ( person rem /yr) to the 80 km (50-mi) population.
| |
| The stafTalso evaluated the potential health effects associated with these collective doses. The results are in Table 5.43 4. As a result, the staff has concluded that there will be no obsen able health impact to man from normal operation of the plant.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION
| |
| 'Ihe method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of confonnance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in w hich the noplicant proposes an acceptable ,
| |
| alternative lor complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 20.1301," Dose limits for individual member: of the public."
| |
| (a) The reviewer should insert values appropriate to the environmental review.
| |
| (b) The reviewer should insert values appropriate to the environmental review.
| |
| NUREG 1$55 (DRAFT) 5.4 3 4 Augur 1997
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| ( i
| |
| ( ) 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1," Numerical Guldes for Design Ob,lectives and Limiting conditions for
| |
| \2 Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in ;
| |
| Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Efiluents." l i
| |
| 40 CFR 190," Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."
| |
| l Regulatory Guide l.109, Rev. l. I976. Calculation ofAnnualDoses to Alanfrom Routing Releases of Reactor Efluentsfor the Purpose ofEvaluating Compliance with CFR $0, Appendix L Baker. D. A. I996. Dose Commitments Due to Radioactive Releasesfrom Nuclear Power Plant Sites.
| |
| NURE0/CR 2851, Supp.1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
| |
| National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Biological Effects oflonizing Radiation (BEIR).
| |
| I990. Health Ffects ofExposure to Low Levels of lonazing Radia:lon. BElR National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
| |
| National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).1987. Exposure of the Population in the UnitedStates and Canadafrom Natural Background Radiation. NCRP Rcport No. 94, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1980. Afethodsfor Demonstrating LH'R Compilance with Q
| |
| G the EPA. Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part i9). NUREG 0543, Washington. D.C.
| |
| August 1997 5.4.35 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| Table 5.4.31. Comparisons of Annual Airborne and Liquid Releases and Associated Doses Appendis ! R M 50-2 Radionuclide Current NRC Dnign Objectives Design Objectives Releases / Dose Assessraent (per unit) (per site)
| |
| Gas Noble gas releases 0.2 mGy (20 mrad)p;"> 0.2 mGy (20 mrad)p;">
| |
| 0.1 rnGy (10 rnrad)y 0.1 rnGy (10 mrad)y lodine 131 rEcases J'' 37 Gbq")(1 Cl)
| |
| Total body dose''' O.05 mSv (5 mrem) 0.05 mSv (5 mrem)
| |
| Organ dose''' O.15 mSv(15 mrem) 0.15 mSv (15 mrem)
| |
| Liquid Tritium releases *) *)
| |
| *> 185 GBq")(10 Cl)
| |
| Other radionuclide releases Total body dose'd) 0.03 mSv (3 mrem) 0.05 mSv (5 mrem) 5 Maximum organ dose ' O.01 rnSv (10 mrem) 0.05 mSv ($ rnrem)
| |
| (a) Air dose calculated at site boundary or at the point of maximum dose.
| |
| (b) Not applicable (c) Objectives for release quantitles are expressed on a per unit basis.
| |
| (d) Maximally exposed individual Table 5.4.3. 2. Comparison of Doses to 40 CFR 190'')
| |
| NRC Dose 40 CFR 190 Dose Assessment Requirements Annual whole body dose equivalent *) mSv (mrern) 0.25 mSv (25 mrem)
| |
| Thyroid dose mSv (mrem) 0.75 mSv (75 mrem)
| |
| Dose to another organ mSv (mrem) 0.25 mSv (25 mrem)
| |
| (a) Doses are for all units at a site.
| |
| (b) This dose assessment includes all pathways for all effluents and direct radiation sources for all units at the site.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.36 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| f p !
| |
| Table 5.4.3 3. Estimated Collective Total Body Dose Within 80 km (50 mi)(4 i Natural Radiation Background
| |
| * person Sv(person rem)
| |
| Liquid Emuents person Sv(person rem) l Noble Ons Emuents person Sv(person rem)
| |
| Radiolodines and Particulates person Sv(person-rem)
| |
| (a) Doses are per reactor unit.
| |
| (b) The reviewer will use the population for a date 5 years from the time of the action under consideration.
| |
| Table 5.4.3-4. Potential Fatal Cancers and Severe flereditary Effects in Selected Population Groups '
| |
| from One Year of Operation for Units
| |
| * l Estimated Estimated >
| |
| Fatal Severe 5" ?Lnosed Population Colleedve Doses CaseersW Hereditary EmetsN 7 to
| |
| * CMcupational Workforce person Sv
| |
| ,O (person rem)
| |
| Offsite Population person Sv (person rem)
| |
| (a) Estimated fatal caneers are determined from Table 4 2 of the National Academy of Science's Committee on the Biological Effects oflonizing Radiation (BEIR).
| |
| (b) Estimated severe hereditary effects are determined from Table 21, BIER 1990.
| |
| r August 1997 5.4.37 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| NUREG 1555 !
| |
| m U [...,%. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.4.4 IMPACTS TO DIOTA OTHER TIIAN MAN REVIEW RESPONSil31LITIES Primary-Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW nls environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's review and analysis to determine if there is any potential for significant radiolog} cal impacts to biota other than tuan and, if so, to estimate the nature and magnitude of the impact.
| |
| (g v
| |
| j The scope of the review directed by this plan should include an analysis of radiation exposure pathways to blots other than man to determine if any such pathways could be predicted to result in estimated doses greater than those predicted for man. 'I'ie blota to be considered in this evaluation should include those in the pathways identined in ESRP 5.4.1, those appearing on the endangered / threatened species lists, and others of signi0cance. When such pathways are found, the reviewer should determine the resultant estimated doses and compare them with the dose limitations of 40 CFR 190 as referenced in 10 CFR 20.1301(d). Dose criteria in 40 CFR 190 apply to individual members of the public rather than to biota; however, in this ritview, it is assumed that in the absence of regulatory dose criteria for blota the dose limitations to man would apply.
| |
| Egyjny, Interfaces He reviewer should provide input to or obtain input from the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 212. Obtain water-use information to support the analysis ofimpacts to aquatic biota.
| |
| August 199"1 S.4.41 N1'REO.lS$5 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN n f" " ",
| |
| id,'32'4,?.5.t"J.*;:&as:f4".,'.'*g.a"*r'd1'E'm*.'M*A"a.""*a ". T !'J % u'."..
| |
| E. =w jv> ggii,,g,.xse,g,~.rm.g, v . in .o*.om.m.i r wm.::n.m,.
| |
| 4 A g.o.s.:v.w. .w,,,,.',*.C --u., m, om.ni.
| |
| movi
| |
| = yg,7,, ga g g ,9 -...i,...e e c.s... v .,,ia... ..-oon.. - m..ooi.
| |
| 1:l"2".'diW tici.' nti.?R.*e"n"o'*vi.T,$3de drifal* """* '" "* ""*'*" "**'"'
| |
| | |
| e ESRP 2.4. In consultation with the reviewer of ESRP 2.4, determine other significant blota that should be evaluated, e ESRP 5.4.1. Obtain information on the site-specific pathways for radiation exposure to blota other than man.
| |
| * ESRP 5 4.2. Obtain atmospheric dispersion, hydrological transport and dilution, and dose data for the evaluation of potential radiological impacts to blota other than man.
| |
| . ESRP 5.0. Obtain information on the maximum site specific doses to rnan.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The following data and information should usually be obtained:
| |
| e a list of the blota to be considered in this evaluation, including those identified in ESRP 5.4.1, those appearing on the endangered / threatened species lists, and others identified in consultation with the reviewer of ESRP 2.4 e site-specific pathways for radiation exposure (from the reviewer of ESRP $.4.1) e maximum individual doses to man (from the reviewer of ESRP 5.4J).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of the potential for significant radiological impacts to blota other than man are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| e 40 CFR 190 with respect to radiation dose criteria to members of the public.
| |
| Technical Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential impacts to blota other than man is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| Evaluation of the potential for significant radiological impact to biota requires the consideration of the exposure pathways to blota and the determination if any of these pathways could be expected to result in doses signiF.cantly greater than those given in the acceptance criteria above. The regulations in 40 CFR 190 apply specifically to members of the public or other persons in unrestricted areas. 'these guidelines are, however, applied in this section to blota other than man.
| |
| Depending on the pathway and the radiation source, terrestrial and aquatic biota will receive doses about the same or somewhat higher than man receives. Although guidelines have not been NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.4 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ( j established for acceptance limits for radiatio: exposure to species other than man, it is generally V agreed that the limits established for humans are also conservative for other species.
| |
| Experience has shown that it is the maintenance of population stability that is crucial to the survival of a species, and species in most ecosystems suffer rather high mortality rates from natural causes.
| |
| De fate ofindividual organisms is generally not the major concern; rather, the response and maintenance of the endemic population is a major concern (NCRP 1991). Although the existence of extremely radiosensitive biota is possible, and whereas increased radiosensitivity in organisms may result from environmental interactions with other stresses (e.g., heat, biocides), no biota have yet been discovered that show a significantly increased sensitivity (in terms ofincreased morbidity or mortality) to radiation exposure at the predicted levels.
| |
| Furthermore, at all the nuclear powr plants for which an analysis of radiation exposure to biota other than rnan has been made, there have been no cases of exposures that can be considered significant in terms of harm to the species or that approach the exposure limits of 10 CFR 20 to members of the public (AEC 1975). The DEIR Report (DEIR 1972) concludes that the evidence indicates that no other living organisms have been identified that are likely to be significantly more ,
| |
| radiosensitive than man. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992) concludes that there is no convincing evidence from scientific literature that chronic radiation dose rates below I mOy/ day (100 mrad / day) will harm animal or plant populations. Limiting exposure in humans to i mSv/yr (100 mrem / day) will lead to dose rates to plants and animals la the same area ofless than I mOy/ day (less than 100 mrad / day).1he National Council on Radiation Protection and O) y Measurements (NCRP) also concludes that the 1977 ICRP statement "if man is adequately protected then other living things are also likely to be suf0clently protected"(NCRP 1991)is appropriate, ,
| |
| Table B 1 of Appendix 0 to Subpart A of 10 CFR 51 (61 FR 28493) in the license renewal rule, indicates that radiation doses to the public are expected to continue at current levels associated with normal operations during the license renewal term. This issue was rated as Category 1, with a "small" impact. Thus it would not be anticipated that radiological exposure of biota at levels that would impact the species would occur as a result oflicense renewal.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer should use the following analysis procedure:
| |
| (1) Identify the exposure pathways for the biota not considered in the review in ESRP 5.4.1.
| |
| k (a) Consider the exposure pathways to biota other than man and determine if any of these pathways could be expected to result in estimated doses significantly greater than those evaluated by the reviewer for ESRP 5.4.3.
| |
| (b) If no such pathways can be identified, end the review and proceed to the " Evaluation Findings"
| |
| -m of this ESRP,
| |
| (
| |
| August 1997 5.4.43 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| (2) If exposure pathways for biota other than man are identified for which significantly greater (1 m Gy/ day)(100 rad / day) doses could be predicted, consult with the appropriate reviewers for ESRP 2.4 to determine how the biota at these locations could be affected, and calculate doses to these blota, using models and procedures described in Volume 2, Analyt/ca/ Models and Calculations, of the DEIR (1972) report.
| |
| . if the doses are of approximately the same order of magnitude or less than the dose criteria in 40 CFR 190, no further review is necessary.
| |
| * If significantly higher doses can be predicted, determine if these doses can be expected to affect species population stability. Make this determination through the review of appropriate literature, if available, and through consultation with authorities in the field of radiological effects to biota.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS When the reviewer has determined that there will be no radiological inapact of any significance on blota other than man, a statement similar to the following should be used in the EIS:
| |
| The stafT has reviewed the available information relative to the radiological impact on blota other than man. The staff concludes that no measurable radiological impact on populations of blota is expected from the radiation and radioactive material released to the biosphere as a result of the routine operation of the nuclear plant.
| |
| When the reviewer detennines that there will be a significant impact on blots other than man that will affect the population stability, an input to the EIS should be prepared that describes (1) the doses and the biota affected. (2) the reviewer's analysis that identified the potential impact and the calculated doses, and (3) the staff assessment of alternatives that would mitigate or avoid the impact.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases i. which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 20," Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
| |
| 10 CFR 20.1301. " Dose limits for individual members of the public."
| |
| 10 CFR 51 Appendix D," Environmental efTect of renewing the operating license of a nuctear power plant."
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 5.4.44 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . . . . . _ . . - _ . - _ _ ~_ ..- -.- . . - . _ . -
| |
| i
| |
| )
| |
| ~
| |
| 40 CFR 190," Environmental standards."
| |
| Blaylock, B. O., and J. P. Witherspoon.1976. " Radiation Doses and Effects Estimated for Aquatic [
| |
| Biota Exposed to Radioactive Releases from LWR Fuel Cycle Facilities,"Nucl. Sq/ety, Vol.17, p. 351. l International Atomic Energy Agency (I AEA).1992. Efects oflontring Radiation on Plants and !
| |
| Animals at levels Impiled by Current Radiation protection Standards. Technical Reports Series l No.332. Vienna, Austria. !
| |
| National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Biological Effects oflonizing Radiation (BEIR).- l 1972. The Efects on Populations ofExposure to Low Levels oflonizing Radiation. BElR, National !
| |
| = Research Council, Washington, D.C. .
| |
| National Council'on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).1991. Efects oflont:Ing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No.109, Bethesda, Maryland. f U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).1975. " Final Environmental Statement, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As Practicable' for Radioactive Material In Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Emuents," WASH 1258, !
| |
| USAEC, July 1975, i 4
| |
| I i
| |
| ;-f August 1997 SAA 5 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| , ,-~ ,,_ _..._.~_m.u.. . . . . . . . . . . , . - . . . _ _ _ _ . - . -4 . . - . . . . - _ . _ . . .
| |
| | |
| NURE31555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| () [,,,,h ENVIRONMENTAL STALDARD
| |
| (,*****)REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WASTE REVIEW RESPONSih1LITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describt.: the environmental impacts of waste from station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted unoer ESRPs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2.
| |
| A P2 view Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Mansr-re.
| |
| l
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The revicwer shoult e tsure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| l August 1997 5.5 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '''*-"*"'d
| |
| ""2:23" t:.v 'rd, ,!.".0 "
| |
| i*Toah:,2'4 ea,,, "g:"'"pA.,a"a P4_7 :: 0, 1.":"ai.T'**3*" ".. ,,., a 7..,*g/,,:'.'"a.22L*.d,,::. y.
| |
| (-)
| |
| . . a.
| |
| l g g w,a,, :. j.,< . ,
| |
| . w ,.a.w - .s,. .. .. .. ..-a . ai. .no i.
