ML20217Q208

Rev 2 to Reg Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations

ML20217Q208
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/30/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:
References
TASK-*****, TASK-RE REGGD-04.007, REGGD-4.007, NUDOCS 9804100341
Download: ML20217Q208 (32)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Revision 2

,, jog April 1998 J g[ c ouq) REGULATORY GU DE

• • • • • OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH l REGULATORY GUIDE 4.7 (Draft was issued as DG-4004)

GENERAL SITE SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS A. INTRODUCTION Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), requires that all agencies of the The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et Federal Government prepare detailed environmental seq.), as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act statements on proposed major Federal actions that cam of 1974 places on the Nuclear Regulatory Commissior- significantly affect the quality of the human environ-(NRC) the responsibility for the licensing and regula- ment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require the lion of private nuclear facilities from the standpoint of Federal agency to censider, in its decision-making pro-public health and safety. Part 100," Reactor Site Crite- cess, the environmental impacts of each proposed ma-ria,"of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations re- jor action and the available alternative actions, includ-quires that the population density; use of the site envi- ing alternative sites.

rons, including proximity to man-made hazards; and q the physical characteristics of the site, including Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations j seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology, be for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Fune-d taken into account in determining the acceptability of a tions,"of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations site for a nuclear power reactor. Seismic and geologic sets forth the NRC's policy and procedures for the prep-site criteria f or nuclear power plants are provided m Ap- aration and processing of environmental impact state-pendix A and in 10 CFR 100.23. Appendix A to menis and related documents pursuant to Section 10 CFR Part 50 establishes minimum requirements for 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

the principal design criteria for water-cooled nuclear power plants, and Appendix S to Part 50 provides engi-The limitations en the Commission's authority and neering criteria for nuclear power plants. A number of.

responsibility pursuait to the NEPA imposed by the these criteria are directly related to site characteristics Clean Water Act l Federal Water Pollution Control Act as well as to events and conditions outside the nuclear (FWPCA)] (33 U.S.C.1251 et seq.), as amended, are power unit.

addressed in the Policy Statement Regarding Imple-mentation of Certain NRC and EPA ResponsibilitiesO ,

f The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as amended, imple- published in the Federal Register on December 31, / /

mented by Executive Orders 11514 and 11991 and the 1975 (40 FR 60115).

05NRC REOt!!ATORY Ol'IDb The guidu a e issued in the tollowiiig ten broad divevions

(

Regulatory Gwdes are issued to desenba and nahe avadable to the pubhc such informa-toon as methods screptable to the NRC statt for emplementing specshc parts of the Co* 1 Power Rea;: tors O Products trassion s regulations techn# ques used by the staN m ovah4atmg specshc problems or pot 7 Traraportatmn tulated acudenlis and data needed by the NRC stadt in its review of apphcations for per.' 2 3 Researct, pg, ,,,3 y.and,e;na. Reactors is Facihties 0 Occupahonal Health mits and hcenses RegJatory gwdes are not substrides for regulahory and comptance 4 Environmental and % ting D Antitrust and Fmancial Review with them e rot seawred Methods and solutions d flereni ttorn those set out in the guides 5 Materials and Plant P:.neation to General will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the imdings requisite le the issuance or cord tmunnte of a permet or hcense by the Commission This guide was moued after cona+deretton of comments reconed from the pubite Co* duction and Distribu soriServces Sociton Ottice of the CNet mtomishonOthcer U S Nu-

^\ ments and s.sggesteons for trnprovements m these gedes are encouragod at all times and clear %gulatory Crewmse ort WasNngton 90 20556-0001. or by tan nr (301)416-6272 gJoes will be revoed u appetpnate to accommodate comments and to reflect newin.

lesued gwdes ma, sino be purchased from the Neitsor.al Technicalinlomistion Service on s wnnen comments may b. submitted to m. Ases and D.ecnves ruanch ADM e S Nw a standing order basis Details on the service enny os obtained Dy wnbng hMS 6265 Post Clear Regu6 story Commiss40n WanNngton DC W555-D001 Acyal Road Spnngbeid VA 22161.

9004100341 980430 I G' 4$f-ll N W . ,

ff;h('Q' PDR REOGD 04.007 R ,, PDR i

This guide discusses the major site characteristics to be valuable in assessing candidate site identification related to public health and safety and environmental in specific licensing cases.

issues that the NRC staff considers in determining the .