| |
| 8-""'%.Js#2ro'v, .e"J' .',N.md d ei stis" a"""* *" ""*" "*'"'""'
| |
| N'' o * 'T
| |
| | |
| l Regulatory positions .od specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * %ere are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| Technical Rationale j
| |
| %e technical rationale for application of this criterion is as follows:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS edd clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES He material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS ne reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare at ivast one introductory paragraph for the EIS. He paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V, IMP' EMENTATIDE The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.5 2 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| NUREC 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR AEGULATORY COMMISSION C) / *s ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.5.1 NONRADIOACTIVE WAS7E-SYSTEM IMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Pro,lects Branch Secondary-None I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard rsview plan (ESRP) directs the staff's assessment ofimpacts resulting from the discharge of nonradioactive emuents to the biosphere and to direct the staff's preparation of a summary of these impacts, m The scope of the review directed by this plan should include (1) identification of plant systems having nonradioactive emuent discharges,(2) summarization of the impacts of these systems that have been identified and assessed by other ESRP Chapter 5.0 reviewers, and (3) identification and assessment of nonradioactive waste system impacts not treated by other reviewers of ESRP Chapter 5.0.
| |
| The review should provide sumcient detail of nonradioactive wastes to assess and predict potential nonradioactive warte system impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provih input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, a9 indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. Obtain information on the site hydrology and water use for factoring into the analysis of wr.ste emuents.
| |
| . ESRP 3.6. Obtain information on the chemical, biocide, sanitary, and other waste systems identified in ESRP 3 (,
| |
| August 1997 5.5.11 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN m " ' "AI" n f
| |
| ...h.
| |
| m $,'In"OE,OdM:".6'."w.*t:'lE e r : r. u . n : c m ,;I.'ce,d...n..n
| |
| 'Ew'.I*pd.*."YhdE"I.euY*.*nt.
| |
| :: w w : ta- .D*d*74.
| |
| (x J ag,w,t =g,p..,. m .-,_..re...
| |
| yt
| |
| . o....
| |
| m t.rm.. .p.. 5 ,.
| |
| ,wmramunu ~ ~~ ~~ ~~. ~~ -- - ~~ ~ ~
| |
| d d 8:L"".'fiWet'atta! '# AT0f#a"@.ON!."3!si .'i? c'Yo"ni.* """* ** ""*'"' "**""
| |
| * ESRPs 512 and 5.311. Obtain dilution factors and provide infonnation on the impacts of nonradioactive emuent streams to the reviewer for ESRP $.2.2.
| |
| * ESRP 5.3.2.2. Obtain information on chemicals dis:harged from the cooling system and their associated impacts.
| |
| ESRP 5.8.1. Provide infonaation about the emuent discharges that may impact the analysis of the physical factors affecting socioeconomics.
| |
| * ESRP 3.10. Provide a list of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts that are considered appropriate.
| |
| . ESRPs 6.4. 6.5.1. and 6.5.2. Provide a discussion of any requirements for preoperational monitoring programs that will be needed to establish baselines for evaluating operational nonradioactive waste
| |
| ; system impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 6.6. Provide a characterization of the nonradioactive emuent streams that may require a chemicat inonitoring program, e ESRP 10.1. Provide a summary of the unavoldable adverse environmental impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of nonradioactive waste system operation.
| |
| . ESRP 10.2. Provide a summary ofirreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that are predicted to occur as a result of nonradioactive waste system operation.
| |
| * Interface with Environmental Project Mannger. Notify the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) of any adverse impacts identined from this review that are likely to require mitigation, and consult with the EPM on the practicality and benent cost balance of modl0 cations and measures or alternative designs to minimize impacts.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors and the degree of detail should be modi 0ed according to the anticipated magnitude of potential impact. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| descriptions of nonradioactive waste systems, including quantitles, composition, and frequency of waste discharges to water, land, and air (from ESRP 3.6)
| |
| . for discharges to water, waste concentrations at the point of discharge, predicted dilution in the receiving water body, and estimates of concentrations at various distances from the discharge point (from the environmental report [ER) and from the ESRPs 3.6 and 5.3.2)
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) $.S.12 August 1997
| |
| | |
| o e ambient concentrations in the receiving water body of the chemicals and other materials contained in the waste discharges (from ESRPs 2.3.3 and 3.6) e receiving water body water quality criteria for domestic, industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses (from ESRP 2.3.3 and consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies)
| |
| * water use for the receiving water bodies (from ESRP 2.3.2)
| |
| + aquatic ecology for the receiving water bodies (from ESRP 2.4.2)
| |
| + for discharges to land (other than at licensed commercial waste disposal sites), size and location of disposal sites, quantity and composition of wastes, and method of disposal (e.g., burial, combustion, evaporation)(from the ER) e terrestrial ecology at disposal sites other than licensed commercial sites (from ESRP 2.4.1) e disposal site (other than licensed commercial sites) soils data, and potential for transport of wastes to ground and surface waters (from the ER) e plans for ultimate treatment and/or restoration of retired disposal sites (other than licensed commercial sites)(from the ER)
| |
| + applicable Federal and State criteria or standards for solid waste disposal to land areas and for air quality (from the ER and consultation with Federal and State agencies) e other site specific waste disposal activities (e.g., spoils from intermittent dredging activities)(from the ER)
| |
| + applicant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and water quality certification or their status if not issued (from ESRP 1.2).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the evah'ation of nonradioactive waste impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to quantification of impacts and analysis of compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements
| |
| * 40 CFR 133 with respect to treatment of wastewater and sewage
| |
| +
| |
| 40 CFR 423 with respect to ellluent limiinion guidelines on chemical and biocide discharges.
| |
| \
| |
| (V August 1997 5.5.13 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) l _
| |
| | |
| Numerous public laws have a bearing on the handling and disposal of nonradioactive wastes. The most relevant of these include the following:
| |
| * Resource Conservr. tion and Recovery Act of 1976, with respect to Federal and State standards and regulations for disposal of solid wastes (Solid Waste Disposal Act implementation, RCRA, most recently amended 1992)
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958
| |
| +
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972 (as amended and now commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act)
| |
| * Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (most recently amended 1994)
| |
| * Sndangered Species Act of 1973 (amended 1988)
| |
| * Clean Air Amendments of 1970 and 1977 (most recently amended 1995)
| |
| * Memorandum of Understanding Iletween NRC and the Army Corps of Engineers, August 25,1975
| |
| + Applicable Memoranda of Understanding Detween State Governments and NRC.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, with respect to waste discharges and monitoring programs.
| |
| Technical Rationale lhe technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's description of potential environmental impacts of waste is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| A multitude of laws govern the treatment, discharge, or disposal ofliquid and solid wastes and limit efiluent levels into streams and other environments. The impacts of waste handling and disposal require evaluation to ascertain wheth-e they will be within acceptable release limits and whether they could be responsible for unacceptable environrnental impacts, if the evaluation of the waste streams suggests that levels would be unacceptable, alternative treatment or disposal methods should be identified.
| |
| For liquid discharged, the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations (40 CFR 100 and 40 CFR 400-501) d : legate authority for the implementation of the NPDES, a required permit for plant operation, to the States, in States that have not accepted responsibility for the NPDES, consultations with EPA are required. These consultations with the State or EPA are a necessary part of the pennitting process to NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.5.1 4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| t
| |
| -3 f\ detennine criteria th.,t must be met for issuance of this permit Generally, a valid NPDES pennit will meet the documentation requirements for ESRP reviews regarding discharges to the waters of the United States.
| |
| The Clean Air Act regulations (40 CFR 50 99) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) regula-tions (40 CFR 240 281) are both similar to the CWA in format with the delegation of authority to the States and EPA as the default regulator. Generally, whatever the permit, if the Federal or State regulations have been met regardina discharges to the environment from the plant systems, then the documentation requirements of the ESRP will also be ful0!!ed.
| |
| Disposal of nonradioactive solid waste is governed by RCRA to ensure proper handling and final disposal. NPDES and mandated waste minimization programs further reduce quantities and ensure regulatory compliance.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer's analysis shouid be closely linked with the nonradioactive waste system descriptions provided by the reviewers of ESRP 3.6 and with the environmental descriptions provided by the reviewers of ESRP Chapter 2.0 to establish the nonradioactive waste treatment system characteristics and efuuents that are most likely to result in adverse environmental impacts. The reviewer should consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 5.1.1,5.2.2, and 5.3.2.2 as an initial step in establishing the scope of this analysis.
| |
| As a general rule, impacts affecting land use, water use, and aquatic blota will be covered by the reviewers for ESRPs 5.1.1,5.2.2, and 5.3.2.2. This review should address impacts on terrestrial blota, air quality impacts, water use impacts not covered by the reviewer for ESRP 5.2.2 (e.g., sanitary-waste.
| |
| system ef0uents), and any other nonradioactive waste system impacts identified in the consultation with the reviewers for ESRPs 5,1,1,5.2.2, and 5.3.2.2 but not addressed by these reviewers.
| |
| No speeluc analysis instructions are provided for this review; the reviewer should follow the analysis procedures outlined in ESRPs 5.1.1,5.2.2. and 5.3.2.2, depending on the nature of the impacts that could be expected. The reviewer should follow the general analysis procedure of ESRP 4.3.1 to analyze and evaluate impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. For land disposal of nonradioactive wastes, the reviewer should consider the potential for short and long tenn damage to terrestrial ecosystems, especially for movement of toxic chemical materials to groundwater, root uptake, and transfer to shoots and into food chains from both dry and liquid waste disposal to the ground. The reviewer should detennine the nature and quantities of wastes to be disposed of by licensed waste-disposal contractors but will not assess the impacts of such disposals. The reviewer should prepare a list of all nonradioactive emuents (liquid, solid, and gaseous and should assess the impacts of those dicharges not considered by other ESRP Chapter 5.0 reviewers. The viewer may use the assessmento prepared by other reviewers or by other Federal or State agencies what these are available. With these guidelines in mind, the reviewer should complete the following steps:
| |
| V August 1997 5.5.15 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| I (1) Ensure that all potential impacts resulting from operation of nonradioactive waste systems have been addressed in this review or by other ESRP Chapter 5.0 reviewers.
| |
| (2) Ensure that the extent of compliance with Federal and State ef0uent rad receiving water standards (e g., the Clean Water Act) has been assessed.
| |
| (3) Follow the evaluation procedures of ESRPs 43.1,5.1.1,5.2.2, and 5.3.2.2 to evaluate the identined impacts. For terrestrial ecosystems, potential impacts that could require mitigation or avoidance include the following:
| |
| * disposal sites that preempt habitat critical to the sunival of threatened or endangered species or preempt more than a few percent of"important" species' habitat on a regional basis
| |
| + disposal sites or discharge practices that permit toxic materials to contaminate ground or surface water or to be suspended e.nd dispersed through the air.
| |
| (4) Evaluate the impact to determine whether v.aste minimintion and/or pollution prevention have been considered and hnw their implementation could change the effect of the impact.
| |
| IV. EVAf_UATION FINDINGS Input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should describe in general terms the chemical and physical properties of wastes discharged from the nonradiological waste systems. Only significant discharges (in terms of quantity or toxicity) need be described. Adverse impacts to ecosystems or to land and water use resulting from nonradioactive waste system operation should be described and quantified, along with a brief description of mitigating measures when meast.res and controls to limit adverse impacts have been identiGed. Adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated should be identined, and they should be referenced if alternatives to avoid these impacts have been identified.
| |
| Evaluation of each identined impact should result in one of the following determinations:
| |
| * The impact is minor and mitigation is not needed. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement in the environmental impact statement of the following type:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information on the operation of the nonradioactive waste system. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts.
| |
| * The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by specific design or procedure modifications that the reviewer has identifiedand determined to bepractical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the EPM for verification that modi 0 cations are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benent cost balance. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and measures and NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.5.16 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| l \
| |
| C/ controls to limit the correspnding impact. Mitigation mea.sures should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP $.10. A statement similar to the fo!!owing should be included in the EiS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the infonnation on the operation of the nonradioactive waste system.
| |
| 11ased on this review, the staff concludes that the following impacts require mitigation.
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be .
| |
| avolded. When impacts of this nature are identined, the reviewer should inform the EPM that an andysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is needed. *lhe reviewer should panicipate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternatives can be identined, the reviewer should provide this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1. A statement similar to the following should be included in the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the information on the operation of the nonradioactive waste system.
| |
| 11ased on this review, the staff concludes that the following impact (s) cannot be mitigated and should be avoided. Alternatives should be considered.
| |
| V. IMPITMENTA*nO" The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the fm}
| |
| L Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specined ponions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR $1.71," Draft environmental impact statement--contents "
| |
| 40 CFR $0 99 (the Clean Air Act regulations).
| |
| 40 CFR 100 and 400 501 (the Clean Water Act regulations).
| |
| 40 CFR 133," Secondary Treatment Regulations."
| |
| 40 CFR 240 281 (the Solid Waste Disposal Act, RCRA).
| |
| 40 CFR 423 " Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, as amended,41 USC 7401 et seq.
| |
| []
| |
| L_j Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| August 1997 S.5.l 7 NUREG-155$ (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean Water Act).
| |
| i Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| Mnine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended,33 USC 1401 et seq.
| |
| Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants," 40 Fedcra/ Rcghtcr 37110 (1975).
| |
| Resource Conservation and Recovery, as amended,42 USC 6901 et seq.
| |
| Second Memorandum of Understanding and Policy Statement Regarding implementation of Certain NRC and EPA Responsibilitics,40 Federal Reghtcr 60115 (1975).
| |
| O
| |
| $.5.1 8 August 1997 O
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 m
| |
| U /',,,) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI
| |
| ''s )*****
| |
| REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.5.2 MIXED WASTE IMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's assessment ofimpacts resulting from the storage or disposal of mixed radioactive wastes and to direct the staff's preparation of a summary of these impacts. Mixed waste contains both hazardous waste and radioactive source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 (42 USC 201 i et seq.).
| |
| p 1he scope of the review directed by this plan should include the following:
| |
| . Identification of plant systems producing mixed waste
| |
| . assessment of mixed waste storage plans, capabilities, and resulting impacts
| |
| . assessment of mixed waste disposal plans or capabilities.
| |
| R,eview Interfaces The reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 3.5. Obtain a list of potential sources of mixed waste.
| |
| August 1997 5.5.21 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| *" USNRC ENVIRONMQTAL i% t.RD REVIEW PLAN (O ,'."hl%f."I",,
| |
| %, *4"**'"A'lnta".Tf."*.%%T.'!
| |
| ~) m,z,,,2.e*la,, '
| |
| , ,&a. '.",i*""
| |
| ~ .- . W*d **.'l"f#i." 'T. .a d,d '" '.7,f.shu;c;foff"*.*
| |
| 17
| |
| , ? ..
| |
| .,.',.73.,.a"""
| |
| a .
| |
| ij i.f.3."c''4".#f.Ja.i:':".n'.d.a.
| |
| ,., a n - f:.L'' . a
| |
| ,=n:n,==:,mt,ite ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ . '~~-' "d ~
| |
| o 23*.adet?:t'#o"!4"ntstria.f,N.T,$:d.Td enti!* "* " ** " * ""*'"' """'""'
| |
| | |
| + ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts from the storage of mixed wastes that are to be considered in the licensing process. l Data and Information Needs De following data or information will usually be obtained:
| |
| + descriptions of systems that create mixed wastes, including quantities of waste produced (from the l environmental report [ER], requested from the applicant or from the reviewer for ESRP 3.5) ;
| |
| 1
| |
| + anticipated disposal plans for the mixed wastes (i.e., disposal at a mixed waste disposal facility, shipment to a treatment facility, or storage onsite)(from the ER or requested from the applicant)
| |
| + estimated environmental impacts, including health effects resulting from exposure to the chemical constituents as well as those resulting from radiological exposures that are estimated to be received by workers as a result of mixed waste testing and storage (fror.1 the ER or requested from the applicant)
| |
| + a waste-minimization plan that identifies process changes that can be made to reduce or climinate mixed wastes. His should contain a description of methods to minimire the volume of mixed wastes (from the ER or requested from the applicant).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the analysis and evaluation of the impacts resulting from the production, storage, and disposal of mix 01 waste are based on the following:
| |
| + Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) with respect to mixed waste, which must meet EPA's requirements for hazardous waste in 40 CFRs 261,264, and 265 before final transfer offsite in route to burial. This includes the maintenance of records identifying each physical location or unit where mixed waste is stored and identifying the method of storage (40 CFR 264.73(b) and 265.73(b." An inspection of these storage areas for compliance with applicable RCRA standards for storage methods, including ati assessment of compliance with storage facility standards of 40 CFR 264 or 265 (interim status), should be performed regularly (see 40 CFR 264.15 and 265.15).
| |
| * 10 CFR 20 with respect to the NRC requirements for general radiation protntion and occupational dose limits, and waste disposal requirements.
| |
| Technical Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential mixed waste impacts is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| August 1997 O
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRATT) 5.5.22
| |
| | |
| m
| |
| ( J Mixed waste is generated during routine maintenance activities, refueling outages, health physics V activities, and radiochemical laboratory activities. The vast majority of mixed waste that is stored at nuclest power plants is chlorinated fluorocaibons (CFCs) and waste oil. Other sources include liquid scintillation fluids, c6er types of organic materials, and metals including l cad and chromium and aquec as corrosive (NRC 1996).
| |
| Mixed waste is commonly stored onsite due to the lack of treatment and disposal sites. For this reason, impacts resulting from the chemical hantds and occupational exposures to radioactive material may be somewhat higher than would otherwise be expected. In addition, occupational chemical and radiological exposures may occur during the testing of mixed wastes to determine if the constituents are chemically hazardous.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES Facility owners / operators are required by RCRA regulations to maintain sufficient information to iden- ,
| |
| tify their mixed wr.stes. The information required includes RCRA waste codes for the hazardous com-ponents, the source of the haurdous constituents, a discussion of how the waste was generated, the generation rate and volumes of mixed waste la storage, and any information used to identify mixed wastes or make determinations that the wastes are prohibited by land disposal restrictions. Each owner /
| |
| operator is required (under RCRA regulations) to develop a waste minimintion plan that identifies proc.
| |
| ess changes that can be made to reduce or eliminate mixed wastes, methods to minimize the volume of
| |
| ] regulated wastes through better segregation of materials, and the substitution of nonhazardous materials.
| |
| The reviewer should perform the following steps to assess the applicant's plans or capabilities for mixed-waste disposal:
| |
| (1) Ensure that the waste minimintion plan includes a schedule foi implementation, projections of volume reductions to be achieved, and assumptions that are critical to the accomplishment of projected volume reductions.
| |
| (2) Review the nature and quantities of mixed wastes to be disposed of or that must be stored onsite.
| |
| (3) Assess what, if any, environmental impacts (both radiological and nonradiological) would result from storage of the mixed wastes.
| |
| (4) Compare impacts resulting from occupational dose related to the storage of mixed wastes with the occupational dose limit criteria given in 10 CFR 20.
| |
| (5) Ensure that the applicant has anticipated a method for disposal, treatment, or storage of the mixed wastes.
| |
| (6) Ensure that a mixed waste minimitation plan has been formulated and that it identifies changes that can be made to reduce or eliminate mixed wastes.
| |
| t .
| |
| \ i
| |
| \d August 1997 5.5.23 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| i lV. EVALUATION 1]NDINGS Input from this ESRP review to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should describe in general ter,ns the nature and quantities of mixed waste that will be produced at the plant, and the anticipated methods for disposal, treatment, and storage of the mixed waste. Adverse impacts to ecosystems, offsite populations, or workers from radiological and nonradiological exposures resulting from onsite storage of the mixed waste should be described and quantified, along with a brief description or reference to the staff's analyses that identi0ed the impacts. Mitigating measures may be discussed, and reference should be made to ESRP 5.10 when measures and controls to limit adverse impacts have been assessed.
| |
| Adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated should be identified, and ESRP 9.4 should be referenced if alternatives to avoid these impacts have been identified.
| |
| Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations:
| |
| e The impact is minor and mittgotion is not required. When all impacts ate of this nature, the reviewer should accept the quantities and methods of storage or disposal of the mixed waste, and r statement of the following type should be included in the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information on mixed waste generated at the plant. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts.
| |
| * 1he impact is adverse but can be mitigated by spec $c design or procedure mod $ cations that the reviewer has ident@ed and determined to be practical. In these cases, a statement similat to the following should be included in the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the information on the mixed waste system. Based on this rev,ew, the staff concludes that the following impacts require mitigation.
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be avoided. The reviewer should participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternatives can be identined, the reviewer should provide this information to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| V, IMPIIMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the apjelicant propeses an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) 5.5.24 August 1997
| |
| | |
| i.
| |
| /~}c (G vi. anrzmicas i
| |
| t 10 CFR 20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation."' i I
| |
| . 40 CFR 261," Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste."
| |
| 40 CFR 264," Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal .- ;
| |
| Facilities." - i 40 CFR 26$," Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, ,
| |
| Storage and Disposal Facilities." i Atomic Energy Act of 19$4, as amended,42.USC 2011 et seq.
| |
| ]
| |
| Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended,42 USC 6901 et seq.
| |
| f i
| |
| ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Gener/c EnvironmentalImpact Statementfor }
| |
| Licen.se Arnewat o/ Nuclear r/ ants. NUREG 1437 Vol. I, Washington, D.C.
| |
| l
| |
| . 1
| |
| < l 4
| |
| i iA t .
| |
| p ;
| |
| 'y a i
| |
| i fi}
| |
| t 5
| |
| i
| |
| .N ~
| |
| ' I\'')4 ?
| |
| TAugust 1997
| |
| -5.5.25 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT) l s
| |
| ...t. .._.'
| |
| | |
| NUREO 1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| (") [..\ ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \,*****) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.6 'IRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES
| |
| ' Primary-Generic issues and Environmental I rojects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. ARI'AS OF REVIEW n!s environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the environmental impacts of the transmission during system station operation. The scope of the paragraph covered by this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.6.1 through 5.6.3.
| |
| Rrview Inierfaces None, Data and Inform.tinn Needs De reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| !!. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intei.*. of the following regulation:
| |
| . 10 CFR S t.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5.61 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN f.,t-i. d 'tt.,*,.t*ti:,'m" '""~*,f2."*A:'."L2/nt'M*,..":".E".2,aE.".. , ..
| |
| "."*EE:2'J'4*""'l*
| |
| if** ,
| |
| g;.;gg,5, ,@. h..n. " "*a"$iii? , ,t
| |
| .* W
| |
| *.an nia .iy. "%.n. ;.r,r. e.v.mm.
| |
| er.t..',T"o."i,T:a'-
| |
| Q(.
| |
| 6 oi n environm.ni.i gggspyp .n. ..w p.,w..av. .. , ,,w... . .. w.i. . ne. .no i.
| |
| d EM:n'."&t'? t*u".*Jnt?"R*"'.*J,N.*:Ci + a.T'c d
| |
| ifd!""'"* "* "*'*" "**'"'
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * There are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP, Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's environmental impacts of the transmission system is described in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in nature and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare et least one introductory paragraph for the EiS. Th: paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.6.1 through 5.6.3. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the appilcant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. }lEFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.62 August 1997
| |
| | |
| NURE2-1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| (] '/'"% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD N *****
| |
| REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.6.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the str.ff's identification and evaluation of impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem induced by the operation and maintenance of transmiraion systems.
| |
| He scope of the review directed by this plan should normally consider effects of rights-of way mainte.iance and usually should be limited to an assessment of impacts to "important" terrestrial biota (defined in Table 2.4.1 1) other than man. Impacts associated with the physical presence of the h
| |
| \
| |
| transmission towers and wires are analyzed in ESRP 4.1.3. The review for this ESRP should predict impacts to terrestrial resources and evaluate the significance of such impacts. Where necessary, the reviewer should evaluate alternative practices or procedures to mitigate the predicted impacts. Both nerial and underground t7nsmission systems should be considered in this review.
| |
| Review Interfaces ne reviewer should obtain inputs from and provide input to reviewers of information covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| * ESRP 212. Obtain information cbout the transmission corridors and offsite areas in sufficient detail to determine where impacts to the terrestrial resources from transmission system operation and maintenance could occur.
| |
| ' . ESRP 2.4.1. Obtain information about the terrestrial environment in the vicinity of the transmission corridor in sufficient detail to determine what species, habitats, or ecosystems could be affected by transmission system operation and maintenance.
| |
| August 1997 5.6.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN f.".M?o,''a*2.".1.,0n.tn:&*:t.':,'4*.' '. ~n,:!!;too?.,*/m*.'213."e.". " :::iI.M '*" n o, Eb""",."oi.'72,274*4*p""g,a*."*lt."a*M" .gte.s:yp-
| |
| / -#.
| |
| .,i.a -o V) gg;g.*,; r,g;<f w a
| |
| n- i .i i.a = v.a to er n o'sav+ ream.ai.i gggg.e,o.j, ,gg. -n. ..w a , i .nv . .. um.. .. ...mma . . a.m. .no i.
| |
| 8::::llll".'42.M2* tii"e"3.*,d"An%#.T'c'Waa""""*'"" **'*""**'**
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 3.7. Obtain Information on physical characteristics of the station's power transmission systems and maintenance procedures in sufficient detail to determine impacts to terrestrial biota from the transmission system.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of those measures and controls to limit adverse transmission system impacts that may be considered in the licensing process and a list of applicant commitments to limit these impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 6.5.1. Peovide a discussion of any preoperational monitoring programs that will be needed to establish a baseline for evaluating op:tational and maintenance impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4.3. Provide a list of no. c. ...ansmission system impacts that could be avoided or mitigated through alternative desip,ns or mairunance procedures, and assist in determining appropriate alternctives.
| |
| . ESRP 10.1. Provide a cmmary of the unavoidable biotic impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of transmission system operation and maintenance.
| |
| Data and information Needs The kinds 01, lata and information ner:ded will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the
| |
| ' degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . maintenance practices such as use of chemical herbicides, roadway maintenance, and mechanical clearing that are anticipated to affect terrestrial biota, including sensitive agricultural crops (from the environmental report (ER])
| |
| . speci I maintenance practices used in important habitats (e.g., marshes, natural areas, bogs),
| |
| including those that result in unique beneficial effects on specific terrestrial biota (from the ER and from consultations with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies)
| |
| . wildlife management practices (from the ER and the State wildlife agency) e a summary of consultations with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies regarding potential impacts to terrestrial biota resulting from transmission system operation and maintenance
| |
| . additional infonnation requested in ESRPs 2.4.1 and 3.7 for reviewing impacts on aquatic resources fr.n transmission system operation and maintenance.
| |
| NUREGW5 (DRAFT) 5.6.1-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| il _ -i. 3 1
| |
| .; r : ,
| |
| ?
| |
| 1Ili ACCEP 'ANCE CRUERIA
| |
| - o -
| |
| ,. __ , N .
| |
| Acceptance critoria for the review of im~ pacts on termstrial ecology as a result of transmission system :
| |
| j i
| |
| operation and maintenance are relevant requirements of the fo!!owing: i
| |
| ~
| |
| 3
| |
| . :
| |
| * L 10 CFR 51 A5 with respect to ERs and the' analysis of potential impacts contained therein - l f
| |
| *M 10 CFR 51.75 with respect to analysis ofimpacts to the aquatic environment affected by the issuance - j
| |
| # of a constructbn permit i
| |
| * .10 CFR 52, Subpart A, with respect to analysis ofimpacts to the aquatic environment affected by the -
| |
| 1 losuance of an_early site permit-f 1
| |
| . L E 10 CFR 51.95 with respect to the preparation of supplemental environmental impact statements
| |
| ((EISs) in support of the issuance of an operating license F
| |
| * Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act with respect to the prohibition of taking, possessing, selling,
| |
| [ transporting, importing, or exporting a bald or golden eagle, dead or alive, without a permit
| |
| * Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 with respect to natural resources, and land or water uses of :
| |
| the coastal zone'
| |
| [(
| |
| * Endangorod Species Act of 1973 with respect to identifyi_ng threatened and endangered species and critical habi'ats and initiating formal or infort.11 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
| |
| . t 4
| |
| and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
| |
| . ~ Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife
| |
| - resources in the plannkg and development of projects that atTect water resources
| |
| * Migratory Bird Treaty Act with respect to declaring that it is unlawful to take, import, export,
| |
| ~ possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers and other parts, such as nests or
| |
| - eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. "Take" is defined as
| |
| = pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or collecting.
| |
| : a l'Ihe Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants -
| |
| - (NUREG-1437) concluded that the effects of transmission system operation on terrestrial resources
| |
| - (bird collisions with power lines, effects of power line right of way management, and impacts of -
| |
| electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna) are minima 1, and plant specific evaluations are not .
| |
| required at the license renewal stage
| |
| .*- Rivers and Harbors ' Appropriations Act of 1899 with respekt to the deposition of debris in navigable 5 waters, or tributaries to such waters l-q- ;
| |
| [ ],
| |
| fAdgust 1997 - 5.6.1-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ^
| |
| ..r
| |
| ' [ _&.
| |
| - -c ..s~ , ~ - . . e ..-,.%.. + - . * , .-w, , .,.-4.-, ,, _.,.c ,, --,#, -
| |
| | |
| Regulatory guidance and specinc criteria to meet the regulations identiHed above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatary Guide 4.2, Rev,2, contains guidance for the preparation of ERs. With respect to the transmission system, it specifies the provisions of descriptions of effects on plants and wildlife habitat from maintenance of transmission line rights-of way and access roads. It also states that potential impacts of electric or magnetic Delds be discussed. The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate data and analyses are provided in the ER and included in the EIS.