The m. formation needed to evaluate potential sites suitability of sites for h. gn . t-water-cooled (LWR) nu- .

at this initial stage of site selection is assumed to be lim-cicar power stations.1 The guidelines may be used by ited to information that is obtainable from published re-applicants in identifying suitable candidate sites for nu-p rts, public records, public and private agencies, and clear power stations. The decision that a station may be individuals knowledgeable about the locality of a po-built on a specific candidate site is based on a detailed evaluation of the pmposed site-plant combination and a tential site. Although in some cases the applicants may cost-benefit analysis comparing it with alternative site. have conducted on-the-spot investigations, it is as-plant combinations as discussed in Regulatory Guide sumed here that these investigations would be limited 4.2, " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nu- to reconnaissance-type surveys at this stage in the site clear Power Stations."2 selection process.

Chapter 9 of Regulatory Guide 4.2 discusses the The safety issues discussed include geologic /

selection of a site from among alternative sites; the ap- seismic, hydrologic, and meteorological characteristics plicimt should present its site-plant selection pnvess as of proposed sites; exclusion area and low population the consequence of an analysis of alternativos whose zone; population considerations as they relate to pro-environmental costs and benefits wen esaluated and tecting the general public from the potential hazards of compared and then weighed against those of the pro- serious accidents; potential effects on a station from ac-posed facility. cidents associated with nearby industrial, transporta-tion, and military facilities; cmergency planning; and This guide is intended to assist applicants in the ini.

security plans. The environmental issues discussed tial stage of selecting potential sites for a nuclear power c(meern potential impacts from the construction and station. Each site that appears to be compatible with the operation of nuclear power stations on ecological sys-general criteria discussed in this guide will have to be tems, water use, land use, the atmosphere, aesthetics, examined in greater detail before it can be considered to be a " candidate" site, i.e., one of the group of sites that and socioeconomics.

are to be etmsidered in selecting a " proposed" or " pre- This guide doe:, not discuss details of the engineer-ferred" site.3 ing desigcs required to ensure the compatibility of the nuclear station and the site or the detailed information This guide should be used only in the initial stage of site selection because it does not provide detailed mquired for the preparaQn of the safety analysis and environmental reports. In addition, nuclear power reac-guidance on the various relevant factors and format for tor site suitability as it may be affected by the Commis-ranking the relative suitability or desirability of pos, sion's materials safeguards for nuclear power plants is sible sites. This guide provides a general set of safety not addressed in this guide.

and environmental criteria that the NRC staff has found A significant commitment of time and resources may be required to select a suitable site for a nuclear IFor the parpose of this guide, nuclear power station refers to the nu- power station, including safety and environmental con-clear reactor unit or units. nuclear steam supply, e lectric generating units. auxiliary systems includmg the niohng system and structures siderations. Site selection involves consideration of such as docks that are locatrd on a given site, and any new electrical transmission towers and lines crected m amnect.un with the facihties.

Eublic health and safet}', ensi ncerinS and desiSn, eco-nomics, institutional requirements, environmental im-20 pics are available for inspection or nipying for a fee from the NRC pacts, and other factors. The potential impacts of the Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW.,Ushmgton, DC; the PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop t1-6, Washington, DC construction and operation of nuclear power stations on 20555 -0001; telephone (202 )634-3273; fax (202 )634-3343. Copics of . .

regulatory guides, both active and draft, may be obtained free of the physical and biological environment and on social, charge bywriting the Reproduction and Distribution Scrits Sectioa, cultural, and economic features 4 (including environ-OCIO, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555 -0001, or by fax at . . .

(301)415-5272; or at current rates from the National Technicallnfor. mental j.ustice) are tisually similar to the potential im-mation Sers ia by writing NTIS at 5285 Port R'.yal Road, Springfield, 4fiiological and physical environment includes geology, geomorphohw 3See Chapter 90f Regulator) Ouide d ' for a discunion of rite st lection gy, surface and groundwater hydrology, climatology, air quality, procedures. The " proposed" site submitted by an applicant for a hmnohigy, water quahty, fisheries.wildhic and vegetation. Social and umstrusn permit is that site chosen from a number of" candidate" cultural features include sanic resources, recreation resources, ar-sites the apphcant prefers and on which the applicant proposes to cheological and historical resounts, and community resources, in-amstruct a nuclear power station. ciuding land use patierns.