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev.1, contains technical information for the design and execution of terrestrial environmental studies, the results of which may be appropriate for inclusion in the EIS.
| |
| The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate information regarding effects on terrestrial biota from operation imd maintenance of the transmission systems is provided in the ER and included in the EIS.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential impacts to the terrestrial ecosystem from the transmission systems is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| The EIS needs to include an analysis that considers and balances the environmental effects of the transmission system on the terrestrial environment and the alternatives for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as any environmental benents that may result from the proposed action. Following the acceptance criteria listed above will help ensure that the environmental impacts of the transmission system on the terrestrial environment will be considered with respect to matters covered by such standards and requirements.
| |
| Ill. REVIEW PROCEDURES To evaluate the impacts on terrestrial ecology from transmission system operation and maintenance, the reviewer should use the following procedures:
| |
| (1) identify the operational and mt,intenance activities associated with transmission facilities that could impact "i.nportant" terrestrial plants and animals, and the land areas subject to these impacts.
| |
| . Potential adverse impacts resulting from operation and maintenance activities include soil erosion, runoff or uncontrolled release of defoliants and herbicides, barriers to wildlife movements created by clear-cutting of trees, and subtle effects of high-energy electrical Gelds on the behavior of animals.
| |
| * Electric-Deld effects on terrestrial biota need not be considered for lines energized at less than 765 kV. Also, experience has shown thet for transmission lines energized at 765 kV or less there are no known adverse impacts resulting nom ozone formation. At voltages of 765 kV or above, consideration of the possible effects of electric fields and corona discharge, including resulting NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.1-4 August 1997
| |
| | |
| T '' ) noise on terrestrial blota, may be warranted. The presence of the towers and wires may affect wildlife use of nearby important habitats and flyways (see ESRP 4.3.1 for the analysis of potential bird collisions with towers and wires).
| |
| . The potential for bird electrocution is considered negligible for the high voltage transmission.
| |
| systems considered in this review, (2) Create an inventory of the "important" species affected by the operation and maintenance practices discussed above.
| |
| (3) Estimate the overall impact of operation and maintenance of the transmission lines and corridars on "important" species. Include in the analysis a consideration of whether the operttion and maintenance of transmission lines and corridors will result in impacts to terrestrial biota that should be mitigated or avoided.
| |
| (4) Determine whether the proposed operation and maintenance procedures are those generally recognized as envimnmentally responsible. Following are examples of such procedures:
| |
| . maintenance of ground cover b rights-of way to avoid run-off and siltation e avoiding the use of herbicides and defoliants near waterways and using only licensed herbicide and/or pesticide applicators l
| |
| v
| |
| . burying underwater transmission lines e avoiding unnecessary removal of vegetation that shades streams.
| |
| (5) Become familiar with the provisions of standards and guides pertinent to the operation and maintenance of transmission lines and corridors. Although, for the most part, these documents do not provide quantitative information by which the reviewer can judge acceptance, they will serve to point out gcod maintenance practices.
| |
| (6) Provide a summary of consultations with appropriate State and Federal agencies and affected Native American tribes.
| |
| IV. EVALUAT10N FINDINGS Input from this ESRP review to the EIS shculd include (1) a list of adverse impacts of transmission system operation and _ maintenance to terrestrial ecosystems,(2) a list of the impacts for which there are measures or controis tn limit adverse impacts and the associated measures and controls, (3) the applicant's commitments to limit these impacts, and (4) the staff's evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant's measures and controls to limit adverse impacts. This information should be summarized for (3 the reviewer of ESRP 5.10.
| |
| t 1 Q*
| |
| August 1997 5.6.1-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| N
| |
| | |
| StalT evaluations of mitigating measures may be discussed,' and reference should be made to ESRP 5.10.2 when measures and controls to limit adverse impacts have been listed by the reviewer. Adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated should be identified, and ESRP 9.3.4 should be referenced if attematives to avoid these impacts have been identified.
| |
| If the reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the guidelines of this ESRP section, then the evaluation supports the following type of concluding statement to be included in the staft's EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information on impacts to the terrestrial ecology. The staff concludes that the list and description ofimpacts is adequate to comply with 10 CFR 51.45. The data are also sufficient to support an evaluation of potential impacts to the terrestrial environment that could result from transmission system operation and maintenance.
| |
| V. IMPLEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffla its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51 15, " Environmental report."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.75," Draft environmental impact statement--construction permit."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.95, " Supplement to final environmental impact statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpart A "Early Site Permits."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.79," Contents of applications; technical information."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.1 l, Rev. l. 1977. TerrestrialEnvironmentalStudiesfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended,16 USC 668 et, seq.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.1-6 August 1997
| |
| | |
| ;)
| |
| 1
| |
| - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended,16 USC 703'et seq.
| |
| ~
| |
| ' Rivers and Harbor Act,'as amended,33 USC 401 et seq.
| |
| ' ~
| |
| U.S. Nuclenr Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic EnvironmentalImpact StatemeSfor "
| |
| License RenewalofNuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vol. I, Washington, D.C.
| |
| i 6 A
| |
| 4 L
| |
| i E
| |
| 4 f
| |
| 4 F ,
| |
| i; r:
| |
| n
| |
| .'\
| |
| - August 1997 5.6.1-7_ - NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ^
| |
| i
| |
| - .,, . -,,.,--r,ye .-,.,.m,-,..-------- _ . . . - - . , - , . . . , + , , . ~ , - . . _ _. . .- . , . . . ~ .
| |
| | |
| 4 -
| |
| NURE31555
| |
| .p s ,,, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U, % ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD a
| |
| %,***** REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.6.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environnantal Projects Branch Secondary-Nonc
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff s identification, quantification, and evaluation of the impacts of transmission facility operation and maintenance on "important" aquatic resources (defined in Table 2.4.2-1). The review should include consideration of the aquatic impacts of the operation and maintenance of transmission lines and corridors, substations, and switchyards in sufficient detail to allow the reviewer to assess the magnitude of potential impacts. When adverse g
| |
| ") impacts of sufficient magnitude are identified, the reviewer should evaluate alternative operating and maintenance practices to mitigate or avc id environmental impacts.
| |
| This review will be initiated only when the reviewer for ESRP 2.4.2 determines that there are aquatic environments that could be impacted by transmission system operation or maintenance.
| |
| Review Interfaces The reviewer should obtain inputs from and provide inputs to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRP 2.4.2. Obtain information about unique aquatic habitats including critical habitat for threatened and endangered specie in 'he vicinity of the transmission corridors.
| |
| * ESRP 3.7. Obtain information regarding the physical characteristics of power transmission systems and maintenance procedures necessary for detennining environmental impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
| |
| August 199_7 5.6.2-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMEN AL STA5DAKu REVIEW PLAN
| |
| (,,N Environmental standard review* plet. , are prepared
| |
| ;;,*eTo*3:.'."onCC;"?al.3t4'r"u
| |
| * for thogdence of the offics of Nuclear
| |
| ""ta"Jfor t,v".nd a[at"",'J 5"c"':,":
| |
| "* Reactor
| |
| " Regulation staff .
| |
| ston's"*regulatione i"*d"o'redu, s' nd"pra!.'' ""' ''
| |
| e
| |
| \ ) Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes re dee or th o and
| |
| 'd c g no e red, The environrnental standard e yow plans are keyed to Preparation of Environmental Puhllehed environmental standerd revtew reflect new information and experience. plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to Commi n inc f Nu R tYRegulati n a n .DC .
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 5.2.1. Obtain a list of hydrological alterations that will take place along the transmission corridor and that could potentially impact the aquatic ecosystem.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of recommended measures and controls to limit adverse impacts of the transmission system on the aquatic system and list applicant commitments to limit these is.ipacts.
| |
| . ESRP 6.5. Provide a list of preoperational monitoring programs to obtain baseline data for subsequent operational monitoring programs.
| |
| . ESRP 9.43. Advise the reviewer for ESRP 9.4.3 when alternative transmission system maintenance may be needed and assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| . ESRP IQJ. Provide a list of unavoidable adverse impacts of transmission system maintenance.
| |
| Dalf and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will le affected by site and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact.
| |
| The following data or information will be needed only when aquatic habitats that may be affected by the operation or maintenance of the tn.nsmission system have baen identified by the reviewer for ESRP 2.4.2:
| |
| . a description of and map showing any unique aquatic habitats in the vicinity of proposed transmission facilities (from ESRP Section 2.4.2, and from the applicant on request)
| |
| . physical, chemical, and biological factors known to influence distribution and abundance of aquatic life in the identified unique habitats (from the general literature)
| |
| = endangered and threatened species inat are know, or expected to be present, together with any specific habitat requirements or community interrelationships (from the ESRP for EIS Section 2.4.2)
| |
| . maintenance practices that cre anticipated to adversely affect aquatic biota (from the environmental report [ER] and the general literature)
| |
| . licensee commitments on maintenance practices.
| |
| Additional background information about the aquatic ecology around the transmission system, necessary for this review of impacts on aquatic resources from operation and maintenaxe of the transmission system, is requested in ESRP 2.4.2 and can be found in the ER, general literature, and from consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies.
| |
| O NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.2-2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| Id. e II. ACCEFTANCE CRrrEIUA O
| |
| Acceptance criteria for the review ofimpacts to aquatic ecology as a result of transmission system operation and maintenance are the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * 10 CFF ~ l.4$ with respect to ERs and the analysis of potential impacts contained therein '
| |
| * 10 L
| |
| '' 75 with respect to analysis ofimpacts to the aquatic environment affected by the issuance -
| |
| of a construction permit
| |
| - + 10 CFR 52, Subpart A, with respect to analysis ofimpacts to the aquatic environment affected by the issuance of an early site permit
| |
| +
| |
| ' 10 CFR 51.95 with respect to the preparation of supplemental environmental impact statements (EISs) in suppon of the issuance of an operating license
| |
| - * - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 with respect to natural resources and land or water uses of the coastal zone
| |
| * Endangered Species Act of 1973 with respect to identifying threatened and endangered species and critical habitats and initiating formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service p and/or Natinal Marine Fisheries Service
| |
| -Q + - The Clean Water Act with respect to restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and .
| |
| biological integrity of water resources
| |
| * Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 with respect to consideration of fish and wildlife resources in the planning and development of projects that affect water resources Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 with respect to the deposition of debris in navigable waters or tributaries to such waters.
| |
| Regulatory guidance and specific criteria to meet the regulations and other statutory requirements identified above are as follows:
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, contains guidance for the preparation of ERs. With respect to the transmission corridors, it specifies that discussions of temporary or permanent changes in the biological processes of plants and wildlife in the vicinity of the transmission corridors, which result from construction of new access roads or changes in the use of herbicides or pesticides, be addressed in the ER. The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate data and analyses are provided in the environmental report and are included in the EIS.
| |
| [y
| |
| ~t 4 August 1997- 5.6.2-3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| l Technical Rationale ne technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems is discussed .
| |
| in the following paragraph:
| |
| The EIS needs to include an analysis that considers and balances the environmental effects of the transmission system on the aquatic environment and the alternatives for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as any environmental benefits that may result from the proposed action. Following the acceptance criteria listed above will help er.sure that the environmental impacts of the transmission system on the aquatic environment will be considered with respect to matters covered by such standards and requirements.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES To evaluate the impacts to aquatic ecosystems from transmission facility operating and maintenance, the reviewer should use the following procedures.
| |
| (1) Identify operational and maintenance activities associated with transmission facilities and consider those that could adversely affect those "important" aquatic resources identified by the reviewer for ESRP 2.4.2.
| |
| * The resources to be considered include marshlands, wetlands, impoundments, and water bodies.
| |
| * Potential impacts on these resources include heating of water bodies, siltation and turbidity resulting from increased runoff and erosion, runoff of defoliants and herbicides, recreational access by the public, and high-energy ele .*ical fields associated with underwater transmission facilities.
| |
| (2) Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 5.2.1 for any needed hydrological data. When potential impacts are anticipated
| |
| . inventory the "important" nquatic biota vulnerable to the identified operation ano .naintenance practices and a predict the environmental impacts on these aquatic biota.
| |
| (3) Compare proposed transmission system operation and maintenance with the provisions of standards and guides pertinent to the operation and maintenance of transmission facilities and corridors.
| |
| (4) Determine whether the proposed operation and maintenance procedures are those generally recognized as environmentally responsible. Following are examples of such procedures:
| |
| + maintenance of ground cover in rights-of way to avoid runoff and siltation NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.2-4 August 1997 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| (' ' ') = avoiding the use of herbicides and defollams near waterways and using only licensed herbicide and/or pesticide applicators e burying underwater transmission lines e avoiding unnecessary removal of vegetation that shades streams.
| |
| (5) Provide a summary of consultations with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agenciu.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS When no aquatic habitats have been identified, the input to the EIS should consist of only a statement to that effect. When such habit:ts have been identified, this section of the EIS should be planned to accomplish the following objective . (1) public disclosure of aquatic impacts resulting from operation and maintenance of the transmission system,(2) presentation of the basis for ti.e staff analysis, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions for operation and maintenance of the transmission system to minimize or avoid impacts on aquatic biota. The following information should usually be included in ESRP 5.6.2:
| |
| . a description of the transmission facilities, substations, switching yards, corridors, and rights-of way C'T to be openm.d and maintained, as they relate to aquatic impact, by reference to ESRP 3.7.
| |
| d Management practices should be described.
| |
| . a description of"important" biota and their life stages found in or near the transmission facilities locations, by reference to ESRP 2,4.2
| |
| . an assessment of the impact on "important" biota for the prop ~ed transmission system design and -
| |
| maintenance procedures. When adyt:rse impacts of sufficient magnitude have been identified, the input should include potential mitigating actions or e.lternative practices to limit or avoid the impacts.
| |
| This information should be provided to the reviewer of ESRP 5.10.
| |
| If the reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with the guidelines of this ESRP, then the evaluation supports the following type of concluding statement to be included in the staff's EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information on impacts to the aquatic ecology. The staff concludes that the list and description ofimpacts is adequate to comply with 10 CFR 51.45. The data are also sufficient to support an evaluation of potential impacts to the aquatic environmera that could result from transmission system operation and maintenance.
| |
| l I August 1997 5.6.25 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| V. IMPIEMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51.45, " Environmental report.''
| |
| 10 CFR 51.75," Draft environmental impact statement-construction permit."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.95," Supplement to final environmer.tal imoa t statement."
| |
| 10 CFR 52, Subpart A,"Early Site Permits."
| |
| 10 CFR 52.79, " Contents of applications; technical information."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. 1976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,16 USC 1451 et seq.
| |
| Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
| |
| Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean Water Act).
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment,16 USC 661 et seq.
| |
| Rivers and Harbor Act, as amended,33 USC 401 et seq.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.2-6 August 1997 m . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ __ _
| |
| | |
| NURE21555 U.Si NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| {ml/4,,,,% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \. REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ***** OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.6.3 IMPACTS TO MAN REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-General Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff's identification and evaluation of inpacts on man induced by operation and maintenance of the proposed transmission system. The scope o!'the review directed by this plan should include (1) operational impacts resulting from basic systems d: sign parameters and proposed operating procedures and (2) maintenance practices affecting visual hapacts.
| |
| V The review should be in sufficient detail to predict and assess potential impacts and to evaluate how these impacts will be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the reviewer should consider alternative designs, practices, or procedures that would avoid or mitigate the predicted adverse impacts.
| |
| Igriew Interfaces lhe reviewer should obtain input from and provide input to the reviewers of information covered by the iallowing ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| * ESRP 2.2.2. Obtain topographic maps or aerial photographs showing the proposed corridor or corridors.
| |
| = ESRP 3.7. Obtain input on the basic electrical design parameters, the basic structural parameters, and the maximum electric field gradient (s) and edge of right of-way field gradients in kV/m.
| |
| - August 1997 5.63-1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the dance of the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff
| |
| / Co rb f th huc$er afbuTtYand gen ei Yo re t es a p .
| |
| ( '1
| |
| .h!"'n*
| |
| o Reports tor Nuclear Power atettons.
| |
| n
| |
| ='M"2!.''Jf".?*"A."W't"J'"se'"Jlt.22,7,C"pf."e'.6etoryhoce%".).'?.W#in'anm.nt.:
| |
| .;'Td Pubtl
| |
| ,efi ehod environmental.stan.d.e,rd tn in = = . nd erie-e. review plane will be revised periodcolly, es approprints, to accorrenodete commem, and to 8:m"A'"ar.WM=:rvt"J,.*Jait"t:dJ c'ad d s ** " 5 ""*'"' "**""'"'
| |
| | |
| . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts of the power transmission system.
| |
| . ESRP 9.4J. Provide a list of adverse environmental impsett that could be avoided or mitigated through alternative transmission system routes, designs, operational procedures, or maintenance practices, end assist in determining appropriate alternatives.
| |
| ESRP 10.L Provide a summary of the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of transmission-system operation.
| |
| Data and Information Needed The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. 'Ihc following data or information should usually be obtained:
| |
| . basic electrical design parameters, including transmission voltages, line capacity, conductor type, conductor configuration and spacing, and minimum design conductor clearances over open fields, main highways, primary and secondary roads, waterways, and railroads (from the environmental report (ER] and from ESRP 3.7)
| |
| + basic structural design parameters, including illustrations and descriptions of towers, conductors, and other structures, with dimensions, materials, color, and finish (from ESRP 3.7) e description of maintenance practices used to reduce visual impacts (e.g., retention of vegetation buffer zones along roads)(from the ER) e description of practices used to increase visibility for aircraft. Tower height is regulated to provide a safety factor for aircraft and to reduce the aesthetic impact of the transmission facilities. Marking of elevated structures is also a safety feature required to alert aircraft of structures to avoid.
| |
| =
| |
| maximum predicted electric field gradient (s) and edge of right-of-way field gradients in kV/m (from ESRP 3.7)
| |
| =
| |
| topographic m aps (15-min. scale as a rule) or aerial photographs showing the proposed corridor or corridors (from ESRP 2.2.2 or on request from the applicant) the proposed means to reduce impacts tc radio and television reception and to other communication systems (from the ER)
| |
| * the proposed grounding procedures for stationary objects along the rights-of way (from the ER)
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.3-2 August 1997 l
| |
| | |
| ---- - -, ~. - .-- - - - - . - - . - - . - _ .
| |
| 't e
| |
| l = . fdesign parameters for reducing electrostatic shock potentials to moving vehicles such as school buses ; '
| |
| and tractor trailers (from the ER) i e ma .imum predicted noise levels at the edge of rights-of way resulting from transmission-system operation, and the bases for these predictions (from the ER).' [
| |
| II, ACCEPTANCE CR11ERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of transmission system impacts on man are based on the relevant ' .
| |
| ' requirements of the following: ,
| |
| * 10 CI'R 51, Appendix A with respect to analysis of environmental consequences.
| |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows: ,
| |
| .: Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, identifies the level of detailed description needed to evaluate impacts from land use, the construction and maintenance of these structures and their rights-of way, and potential hazards to aerial navigation
| |
| . National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) (1996) with respect to shock hazande.
| |
| \, Technical Rationale lhe technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential impacts to man from operation and maintenance of the proposed transmission system is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| Electric power is transferred through transmission systems from the nuclear facility in which it is generated to the power grid through which it is transmitted to the users. Impacts on man resulting from the operation and malmenance of the proposed transmission system may occur as a result of corridor maintenance procedures, visual aspects, noise, electrostatic effects, or c setromagnetic effects.
| |
| Evaluating the adequacy of this material addressing potential impacts requires that data on the power transmission system are sufficient to predict the overall impact of operation and maintenance activities on the transmission lines and corridors to man.
| |
| y 111 REVIEW PROCEDURES This procedure applies to the review of applications for construction permits, operating licenses, and combined licenses. The procedures for review of the potential for shock hazard also apply to applications for license renewal.
| |
| T
| |
| . August 1997 5.6.33 ' NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| The reviewer's analysis of the proposed power transmission system should be closely linked with the environmental review for ESRP 3.7 in order to establish the general transmission characteristics that t re most likeWo result in environmental impacts. The analysis should be governed by the magnitude of potential impact on man. The reviewer should coordinate this review with the reviewer for ESRP 5.6.1 to avoid duplication of effort. With the preceding guidelines in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| (1) Become familiar with the provisions of standards and guides pertinent to the operation and maintenance of transmission lines and corridors, including applicable State standards. Compare predicted noise levels with applicable State noise limits for residential areas and for other types of land use. The authority for environmental noise control was given to the States in the 1972 Noise Control Act.
| |
| (2) Identify the operational and maintenance activities associated with transmission facilities having impacts on man, and determine whether the proposed operational parameters and maintenance piocedures are those Eenerally recognized as envircnmentally acceptable.
| |
| Potential adverse impacts resulting from operation and maintenance activities include electrostatic (shock hazard) and electromagnetic field effects, corona discharges (including resultant noise), and potential visual impacts not specified in the ESRPs for EIS Sections 4.1.2 and 5.1.2 (e.g., design parameters and maintenance activities affecting visual impacts at major road crossings, areas of significant ridges, and concentrated human settlement). For transmision lines energized at 765 kV or less, experience has shown that there are no known adverse impacts cesulting from ozone formation.
| |
| I (3) Check for conformance with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC :996), which provides design criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents. Adherence to the NESC design criteria limits the short circuit to the ground produced by the largest anticipated vehicle and objects to less than 5mA.
| |
| For license renewsts applications, most transmission lines were designed to be in compliance with NESC recommendations for electric shock hazard. However, if the utility has not maintained an active program of transmission line management to ensure continued compliance with the NESC, then the line may not be in compliance. The reviewer will evaluate the transmission line system against the current NESC recommendations to determine if there are any sites or areas that do not currently comply with NESC recommendations. NESC (Rule 013) considers that if a transmission line was in compliance when it was built, it remains in compliance even if subsequent revisions of the code are more strmgent. However, because of safety concerns, the reviewer should use the latest version of the NESC to determine compliance.
| |
| (4) Predict the overall impact of operation and maintenance of the transmission lines and corridors on man. When you determine that predicted impacts resulting from the proposed operational design NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.34 August 1997
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| p l )
| |
| \d parameters and maintenance procedures are adverse, consider raeasures to mitigate the impact or-alternative transmission system design, operation, or maintenance that will avoid the impact.
| |
| The chronic effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields have been under investigation for some time. Although some of the recent studies suggest that the effects,if they exist, are below measurable levels, conclusions regarding this potential hazard are premature. If a scientific consensus is reached about these fields, the NRC may request that the applicant address this issue and the staff review the potential impacts on man.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Input from this ESRP review to the environmental impact statement (EIS) should meet tne following objectives: (1) public disclosure of major impacts resulting from operation of the proposed transmission lines,(2) presentation of the basis for staff analysis, and (3) presentetion of staff conclusions regarding transmission line impacts to man.
| |
| ESRP 5.6.3 provides an assessment of the impacts on man resulting from transmission-system operation and maintenance procedures, including the degree of noise impacts, if any. This assessment will usually include grounding procedures, applicable design features proposed for the reduction of shock potential, and corridor maintenance procedures to mitigate visual impacts. The presentation of this assessment p should be based on (1) the extent by which the predicted impacts exceed criteria for acceptable levels Q and (2) potential electrostatic and electromagnetic field effects.
| |
| Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following conclusions:
| |
| * The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should provide the following input to the EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available inferroation relative to the impacts of the facility's transmission system. The staff concludes that the operational impacts and impacts from niaintenance practices will be minor and mitigation is not required.
| |
| * The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by spectfic design orprocedure modifications that the reviewer has identified anddetermined to bepractical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) and the n: viewer for ESRP 9.4.3 for verification that the modifications are practical and will leed to an improvement in the benefit cost balance. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be avalded. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewer of ESRP 9.4.3 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is needed. The
| |
| [s]
| |
| reviewer should participate in any such analysis ano evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the x)
| |
| August 1997 5.6.3-5 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternatives can be identified the reviewer should provide this information to the reviewn for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| V, IMPI FMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7)," Environmental consequences and mitigating actions."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I976. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Stations.
| |
| National E/cctrica/ Spety Code (NESC). 1996. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.,
| |
| New York.
| |
| Noise Control Act, as amended,42 USC 4901 et seq.
| |
| O NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.6.3-6 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| NUREG 1555 m U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O /',,,,h ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ( *****) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.7 URANIUM FUEleCYCLE IMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff s use of Table S-3," Tabic of Uranium Fuel Cy*le Environmental Data"(of Paragraph (a) in 10 CFR 51.51," Uranium fuel cycle environmental data - Table S-3") and the associated staff analysis of this table, given in Appendix A to this ESRP, as the basis fo: the staffs evaluation of the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle.
| |
| O Review Interfacts The reviewers should obtain input from and provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRP:
| |
| . ESRP 10.4.2. Provide a statement,if appropriate, that the environmentalimpacts of the uranium fuel cycle, as given in Table 5.7 A 1 and in re'ationship to the proposed project, appear to have little significance and would not alter the overall benefit cost balance.
| |
| August 1997 5.7 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| ~
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN L".**n".'U"'t',"t#:'d.,,':, 4:r;.'2ti:r,'ttt;;,d,'n'.?##t."*/dar2"!.it.'M*,2.":::L".T!:Mu*.".. g.,t ,
| |
| O)d t, P,'fatt.ru,t.r.*,2t!,.*;r. *.,7*! t'a,onm? s t."1 d ', "*' '2 iJ ;
| |
| st.T '*."Nv ew p:t.no .t.r. a.y=.d:a* to P,a.p.rkon o#, Env A
| |
| go g gh th g r.d. The .nyt nt n ed h nC:tW"di ,2?ta:t$n,t.~ '""' *"' " "*"* ""*""' " ***' '"'*** '' ""~'*"~""d '*
| |
| d 8=r"#!.' Wiz:it"E">'ct;istii'ta.tn'"J:Mns.".*o"WonP """""* " 8 ""*'"' "*""
| |
| | |
| Data and Information Needs The following data should be obtained:
| |
| * Table S-3 of Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.51. The current amendment (as given in 49 FR 9381, March 12,1984 and 49 FR 10922, March 23,1984)is included in Appendix A to this ESRP as Table 5.7-A-1.W The reviewer should ensure that the most recent amendment of Table S-3 has been provided as input to the EIS and should update the staff analysis given in Appendix A to thb ESRP when necessary. The
| |
| " viewer should also ensure that all conclusions given in Appendix A are appropriate for the proposed project.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are based on the relevant requirements of the following:
| |
| * Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.51, " Uranium fuel cycle environmental data-Table S-3"(Federal Register Notices 49 FR 9381, March 1984, and 49 FR 10922, March 23,1984) with respect to the impacts to the environment from the hazards associated with the fuel cycle.
| |
| Technical Rationale Appendix A in this ESRP provides the technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential uranium fuel-cycle impacts.
| |
| 111, REVIEW PROCEDURES No analysis of these data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUAr10N FINDINGS Appendix A to this plan provides the input from this ESRP to be used in the environmental impact statement (EIS). In addition, the reviewer should ensu. e that, if appropriate, a statement similar to the following is included as input to ESRP 10.4.2:
| |
| (a) He table has been further updated to reflect the changes contained in Attachment A to the Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Hearing Board's Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Board Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Docket No. RM 50-3, dated October 26,1978.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.7 2 August 1997
| |
| | |
| _ _. _ _ , . _ _ _ . ~ . _ . . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . . .
| |
| L f' ~
| |
| -s The staff has evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as given in Table 5.7 A 1. The staff has found these impacts to be sufficiently small so that when they are added to the other environmental impacts predicted for the proposed project the fuel-cycle impactsf Lwould not alter the overall benefit cost halance.
| |
| : V, IMPLEMENTATION
| |
| : Ihe method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the ; ,
| |
| Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable L ,
| |
| : alternative for complying with speciflod portions of the regulations. ,
| |
| 1 VI. REFERENCES
| |
| * L 10 CFR $ 1.51, " Uranium fuel cycle environmental data."
| |
| FederalRegister Notice 49 FR 938), March 1984 and 49 FR 10922, March 23,1984.
| |
| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). I976. Environmental Quality: the Seventh AnnualReport of
| |
| - the Council ofEnvironmental Quality. Figutus 1127 and 1128, pp. 238-239.
| |
| - National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1975. NationalBackground Radiation in the UnitedStates: Recommendations ofthe National Councilon Radiation Protection and Mearurements. NCRP Report No. 45, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
| U.S. Atomic Energy Commiset on (AEC).1974. EnvironmentalSurvey ofthe Uranium FuelCycle.
| |
| - WASH 1248, Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Department of Energy.1978. Statistical Data ofthe Uranium industry. G10-100(78),
| |
| Washington, D.C.
| |
| r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976.- Environmental Survey ofthe Reprocessing and
| |
| - Waste Management Portions ofthe LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH 1248),
| |
| , Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Public Comments'and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmer ' Survey ofthe Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions ofthe LWR .
| |
| Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH 1248), Washington, D.C.
| |
| U.S. Nuhlear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978a. In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station), Docket No. 50-488, Testimony of R. Wilde, filed April 17,1978a.
| |
| 4 l August 1997 5.7 3 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| Q l
| |
| | |
| i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1978b. In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50 516, Deposition of Leonard 11amilton, Reginald Gotchy, Ralph Wilde and Arthur R. Tamplin, July 27,1978b, p. 9274.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission (NRC).1978c. In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station), Docket No. 50-488, Testimony of P. ! 'agno, filed April 17,1978c.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1978d. In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station), Docket No. 50-488, Testimony of R. Gotchy, filed April 17,1978d.