4.7-2

1 pacts of any major industna facility, but nuclear power Motion,"2 and Regulatory Guide 1.59," Design Basis stations are unique in the degree to which potential Floods for Nuclear Power Plants."2 in addition to geo-impacts of the environment on their safety must be con- logic and seismic evaluation for assessing seismically

. sidered. The safety requirements are primary determi- induced flooding potential, Section 2.4 of Regulatory nants of the suitability of a site for nuclear power Guide l.70 and Regulatory Guide l.59 describe hydro-stations, but considerations of environmental impacts logic criteria, including coincident flood events that are also important and need to be evaluated, should be considered.

In the site selection process, coordination between ATMOSPHERIC EXTREMES AND applicants for nuclear power stations and various Fed- DISPERSION eral, State, local, and Native American tribal agencies The potential effect of natural atmospheric ex-will be useful in identifying potential problem areas. tremes (e.g., tornadoes 6 and exceptional icing condi-Appendices A and B of this guide summarize the tions 7) on the safety-related structures of a nuclear sta-important safety-related and environmental consider. tion must be considered. However, the atmospheric i ations for assessing the site suitability of nuclear power extremes that may occur at a site are not normally criti-stations. cal in determining the suitability of a site because safety-related structures, systems, and components can The information collections contained in this regu-be designed to withstand most atmospheric extremes.

l latory guide are covered by the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, which were approved by the Of fice of Manage- The atmospheric characteristics at a site are an im-ment and Budget, approval number 3150-0011. The portant consideration in evaluating the dispersion of ra.

NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not dioactive effluents from both postulated accidents and l required to respond to, a collection of information un. routine releases in gaseous effluents 8 In addition to less it displays a currently valid OM B control number. meeting the NRC requirements for the dispersion of airbome radioactive material, the station must meet j IL DISCUSSION State and Federal requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as amended. This is unlikely to be GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY .

an important considerat. ion f.or nuclear power station Nuclear power stations must be designed to pre- siting unless (1) a site is in an area where existing air vent the loss of safety-related functions. Generally, the quality is near or exceeds standards,(2) there is a poten-most restrictive safety-related site characteristics con- tial for interaction of the cooling system plume with a sidered in determining the suitability of a site are sur- plume containing noxious or toxic substances from a face faulting, potential ground motion and foundation nearby facility, or (3) the auxiliary generators are ex-conditions 5 (including liquefaction, subsidence, and pected to operate routinely.

landslide potential), and seismically induced floods. The atmosphen.cdata necessary for assessment of.

Criter.iathat desen.be the nature of the investigations re- . .

. . the potential dispersion of radioactive maten.a l are de-quired to obta.m the geolog.ic and seismic data neces- .

senbed in Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorolog-sary to determ.me site suitability have been set forth m. .

ical Programs.,', -

10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," in Section 100.23 " Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria"(59 FR in the evaluation of potential sites, onsite meteoro-52255). Safety-related site characteristics are identified logical monitoring can determine if the atmospheric in Section 2.5 of Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard 6See Regulatory Guide 1.76.* Design Basis 1ornado for Nuclear Power Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nu- Piants."

7 See clear Power Plants,"2 Regulatory Guide 1.165,"Identi- Section 2.4.7 of Regulatory Guide 1.70.

' Radiation doses associated with routine releases of airborne radioac-fication and Characterization of Seismic Sources and tive material must be kept "as kiwas is reasonably achievabit"( ALA Determmation of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground RAi hec 10 CIR 20.1101(b)]. The requirements for design ebjectives for equipment to mntrol releases of radioactive material in effluents 5W.J llall.N.M.Newmark.and A.J llendronJr./'Classincation.Engi- trom nuclear power reactors are srt forth in 10 CIR 50.34a, I urther, neering 11operties and Field l'xploration of Soils. Intact Rock and in 10 CIR 50.36a(a) provides that.in order to keep power reactor tfflu-Situ Rod Masses"(WASil-1301. May 1974), outlines some of the ent releases At. ARA, each lianse authorizing operation of such a fa-procedures used to evaluate site foundation properties. Copies are cihty will include technimi specifications regarding the establishment available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Doc. of effluent control equipment und reporting of actual releans. Appen-ument Room at 2120 L Street NW.. Washington, DC; the PDR's mail- dix 1 to 10 ClR Part 50 provides nunterical guidante for design objec-ing address is Mail Stop Lt.-6 Washington, DC 20555-0001; tele. tives and technical specifica'. ion requit ements for limiting mnditions phone (202;634 3273; fax (202)634 3343, of aperation for lighi+aterwoled nuclear power plants.