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1976. Final Generic EnvironmentalStatement on the Use ofRecycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuelin Light Water-Cooled Reactors, NUREG 0002, Washington, D.C.
| |
| O i
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.7-4 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| p Q APPENDIX A INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEN'l*
| |
| On March 14,1977, the Commission presented in the Federal Register (42 FR 13803) an interim tule regarding the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle. It was effective through September 13,1978, and revised Table S-3 of Paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 51.20. In a subsequent announcernent on April 14,1978 (43 FR 15613), the Commission further amended Table S-3 to delete the numerical entry for the estimate of radon releases and to clarify that the table does not cover health effects. Further revision to 10 CFR 51 was made in 1984. The current requirement for Table S 3 is in 10 CFR 51.51 (49 FR 9381, March 12,1984, and 49 FR 10922, March 23,1984). The revised table is shown here as Table 5.7 A 1, The current rule reflects new and updated information on reprocessing spent fuel and radioactive waste management as discussed in NUREG Oll6, and NUREG-0216, which presents staff responses to comments on NUREG Oll6. The rule also considers other environmental factors of the uranium fuel cycle, including aspects of mining and milling, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, and management oflow- and high leve; wastes. These are described in the AEC report WASH 1248(AEC 1974).
| |
| Specific categories of natural resource use are incluo,:d in Table S-3 of the rule. These categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal etfluents, radioactive releases, burial of transuranic and high and low level wastes, and radiation doses from transportation and occupational exposures. The h)
| |
| (
| |
| contributions in Table S-3 for reprocessing, waste management, und transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle), that is, the cycle that results in the greater impact is used. The uranium fuel cycle is defined as the total of those operations and processes associated with provision, utilization, and ultimate disposition of fuel for nuclear power reactors. The two fuel cycle options that have been considered differ in the treatment of spent fuel removed from a reactor. "No recycle" treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a Federal waste repository;" uranium only recycle" involves reprocessing of spent fuel to recover unused uranium and return it to the system. Neither cycle involves the recovery of plutonium.
| |
| The no-recycle option is schematically presen:ed in Figure 5.7 A-1. Natural uranium is mined in either open pit or underground mines. The ore is transferred to mills where it is processed to produce uranium
| |
| . oxide or " yellow-cake." A conversion facility prepares the uranium oxide from the mills for enrichment
| |
| - by converting it to uranium hexafluoride (UF.), which is then processed to separate the relatively nonfissile isotope U-238 from the more fissile isotope U 235. At a fuel fabrication facility the enriched uranium, approximately 3% U-235, is then converted to UO2 . The UO 2is pelletized, sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies are placed in the reactor to produce power. When the ccntent of the U-235 reaches a point where the nucicar reactor has become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel assemblies are withdrawn from the reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short lived fission product decay and to reduce the heat generation vs (a) Note: These values will be converted to appropriate SI units in the final version of the ESRP.
| |
| (L j)
| |
| August 1997 5.7-5 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| rate, the fuel assemblies will be transferred to a Federal repository for interment. Disposal of spent fuel elements in a repository constitutes the Gnal step in the no-recycle option.
| |
| A schematic of the uranium only recycle option is given in Tigure 5.7 A42. The mining, milling, and UF. conversion operations are the sam- as for the no-recycle option, butl esser quantities of materials would be processed. The first dif'erence between the no-recycle and uranium only recycle options is noted at the enrichment procest where the natural UF. feed stream is supplemented by recovered, slightly enriched uranium from the reprocessing plant. The combined UF. is processed to form UO, and fuel assemblies as in the no-recycle option. The second difference between the no-recycle and uranium-only recycle options follow.= fuel assembly removal from the reactor and onsite storage to permit decay of short lived fission products and reduced heat generation rates. At this point, the fuel assemblies are transferred to a reprocessing plant for further storage and subsequent processing to recover the residual slightly enriched uranium. Plutonium contained in the spent fuel is considered as waste, will not be recovered, and will be transferred to a Federal repository for disposal along with the transuranic and high level wastes. These materials will be treated at the repro-essing plant to produce stable materials suitable for Gnal disposal. Disposal of these materials in a repcsitory constitutes the Gnal step in the uranium-only recycle option.
| |
| The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S-3 and the staff's analysis of the radiological impact from radon releases. For the sake of consistency, the analysis of fuel-cycle impacts has been cast in terms of a model 1000-MWe light-water cooled reactor (LWR) operating at an annual capacity factor of 80%. In the following review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff conclusions would not be altered if the analysis were to be based on the net electrical power output of the proposed project.
| |
| The staff's analysis and conclusions are as follows:
| |
| (1) Land (bc The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 106'LMS.le LWR is about 46 hectares (113 acres). Approximately 5 hectares (13 acres) per year are permanently committed land, and 41 hectares (100 acres) per year are temporarily committed. Of the 41 hectares per year of temporarily committed land,32 hectares are undisturbed and 9 hectares are disturbed. Considering common classes ofland use in the United States,* fuel cycle land-use requirements to support the model 1000 MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
| |
| (a) A coal Gred power plant of 1000-MWe capacity using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 81 hectares (200 acres) per year for fuel alone.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) 5.7-6 August 1907
| |
| | |
| f.
| |
| i f.
| |
| [' :(2)-Watar Use
| |
| ~
| |
| [
| |
| The'princikwater uw requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000 MWs LWR -
| |
| ? that required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical enwgy to the >
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| > ; enrichment step of this cycletOf the total annual requirement of 43 x 10' m8 (11,377 x 10' gal),'
| |
| < _ about 42 x 10' m8 are required for this purpose, assuming that then plants use once-through :
| |
| l cooling. ,Othw water uns_ involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling)' o f about 0.6 x 10' m perF year and water discharged to ground (e.g., mine drainage) of
| |
| ~
| |
| 8 '
| |
| / abous 0.3 x 10' m per year.
| |
| y 4: On s'thirmal emuent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4% of the .
| |
| model 1000 MWe LWR using once through cooling. The consumptive watn use of 0.6 x 10' m8 1
| |
| : per year is about 2% of the model 1000 MWe LWR using cooling towns. The maximum - .
| |
| consumptive water use (assuming that al.1 plants supplying electrical energy to the nuclear fuel .
| |
| 1 cycle used cooling towers).would be about 6% of the model 1000 MWe LWR using cooling ,
| |
| 4 ; towns. . Under this condition, thermal emuents would be negligible. The staff finds that these
| |
| - combinations 'of thermal loadings and water consumption are acceptable relative to the water use and thwmal discharges of the proposed project. 3 (3) Fossil Fuel Caammatlan .
| |
| Electrical energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel-cycle process. .De
| |
| ( . electrical energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power plants. '
| |
| Electrical enwgy associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5% of the annual electrical power.
| |
| p ; production of the model 1000 MWe LWR._ Process heat is primarily generated by the combustion of F , natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate electricity, would be less than 0.4% of the
| |
| ' electrical output from the model plant. De staff finds that the direct and indirect consumption of electrical energy for fuel-cycle opwations are small and acceptable relative to the net power produc-tion of the proposed project.
| |
| .(4) Chemical Emuents m
| |
| 3
| |
| . 3 The quantities of chemical, gaseous, and particulate effluents with fuel cycle processes are given
| |
| . In Table S-3. The princloel species are sulfur oxides (SO,), nitrogen oxides (NO,), and -
| |
| particulates. Based on dam in a Council on Environmental Quality report (1976), the staff finds J t i hat these emissions constitute an extremely small additional atmospheric loading in comparison.
| |
| with these emir.sions from the stationary fuel combustion and transportation sectors in the United S#.atesl(i.e.; about 0.02% of the annual national releases for each of these specie). The staff
| |
| - believes such , mall increases in' releases of these pollutants are acceptable.
| |
| , y
| |
| * i Liquid chemical effluents produced in hel cycle predesses are related to fuel enrichmen%
| |
| i . ifabrication, and reprocessing operations and may be released to receiving waters. Dese i -
| |
| 1 effluents are usually present in dilute concentrations so that only small amounts of dilution water aT .-
| |
| A '
| |
| August 1997 5.7-7 NUREG.1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| . . .J '
| |
| .,a_ u -.- _ .. _. _. - _ _ _ . L.__.)
| |
| | |
| are required to teach levels of concentration that are within established standards. Table S-3 specifies the Dow of dilution water required for specine constituents. Additionally, all liquid discharges into the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with the feci-cycle operations will be subject to requirements and limitations presented in an NPDES permit issued by an appropriate State or Federal regulatory agency.
| |
| . Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutions and solids are not released in quantities sufDeient to have a significant impact on the environment.
| |
| (5) Radioactive Effluents
| |
| * Radioactive efDuents estimated to be released to the environment from reprocessing and waste management activities and certain other phases of the fuel cycle process are presented in Table S-3. Using these data, the staff has calculated the 100-year involuntary environmental dose'dto the U.S. population. These calculations estimate that the overall involuntary total body gaseous dose to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor releases and the doses due to radon-222) would be approximately 400 person-rem per year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR (RRY). Based cn Table S-3 values, the additional involuntary total body dose -
| |
| to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid efnuents due to all fuel-cycle operations other than reactor operation would be approximately 100 person-rem per year of operation. Thus, the estimated involuntar/100-year environmental dose to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle is approximately 500 person-rem (whole body) per RRY.
| |
| . At this time Table S 3 does not address tr.c radiological ingets associated with radon-222 releases. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling operations and, following completion of mining and milling as emissions from stabilized mill tailinn and from unreclained open pit mines. The staff has determined that releases from i.ese operations per RRY are as fcilows:
| |
| Mining: (during active mining) 4060 Ci (NRC 1978a)
| |
| Mining: (unreclaimed open pit mines) 20 to 40 Ci/yr hkG lii8b)
| |
| Milling and Tailings: (during active milling) 780 Ci (NRC 19780)
| |
| Inactive Tailings: (prior to stabilization) 350 Ci (NRC 1978c)
| |
| Stabilized Tailings: (several hundred years) I to 10 Ci/yr (NRC 1978c)
| |
| (a) The environmental dose is the integrated population dose for 100 years (i.e., it represents the sum of the annual population doses for a total of 100 years). The population dose varies with time, and it is not practical to calculate this dose for every year.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.7-8 August 1997
| |
| | |
| / 1: Stabilized Tailings: (after several hundred
| |
| ^%/ years) 110 Cl/yr - (NRC 1978c) 3 The staff has calculated population [foses for these sources of racon 222 using the RABGAD computer code described in NUREG 0002, Section IVJ of Appendix A (NRC 1976). The
| |
| ; results of these calculations for mining and milling activities prior to reclamation of open-pit mines and tailings stabilization are as follows:
| |
| T Estimated 100-Year Environmental Dose -
| |
| Comer'.: ment (person-rem) per Year of Radon 222 Releases Oneration of the Model 1000-MWe LWR-Lung (broneblal 1g13] Bggly Bggg enithelium)
| |
| Mining 4100 Cl 110 2800 2300 Milling and active tailings 1100 Ci 29 _750 620 Total 140 3600 2900 3 When added to the 500 person rem total body dose for the balance of the fuel cycle, the overall estimated total body involuntary 100 year environmental dose to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle for the model 1000-MWe LWR b approximately 600 person-rem. Over this period of time, this dose is equivalent to 0.00002% of the natural background dose of about 3 billion
| |
| _ person-rem tc, the U.S. population.N The staff has considered health effects associated with the releases of radon 222, including both the short term effects of mining, milling, and a:tive tailings, and the potential long-term effects from unreclaimed open pit mines and stabilized tailings. After completion of active mining, the staff has assumed that underground mines will be sealed with the result that releases of radon-222 from them will return to background levels. For purposes of providing an upperbound impact assessment, the staff has assumed that open-pit mines will be unreclaimed and has calculated that if all ore was produced from open-pit mines, releases from them would be 110 Ci/ year per RRY. However, because the distribution of uranium ore reserves available by conventional mining methods is 66.8% underground and 33.2% open pit (DOE 1978), the staff
| |
| - has further assumed that uranium to fuel LWRs will be produced by conventional mining methods in these proportions. This means that long-term releases from unreclaimed open pit mines will be 0.332 x 110 or 37 Ci/ year per RRY.
| |
| (a) ' Based on an annual average natural background individual doses of 100 mrem and a stabilized U.S.
| |
| [] , population of 300 million.-
| |
| w's ''/ August !_997- -5.79 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) y
| |
| | |
| Ilased on this discussion, the radon reles , i from unreclaimed open pit mines over 100 and 1000 year periods would be about 3700 ( , and 37,000 Ci per RRY, respectively. He total doses l for a 1001000 year period would be as follows:
| |
| Ilme Span CRtha P.?pulailon Done Commitments in Person Rem Total Lung (Bronchlal Body Bone. ._ Epithellum) 100 years 3,700 96 2,500 2,000 ;
| |
| 500 years 19,000 480 13,000 l1,000 '
| |
| I,000 years 37,000 960 25,000 20,000 These doses represent a wo,. se situation because no mitigating circumstances are assumed.
| |
| Ilowever, State and Federal laws currently require reclamation of strip and open pit coal mines and it is very probable that similar reclarnation will be required for uranium open pit mines. If so, long term releases from such mines thould approach background levels. -
| |
| for long term radon releases from stabilized tailings piles the staff has assumed that these tallings would emit, per RRY,1 Ci/yr for 100 years,10 Cl/yr for the next 400 years rad 100 Ci/yr for periods beyond 500 years. With these assumptions, the cumulative radon 222 release from stabilized tailings piles per RRY will be 100 Ci in 100 years,4,090 Cl in 500 years and $3,800 Cl in 1000 years (NRC 1978d). The total body, bone, and bronchial epithelium doses for these per!ods are as follows:
| |
| 'Ilme Span Cuata Engulallon Dost Commitments in Person Rem Total Lung (Bronchial Hgdy Spag. Epithelium) 100 years 100 2.6 68 56 500 years 4,090 l10 2,800 2,300 1,000 years 53,800 1,400 37,000 30,000 Using risk estimators of 135,6.9, and 22.2 cancer deaths per million person rem for total body, bone and lung exposures, respectively, the estimated risk of cancer mortality due to mining, milling, and active tallings emissions of radon 222 would be about 0.11 cancer fatalities per RRY. When the risk due to radon 222 emissions from stabilized tallings over a 100 year release period is added, the estimated risk of cancer mortality over a 100 year period is unchanged.
| |
| Similarly, a risk of about 1.2 cancer fatalities is estimated over a 1000-year release period per RRY. When potentiel radon releases from reclaimed and unreclaimed open pit mines are included, the overall risks of radon induced cancer fatalities per RRY would range as follows:
| |
| 0.110.19 fatalities for a 100 year period '
| |
| O 19 0.57 fatalities for a 500 year period 1.2 2.0 fatalities for a 1000 year period NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.7 10 August 1997 <
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| , .( To illustrate: ~ A single model 1000 MWe LWR operating at an 30% capacity factor for 30 years !
| |
| A would be predicted to induce between 3.3 and 5.7 cancer fatalitin in 100 years, between 5.7 and l 17 in 500 years, and betwnn 36 and 60 in 1000 years as a result of relews of redon 222. l I
| |
| neas doses and predicted health effects have bwn compared with thow that can be expected . [
| |
| j fiom natural background emissions of redon 222. Using data from the National Council on j
| |
| . nadiation Protection (NCRp 1975), the average redon 222 concentration in air in the contiguous i Unitud States is about 150 pCPm8 , which the NCRP estimates will result in an annual dose to the bronchial epithelium of 450 mrom. For a stabilized future U.S. population of 300 million, this represents a total lung dose of 135 million person rom per year. Using the same risk estimator of l
| |
| . 22.2 lung cewer fatalities pw million man lung tem und to predict cancer fatalitin for the l model 1000 MWe LWR, estimated lung cancer fatalities alone from background redon 222 in the air can be calculated to be about 3000 pw year or 300,000 to 3,000,000 lung cancer duths
| |
| .. ovw pwlods of 100 and 1000 yars, repectively.
| |
| p ,
| |
| in addition to the rede, elated poMntial health ofrects from the fuel cycle, othw nuclides i l:gduced in the cycla suct' as carbon 14, will contribute to population exposures, it is estimated that 0.08 to 0.12 aA '>nal cancer death may occur per RRY (assuming that no cure for ;
| |
| prevention of canew it wer developed) over the next 100 to 1000 years, respectively, fiom i exposurn to ti.ew other nuclides.
| |
| De lattw exposura can cleo be compared with those from naturally occur ing terrestrial and f cosmic rwy souren. These average about 100 mrom. Therefore, for a stable future population of :
| |
| , 300 million pwsons, the whole-body doses would be about 30 million person rem per year or 3 :
| |
| billion pwson rem and 30 billion person rom for pwlods of 100 and 1000 years, respectively. ;
| |
| These doses could produce about 400,000 and 4 million canew deaths during the safe time l 4
| |
| periods. From this analysis, the staff concludes that both the doses and hulth effects of the :
| |
| uranium fuel cycle are insignificant when compared with doses and potential health effects to the U.S. population resulting from all natural background sources.
| |
| (6) Radianctive Wantaa j i
| |
| ne quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low level, high level, and transuranic wastes) are specified in Table S 3 For lowilevel waste disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission
| |
| -notes in Table S 3 that there will be no significant radioactive releases to the environment. For high- }
| |
| - level and transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that these are to be buried at a Federal repository l
| |
| and that no release to.the environment is associated with such disposal. NUREG.0ll6, which ,
| |
| provides background and .ontext for the high level and transuranic Table S 3 values established by ,
| |
| the Commission Indicates that .hese high level and transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be J released to 'he b.osphere.- No radiological environmental impact is anticipated from such disposal, i
| |
| ; August 1997 5.7 11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) .
| |
| 1
| |
| ? t bm m 4- -
| |
| m-w. hp a Y 'n ,e a y gYe ,.gv,-+u.,e --, m,n e er m o m ,.e.,,,ogom - e e nn , n -e ,ww,yn e- ey-----m-g, n.- -v w s a were
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| (7) Occunational Dose The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 1000 MWe LWR is about 200 person rem. The staff concludes that this occupational dose will not have a signi0cet environmental impact.
| |
| (8) Tresportation The transportation dose to workers and the public is specified in Table S 3. This dose is small and is not considered significant in comparison to the natural brekground dose.
| |
| (9) Fuel Cycle The stafi's analysis of the uranium feel cycle did not depend on the selected fuel cycle (no recycle or uranium only recycle), since the data provided in Table S 3 include maximum recycle option impacts for each element of the fuel cycle. Thus, the staf1's conclusions as to acceptability of the environmental imp .'s of the fuel cycle are not affected by the specific fuel cycle selectew.
| |
| O NtJREO 1555 (DRAFT) 5.7 12 August 1997
| |
| | |
| . . - - - - . . . . . . - . . - . . - . . . - . _ - - - - . . - . ~ . . . - . - - - . ~ . . . - - . -
| |
| t l
| |
| l s .
| |
| o j IPINI IUIL *~-
| |
| pO' FU(L.
| |
| 1000 uwe g ;
| |
| 1,., LIGWT WAftR POWER REACTORS {
| |
| UOg Full '
| |
| FAttltATION b [
| |
| [NRICHt0 UF6 ENRICHMENT V
| |
| NATURAL UF 6
| |
| g F(0(RAL WA$f t REP 051 TORY CONV(R$10N-
| |
| .TO UF6 b 4 U30g ,
| |
| .U4ANILM MIN [$
| |
| AND MILLS i Figen 5.7 A 1. The Uranium FuelCycle: No Recycle Option ;
| |
| O August 1997 5.7 13 NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| I
| |
| . . . :. - ~ :. . .a. - . . . , .- . . - ,.. -
| |
| | |
| i O\
| |
| n
| |
| - i $ PENT FUEL
| |
| '000 M M FUEL p LIGHT WAftR POWER REACTOR $
| |
| [ q REPROCE$$1N(
| |
| FABklCATION _
| |
| A (NRICH[D UF6
| |
| ~
| |
| [ ( 0
| |
| [NRICHMENT U6 HIGH-LEV [L WA$TC$
| |
| TRAN5URANICWA$TI$.
| |
| AND PiUTONIUM NATURAL UF6 I
| |
| CONVER$10N TO UF6 A FEDERALWA$TEREP051T0!ti U30s URANIUM MINES & MILLS Figure 5.7 A 2. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: Uranium Only Recycle Option NUREO 1$55 (DRAFT) 5.7 14 August 1997
| |
| | |
| I-(V ' TaWe 5.7.A.I. Summary of Environmental Considerations for Uranium fuel Cycle * '
| |
| (Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement ;
| |
| (WASH 1248) or Reference Reactor Year [NUREG Oll6)) ,
| |
| Ma Imum effect per sammal feel total requirement or reference rosetor year of ;
| |
| Environmental Conalderations Total model1000 MWe LWR !
| |
| NATURAL RESOURCE USE:
| |
| Land (scres):
| |
| Tomporarily committed") 100 Undistutted.vea 79 ilsturbed area 22 Equivalent to 110 MWe coal fired powerplant Permanently committed 13 Overburden moved (millions of MT) 2.8 Equivalent to 95 M'.Ve coal fired powerplant ,
| |
| Water (millions ofgallons):
| |
| Discharged to air 160 -2% of model 1000 MWe LWR with cooling Diecharged to water bodies 11.090 tower.
| |
| L Disci.arged to ground 127 Totsi 11,377 < 4% of model 1000 MWe LWR with once.
| |
| through cooling Fossil fuel:
| |
| Electrical energy (thousands of MW. hour) 323 < 5% of model 1000 MWe LWR output Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45.MWe coal fired powerplant Natural gas (milhons of scf) 135 < 0.4% of model 1000 MWe energy output EFFLUENTS . CHEMICAL (MT):
| |
| Gases (including entrainment):M SOi 4,400 NO,$8 1,190 Equivalent to emissions from 45 MWe coal.
| |
| fired plant for a year liydrocarbons 14 4
| |
| CO 29.6 V
| |
| August 1997 5.7 15 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| Table 5.7.A.I. (contd)
| |
| Masimum effect per annual fuel total requirement or reference reactor year of Environmental Considerations Total model 1000 MWe LWR Particulates 1,154 Other gases:
| |
| F 0.67 Principally from UF production, enrichment, and reprocessing. Concentration within range of State standards-below level that has elfects on human health 11C1 0.14 Liquids:
| |
| *SO. ;.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and repro-
| |
| ' NO, 25.8 cessing steps. Components that constitute a fluoride 12.9 potential for adverse environmental efrect are Ca" 5.4 present in dilute conceatrations and Cl' 8.5 receive additional dilution by receiving Na* 12.1 bodies of water to levels below permissible Nil, 10.0 standards. The constituents that require rc 0.4 difunan and the flow of dilution water are:
| |
| Nil,-600 cfs., NO,-20 cfs.,
| |
| Fluoride-70 efs.
| |
| Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) 240 from mills only-no significant effluents to environment Solids 91,000 Principally from mills-no significant eilluents to environment EFFLUENTS-RADIOLOGICAL (CURIES):
| |
| Gases (including er.irainment):
| |
| Rn 222 Presently under reconsideration by the Commission Ra 226 0.02 Th 230 0.02 Uranium 0.034 Tritium (thousands) 18.1 C 14 24 Kr 85 (thousands) 400 Ru 106 0.14 principally from fuci reprocenhg plants 1129 1.3 1 131 0.83 Tc 99 Presently under consideration by the Commission NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.7-16 August 1997 9
| |
| | |
| Q Table 5.7.A 1. (contd)
| |
| Maximum effect per annual fuel total requirement or reference reactor year of Environmental Considerations Total model1000 MWe LWR Fission products and transaranics 0.203 Liquids:
| |
| Uranium and daughters 2.1 principally from milling inc'uded in tellings ligt.or and returned to ground no emuents; therefore, no effect on environment Ra 226 .
| |
| 0.0034 From UF. production
| |
| 'Ih 230 0.001$
| |
| Th-234 - 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants concentration 10% of 10 CFR 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel requirements for model LWR Fission and activation products 5.9 x 10*
| |
| Solids (buried onsite):
| |
| Other than high level (shallow) 11,300 9100 Ci comes from low level reactor wastes and 1500 Cl comes from reactor decontamination and decommissioning-buried at land burial facilities. 600 Cl comes from mills-included in tailings returned to ground. Approximately 60 Ci comes from conversion and spent fuel storage. No significant emuent to the environment.
| |
| TRU and IILW(deep) 1.1 x 10' Ituried at Federal Repository Efduents4hermal (billions of Ilritish thermal 4063 < 5% of model 1,000 MWe LWR units)
| |
| Transportation (person-tem):
| |
| Exposure of workers and general public 2.5 Occupational exposure (person rem) 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management August 1997 5.7 17 N11 REG.1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| Table 5.7 A 1. (contd) l l Masimum eff et per annual fuel total i
| |
| ' requirement or reference reactor year of l Environmental Considerations Total model 1000 MWe LWR 1 Notes:
| |
| (a) In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in effect, the Table should be read as if a specine rero entry had been made. However, there are other areas that are not addressed at all in the Table. Table S 3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the Table, or estimates of releases of Radon 222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of Technetium 99 released from waste management or reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing procedures.
| |
| Data supporting this table are given in the " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," WASil-1248, April 1974; the " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0116 (Supp. I to WASH 1248); the " Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR fuel Cycle," NUREG 0216 (Supp. 2 to WASil 1248); and in the record of the 6nal rulemaking pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle impacts from Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, Docket RM $0-3. The contributions from reprocessing, waste management and transportation of wastes are maximited for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes transportation of co!d fuel to a reactor and ofirradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor which are considered in Table S4 of $1.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns A E of Table S 3A of WASH 1248.
| |
| (b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, since the complete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or $7 reactors for 30 years.
| |
| (c) Fstimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation.
| |
| (d) 1.2% from natural gas use and process.
| |
| NUREG-1555 (DRAFT) _
| |
| 5.7 18 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| l NURE21556 l
| |
| /~N U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U / N ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| ***** ) REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.8 SOCIOECONOMICIMPACTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staffs preparation of an introductory paragraph for the portion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes the socioeconomic impacts of station operation. He scope of the paragraph covered by this plan is to introduce the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 5.8.1 through 5.8.3.
| |
| Q Review Interfaces None.
| |
| Data and Information Needs ne reviewer for this ESRP should obtain the proposed organizational structure of the EIS or supplement from the Environmental Project Manager.
| |
| : 11. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ne reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraph prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the intent of the following regulation:
| |
| * 10 CFR 51.70(b) with respect to preparation of an EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language.
| |
| August 1997 5.8 1 NUREG-1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REYlEW PLAN O Et= enYMY.".Yw'.Y.,",5="k"w'm ThI'.*e.eu*m.*nI. Y N ."*M N "*"
| |
| . p.rt of V M ig g,2'J'J,'.f;"J. ,g;,,g,*,';t,.".n.'2.an, n ni
| |
| !I.y, j.2*. ij ;t,'.
| |
| 2 ..to.,,''"n. . 6.r i
| |
| 'c".EX.Ay.,b.c an* -nia a w r. * .a p.* * .n r ... .ne a ..to .c a n - 4.i. = n - .ni. .noi.
| |
| g a.,,d,- m w,.,4, y ,,4,j g ., p .a.
| |
| Pom"*.".'an". $4.N A%il,To"on"J.***'*"4* "m.'i"d el d % tis" """* "" **"*" "**'""'
| |
| | |
| Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * 'Ihere are no regulatory positions specific to this ESRP.
| |
| . Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential socioeconomic impacts is discussed in the following paragraph:
| |
| Introductory paragraphs that orient the reader with respect to the relevance of the material to the overall organization and goals of the EIS add clarity to the presentation.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES The material to be prepared is informational in natore and no specific analysis of data is required.
| |
| IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer ofinformation covered by this ESRP should prepare at least one introductory paragraph for the EIS. The paragraph (s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 5.8.1 through 5.8.3. The paragraph (s) should list the types ofinformation to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the EIS.
| |
| V. IMPI EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staffin its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCE 10 CFR 51.70," Draft environmental impact statement-general."
| |
| 5.8-2 August 1997 O
| |
| NUREO 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| NURED.1555 ti 8. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O-m /^% ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD j REVIEW PLAN
| |
| ***** OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5.8.1 PIIYSICAL IMPACTS OF STATION OPERATION REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary-Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-None
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW ,
| |
| This environmental standud rWiew plan (ESRP) directs the stafT's identification and assessment of the direct physical impacts of plant operation on the community. Among these are the affects of noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusion, p The scope of the review directed by this plan should be of sufficient detail to permit the reviewer to predict and assess potential impacts and to evaluate how these impacts should be treated in the licensing
| |
| ('
| |
| process. Where necessary, the reviewer should consider alternative locations, designs, and procedures that would mitigate predicted adverse impacts.
| |
| Review Interfaces ne reviewer should receive input from or provide input to reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESRPs 2.1 and 2.2.1. Provide a detailed description of the plant location and the surrounding region affected by the plant operations.
| |
| . ESRP 212. Obtain descriptions of bodies of water whose use is likely to be affected by noise, odor, dust, or other direct socioeconomic impacts during plant operations or which could be afTected aesthetically by plant operations.