1 4.7-3 1

1 l

i conditions at a site are adequately represented by the facilities in the vicinity of the site to corrosion by drift f available atmospheric data for the area. Canyons or from cooling tower or spray system drift should be con- ]

deep valleys frequently have atmospheric variables that sidered. Not only are the amount, direction, and dis-are substantially different from those variables meas- tance of the drif t from the cooling system important, ured for the general region. Other topographical fea- but the salt concentration above the natural background tures such as hills, mountain ranges, and lake or ocean salt deposition at the site is also important in assessing shorelines can affect the local atmospheric conditions drift effects. None of these considerations are critical in at a site and may cause the dispersion characteristics at evaluating the suitability of a site, but they could result the site to be less favorable than those in the general in special cooling system design requirements or in the area or region. More stringent design or effluent objec- need for a larger sitt, to confine the effects of drift within tives may be required in such cases. the site boundary. The environmental effects of salt drift are most severe where saline water or water with While it is the concentration of radioactive materi-high mineral content is used for condenser cooling.

als in the atmosphere at any distance from the point of release, y,(Ci/m3 ), that must be controlled, the ratio Cooling towers produce cloudlike plumes that y/0, where O(Ci/sec) is the rate of release of radioac- vary in size and ultitude depending on the atmospheric tive materials from th( source. has become a commonly conditions. The plumes often a few miles in length evaluated term becaust it depends only on atmospheric before becoming dissipated, but the plumes themselves variables and distance hum the source. or their shadows could have aesthetic impacts. Visible plumes emitted from cooling towers in the vicinity of If the dispersion of ridioactive material released airports could cause a hazard to aviation.

following a design basis a:cident is insufficient at the boundary of the exclusion ara (see the following sec- EXCLUSION AREA AND LOW POPULATION ZONE tion, " Exclusion Area and Low Population Zone") or the outer boundary of the low population zone, the plant A reactor licensee is required by 10 CFR 100.21(a) design would not satisfy the requirements in 10 CFR to designate an exclusion area and to have authority to 50.34(a)(1). In this case, the design of the station would determine all activities within that area, including re-be required to include appropriate and adequate com- moval of pers nnel and property. In selecting a site for a pensating engineered safety features. In addition, mete- nudcar power station, it is necessary to provide for an orological conditions are to be determined (1) for use in exclusion area in which the applicant has such author-the environmental report required in 10 CFR Part 51 ity. Transportation corridors such as highways, rail-and (2) for verification of the criteria specified in the mads, and waterways are permitted to traverse the ex-Design Control Document for a certified plant design. clusion area provided (1) these are not so close to the facility as to interfere with normal operation of the fa-Local ~ fogging and icing can result from water va- cility and (2) appropriate and effective arrangements por discharged into the atmosphere from cooling tow- are made to control traffic on the highway, railroad, or l ers, lakes, canals, or spray ponds, but can generally be waterway in case of emergency to protect the public acceptably mitigated by station design and operational health and safety.

practices. However, some sites have the potential for In 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(1), the exclusion arca severe fogging or icing because of local atmospheric is required to be of such a size that an individual as-conditions. For example, areas of unusually high mois-sumed to be located at any point on its boundary would l ture content that are protected from large-scale airflow

' not receive a radiation dose in excess of 25 rem total ef-patterns are most likely to experience these conditions.

fective dose equivalent (TEDE) over any 2-bour period The impacts are generally of greatest potential impor-following a postulated fission product release into the tance relative to transportation or electrical transmis- containment. The required exclusion area size involves sion systems in the vicinity of a site.

consideration of the atmospheric characteristics of the A cooling system designed with special consider- Sil' "S *'ll "* P I "I d'$IE"-

ation for reducing drift may be required because of the A reactor licensee is also required by 10 CFR sensitivity of the natural vegetation or the crops in the 100.21(a) to designate an area immediately beyond the vicinity of the site to damage from airborne salt par- exclusion area as a low population zone (LPZ). The size tieles. The vulnerability of existing industries or other of the LPZ must be such that the distance to the bound-4.7-4

l l ary of the nearest densely populated center containing EPZ for nuclear power plants generally consists of an i

more than about 25,000 residents must be at least one area about 16 km (10 mi) in radius, and the ingestion (9 and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the pathway EPZ generally consists of an area about 80 km

() outer boundary of the LPZ. The boundary of the population center should be determined upon consider.

(50 mi) in radius.