| |
| August 1997 5.8.11 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REYlEW PLAN d '
| |
| c 072*.*f.'2*1"o.";2". n" fin'''*
| |
| 0 1 f.".%"3r"'e I?JMo*f.M,:,@,2,.",r.r..
| |
| gg g,,,g.y;,g., ud t.n.',.';'#..,."@2,i.o.
| |
| Mdo",d,,d:",.Q"'.%"n'%f.':,d ll"f.tt.ne,oom 1, i o ,. ..
| |
| i' . i e
| |
| '"s.o''',ddt."*A:
| |
| .r,!.a.y"J.
| |
| J."
| |
| i om .oi.i r.M,...',
| |
| 4 gg. .ngoaa,.a;w , .,ig.g.,.w.p.a. .n. ..w... 4 ..ny. .. .,,,on,i.i.. .. commoa.i. comm.ai. .ao i.
| |
| So",, ma"' aim':t'd'4"d:f ta"l*a.fo.Nt"#;;;d .o *"'c*un!* """"* " 5 ""*"" "***'"'
| |
| * ESRP 2.5. Identify the socioecorsomic features such as population and community characteristics of the site environs that potentially may be subject to physical impacts from plant operations.
| |
| . ESRP Chanter 3.0. Use the description of the proposed plant operations to determine what physical impacts on the surrounding region may result.
| |
| * ESRP 4.1.1. Identify the potential environmental impacts from plant operations on local land use that may have associated physical impacts.
| |
| * ESRP 4.4.1. Identify the physical impacts that were associated with plant construction to determine whether they might also apply for plant operations.
| |
| + ESRP 5.3.3.1. Obtain descriptions ofinipacts on plumes, solids deposition, cloud formation, ground-level humidity, etc. as a result of operation of the heat discharge system that could affect recreational activity or aesthetics.
| |
| * ESRP 5.5. Determine whether impacts associated with operations of the plant nonradioactive waste system might also cause other physical impacts.
| |
| . ESRP 5.5.3. Determine whether impacts associated with plant cooling system operations m!ght also cause other physical impacts during plant operations.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff evaluations of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts of operation, e ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4. When the reviewer concludes that there are physical impacts of operation that are adverse and should be avoided, request the reviewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 to consider alternative plant designs, locations, or operating procedures that would avoid the impacts.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station specific factors and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following information should usually be addressed:
| |
| . plant layout (from ESRP 3.'l) e distribution of people, buildings, roads, and recreational facilities that are vulnerable to impact by plant operation (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| e predicted noise levels and nonradiological air pollutant levels at sensitive areas as identified above (from the ER)
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.8.12 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| (n) w.
| |
| e plant visual appearance from sensitive surrounding areas (from ESRP 3.1)
| |
| . applicable standards for levels of noise and gaseous pollutants (from consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies) e applicant's proposed methods to reduce visual impacts and impacts of noise and other pollutants (from the ER).
| |
| II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for noise, dust, air pollution, and' visual aesthetics are based on meeting the relevant !
| |
| requirements of the following:
| |
| 1
| |
| . Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, as related to air quality during construction activities
| |
| + 40 CFR 50 as related to National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards ;
| |
| * 29 CFR 1910. " Occupational and llealth Standards," with respect to noise, dust, and air pollution j
| |
| . Clean Water Act (FWPCA) with respect to water pollution :
| |
| p . Occupational Safety anti licalth Act, Noise Provision,39 Federal Register 10518, Department of Labor, OSilA (May 29,1971) with respect to noise pollution standards
| |
| (.y
| |
| . 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix D, as related to Category 2 socioeconomic impacts
| |
| . 10 CFR 51.71 and 10 CFR 51.45 as related to the potential significance of physical impacts of station operations.
| |
| Regulatory guidance and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows:
| |
| * Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, with respect to economic and social impact of siting and construction activities.
| |
| Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant's potential physical impacts of station operation is discussed in the following paragraphs:
| |
| In accordance with 10 CFR S t.45(d), the apphcant is required to submit in the preliminary and final environmental reports (PER and FER)information needed for evaluating these factors. Similar information is required to be present in the EIS pursuant to 10 CFR 51.71.
| |
| p\
| |
| (s /
| |
| . August 1997 5.8.1-3 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) d
| |
| | |
| Reasonably detailed information about the physical socioeconomic impacts of the site in question is required to assess any potential of social or economic impacts that might occur as a result of plant operation. Data in the ER must be adequate to make these determinations.
| |
| 111. REVIEW PROCEDURES
| |
| %c reviewer's analysis of operational impacts on the community will be linked to the environmental reviews directed by ESRPs 2.1,2.2.1,2.5.1, and 2.5.2; all of ESRP Chapter 3.0, and ESRPs 5.3.3,5.5.1, and 5.5.2 to ensure that the environmental factors most likely to be impacted by proposed plant operation are adequately addressed. To evaluate the information presented in the applicant's environmental report, the reviewer should take the following steps:
| |
| (1) Identify the people, buildings, roads, and recreational facilities that could be afTected for each potential impact.
| |
| * Detennine the sensitive use patterns (c.g., hospitals, residences, recreational areas, viewsheds) allowable limits ofimpacts, where available.
| |
| . Consider impacts from noise, air pollution, and visual intrusion.
| |
| (2) Identify the potential operational impacts on these elements and predict the extent and magnitude of the impacts, impacts may be described in qualitative terms if the effect on the community is expected to be small.
| |
| (3) If adverse impacts can be predicted, conduct a more detailed analysis and, where practical, make quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the impacts.
| |
| (4) Consult with the reviewer for ESRP 4.1.1 to identify the construction features that are expected to have operational impacts (e.g., access roads). If operational impacts are projected to be temporary extensions of the construction impact, this may be noted and no further analysis wil: be needed.
| |
| (5) Consult with the reviewers of both ESRPs 3.7 and 4.4.1 to complete the analysis of visual impacts, with emphasis on the identification of measures and controls (e.g., screening) to mitigate the impacts determined to be adverse.
| |
| (6) Identify those proposed design features and operating procedures that can b: expected to mitigate the physicalimpacts. Means available for mitigation include
| |
| + drift and noise eliminators
| |
| + air pollution control devices
| |
| + landscaping for visual screening.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.8.14 August 1997
| |
| | |
| (7) Become familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and agreements pertinent to the operational impacts of nuclear power stations, (8) Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies to verify that current applicable regulations and guides are available. For example, consult
| |
| * the EPA for an, blent air quality standards and air pollutant levels e the Occupational Safety and llealth Administration guidelines and standards applicable to facility operation.
| |
| IV. EyALUATION FINDING.S This ESRP should be designed to accomplish the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of physical impacts resulting from plant operation, (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis, and (3) presen-tation of staff conclusions regarding physical impacts of station operation to the community, if the site is remote from communities and does not represent a visual intrusion, and it is found that the applicant can operate in compliance with appropriate guides and standards, these facts should be stated with only a very brief discussion noting that under these conditions physical sacloeconomic impacts should be minor. If the foregoing conditions are not met, or if there are no applicable standards, pre-(7 dicted impacts should be described along with conclusions regarding the significance of the etTect on the
| |
| ( community, Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations:
| |
| * The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement of the following type:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information on the operations of the proposed faality.
| |
| Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant physical socioeconomic impacts as a result of plant operations.
| |
| * The impact is adverse but can be mitigated by design orprocedure modt fications that the reviewer has ident{ fled anddetermined to be practical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager and the reviewers for ESRP 9.3 to verify that the reviewer's proposed modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit cost balance.
| |
| The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and identified measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10.
| |
| * The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is ofsuch magnitude that it should be m'olded. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewers for ESRP 9.3 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is needed. The
| |
| \'}- August 1997 5.8.1 5 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| | |
| reviewer should participite in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical. if no such ab.ernatives can be identified, the reviewer should be responsible for providing this infonnation to the reviewer for ESRP 10.1.
| |
| If the reviewer detennines that no situations exist that sugkest an adverse impact, no evaluation will be required. If unusual situations such as excessive fogging scing, or drift exist, the reviewer should identify mitigating actions.
| |
| The reviewer should verify that sufficient infortnation has been provided in accordance with the require-ments of this ESRP and that the evaluation suppons the following type of concluding statemer.t to be included in the staffs EIS:
| |
| The staff has reviewed the available information relative to the community's social and economic characteristics. The staff concludes that the information is adequate to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 51.45 and the intent of 10 CFR 51.71.
| |
| These conclusions are based on the following:
| |
| . *lhe applicant has developed the information using the recommended information sources and approaches suggested by prevailing professional practice.
| |
| * The information sources used are the most recently updated versions.
| |
| V. IMPl EMENTATION The method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with the Commission's regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptabia alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.
| |
| VI. REFERENCES 10 CFR 51, Appendix D," Environmental efrect of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.45, " Environmental repon."
| |
| 10 CFR $1.71," Draft environmental impact statement-contents."
| |
| 29 CFR 1910," Occupational and llealth Standards."
| |
| 40 CFR 50," National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards."
| |
| Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2. I916. Preparation ofEnvironmental Reportsfor Nuclear Power Statk,ns.
| |
| NUREG 1555 (DRAFT) 5.8.16 August 1997 O
| |
| 3
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ?
| |
| Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, as amended,41 USC 7401 et seq.
| |
| Clean Weter Act, as amended 33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as the Federal Water Pollutlen Control Act). .
| |
| t U.S. Department of Labor. " Occupational Safety and Health Act, Noise Provision," 39 Federal Register 10$18 (May 29,1971). i i
| |
| t l
| |
| l r
| |
| I 4 t i
| |
| h I
| |
| i
| |
| ?
| |
| P b
| |
| i i-P f
| |
| n i
| |
| p I
| |
| L
| |
| ?
| |
| 4 ..
| |
| I [a August 1997: 5.8.17 NUREG IS$$ (DRAFT) i
| |
| ..-..;.. ,w-,-..-.,. . . , , - : :., -.- .- .. .- .. . . - . . . . - - - . - . - . - . :: . -. ; . - - w. . :
| |
| | |
| NURE}1555 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMissl0N O &?<) ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
| |
| \W57/*****
| |
| REVIEW PLAN OFFICE OF NUCLEAR RFACTOR REGULATION
| |
| $.8.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF STATION OPERATION ,
| |
| REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary--Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Secondary-Nonc
| |
| : 1. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staft's analysis and evaluation of the social and economic impacts of plant operation on the surrou. ding region
| |
| * and individual communities that could be affected. The reviewer should identify specific impaca, where they could occur, and predict their relative magnitude.
| |
| 1 The scope of the review directed by this pirm includes the social and economic impacts that result from V operation of the plant and from requirements of the operating staff. Categories ofimpacts resulting from operation of the station include (1) regional labor, (2) tax revenues to localjurisdictions, (3) public facilities and services,(4) social or economic consequerces of water use or land use impacts, and
| |
| ($) local plar '.ng/ political decisionmaking processes. Categories of impacts flowing from the requirements of the operating staff include (1) settlement pattern and hoaing, (2) education, (3) other public facilities and service,(4) private sector goods and services,(5) local employment and income, (6):ax revenues to localjurisdictions, (7) local planning political decision processer, and (8) social structure and community cohesion. For most situations, e.g., refurbishment or refueling outage activities, most impacts will generally be minor when compared with the corresponding impacts during plant construction. The review should be of suffichmt detail to permit the reviewer to predict and assess potential impacts and to consider how these impacts hould be treated in the licensing process (l.c.,
| |
| consideration of alternative locations, designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate predicted adverse impacts). ,
| |
| (a) See ESRP 2.5.2 for a definition of" region."
| |
| August 1997 5.8.2 1 NUREG 1555 (DRAFT)
| |
| USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
| |
| '"""O"#" *"7 *
| |
| "*."s. .ri or (n\
| |
| 'q)
| |
| $N.,n,{., '.Jn"P.1';f.n.'2"J.*i ?R?ct.' ,d,'.".'.?,'P.#
| |
| gon ggtpg ?M,*R*A"'.*;T.?v'?,1.&."n.227 r gr . Th vironm nt.1 t.nowd ilW 7.a',Ts'. Y.'v .w k.y.dpl.n.
| |
| ."*r*!h 'A @2,"n'.* i.'.T,L*.
| |
| to Pr or. e'':LM.p".lr:.'
| |
| of Enytronm.nt.1*n.'Ln. :L*t I,f.AT "M.",LT '.',F.t",R',f.* *'*"' "'" " "'"'d "*''*d'* *' r * * ***'**''''* '' '"**** d''' '****"'' *"d ''
| |
| 82:n"&W:fffJM"Rf;*ii5.W'wt."#n'J* :'.*B.d c Tat' """' '"' ""*''" "*'"'""Y
| |
| | |
| Review Interfagts The reviewer should obtain input from or provide input to the reviewers ofinformation covered by the following ESRPs, as indicated:
| |
| . ESEPs 2.1 and 2.2.1. Provide a detailed description of the plant location and of the surrounding region affected by the plant operations.
| |
| . ESRPs 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Identify the socioeconomic features such as population and community characteristics of the site environs that may be subject to economic impacts from plant operations.
| |
| . ESRP 4.4.2. Identify the economic impacts that were associ'ted with plant cons'ruction to determine whether they might apply for plant operations.
| |
| . ESRP 5.1.1. Determine whether land-use impacts associated with plant operations might also cause economic impacts in the region.
| |
| . ESRP 5.22. Determine the economic impacts caused by the operation of the plant's water supply system.
| |
| . ESRP 5.10. Provide a list of applicant commitments and staff evaluation of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts of operation.
| |
| f e ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4. When the reviewer concludes that there are social and economic impacts of operation that are adverse and should be avoided, ask the reviewers of ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 to consider alternative plant designs, loc Aions, or operating procedures that would avoid the impacts.
| |
| a ESRP 10.1. Provide a list of any unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed plant operation.
| |
| Data and Information Needs The kinds of data and information needed will be affected by site and station specific factors and the degree cf detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. Most of this information has been developed under ESRP 2.5.2 and has been further processed in the analysis covered by ESRP 4.4.2. The analysis of the impacts resulting from station operation requires knowledge of these data and information. The following data or information should usustly be required:
| |
| * political structure (from ESRP 2.5.2)
| |
| * demographyhettlement pattern (from ESRP 2.5.1) social structure (froin ESRP 2.5.2) e housing: estimated operating staff housing requirements (from the environmental report [ER])
| |
| +
| |
| education (from ESRP 2.5.2)
| |
| NUREG.1555 (DRAFT) 5.8.22 August 1997 O
| |
| | |
| r i 4 y ,-
| |
| , ,f
| |
| ' i j
| |
| -
| |
| * roersation (fmm ESRP 2.5.2) r eawastaa (Aom ESRP 2.5.2) !
| |
| e land-use planning and soning (from ESRP 2.5.2)' 2 !
| |
| * L}}
| |