The exact size and configuration of the EPZs ation of population distribution, not political should be determined in relation to local emergency re-boundaries, sponse needs and capabilities as they are affected by In 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(2), the LPZ is re- such conditions as demography, topography, land char-quired to be of such a size that an individual located on aeteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional its outer radius for the course of the postulated accident boundaries.

(assumed to be 30 days) would not receive a radiation dose in excess of 25 rem TEDE. The size of the LPZ de-SECURITY PLANS pends upon atmospheric dispersion characteristics and According to 10 CFR 100 21(f), " Site characteris-population characteristics of the site as well as aspects tics must be such that adequate security plans and meas-of plant design. ures can be developed." Physical protection require-ments for nuclear power plants as well as special POPULATION CONSIDERNrlONS nuclear materials are described in 10 CFR Part 73. Se-As stated in 10 CFR 100.21(h), reactors should be curity plans and measures are important to prevent located away from very densely populated centers; plant damage and possible radiological consequences areas oflow population density are generally preferred. to members of the public as a result of acts of sabotage.

Part 100 also states that, in determining the acceptabili- Based on experience and analysis, the NRC staff ty of a particular site located away from a very densely has found that a distance of about 110 meters (360 feet) populated center but not in an area oflow density, con- to any vital structure or vital equipment generally sideration will be given to safety, environmental, eco- would provide sufficient space to satisfy security meas-

\ nomic, or other factors that may result in the site being

ures specified in 10 CFR 73.55 (e.g., protected area bar-( found acceptable. riers, detection equipment, isolation zones, vehicle bar-Locating reactors away from densely populated riers). Since the distance to the nearest exclusion aru boundary is considerably greater than 110 meters (360 centers is part of the NRC's defense-in-depth philoso-phy and facilitates emergency planning and prepared, feet), the site characteristics are not normally limiting ness as well as reducing potential doses and property with regard to the ability to develop adequate seemity damage in the event of a severe accident. The numerical Pl d"S-values given in this guide (see Regulatory Position 4 A possible exception occurs if the exclusion area is

" Population Considerations") are generally consistent traversed by a highway, railroad, or waterway. Travers-with past NRC practice and redect consideration of se- al of such routes through the exclusion area is per-vere accidents as well as the demographic and geo- mitted, provided they are not so close that they interfere '

graphic conditions of the United States. with normal operations of the facility, and provided up- l propriate and effective arrangements have been made to EMERGENCY PLANNING control traffic on such routes in case of emergency. If a According to 10 CFR 100.21(g)," Physical charac- transportation route passes closer than about 110 me-teristics unique to the proposed site that could pose a ters (360 feet) to a vital structure or vital equipment, i significant impediment to the development of emer- special measures or analyses may be needed to show gency plans must be identified." that adequate security plans can be developed.

Additionally,10 CFR 50.47(a)(1) requires reason- liYDROLOGY able assurance that adequate protective measures can  !

and w ill be taken in the event of a radiological emergen. Flooding ]

l/G cy before an operating license for a nuclear power plant Criteria for evaluation of seismically induced f can be issued. Adequate plans must be developed for doods are provided in 10 CFR 100.23. Regulatory ,

two areas or Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs). As Guide 1.59," Design Basis Floods for Nelear Power

{

stated in 10 CFR 50.47, the plume exposure pathway Plants,"2 describes an acceptable method of determin-J 4.7-5

I ing the design basis Hoods for sites along streams or with appropriate State and regional programs and poli-l rivers and discusses the phenomena producing cies is to be provided as part of the application for a l comparable design basis lloods for coastal, estuary, and construction permit or operating license.

l Great Lakes sites. The effects of a probable maximum TN avaibbility of e,sential water during periods flood (as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.59), seiche, of low Dow or low water level is an important initial surge, or seismically induced flood such as might be consideration for identifying potential sites on rivers, caused by dam failures or tsunamis on station safety small shallow lakes, or along coastlines. Both the fre-functions can generally be controlled by engineering quency and duration of low flow or low-level periods I design or protection of the safety-related structures, should be determined from the historical record and, if systems, and components identified in Regulatory the cooling water is to be drawn from impoundments, Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification."2 For from proj;cted operating practices.

some river valleys, flood plains, or areas along coast-lines, there may not be sufficient information to make Water Quality the evaluations needed to satisfy the criteria for seismi- Thomal and chemical efuuents discharged to nav-cally induced flooding. In such cases, study of the po- igable streams are governed by the Federal Water Pollu-tential for dam failure, river blockage, or diversion in tion Control Act (FWPCA) (33 'U.S.C.1251 et seq.)

the river system or dktantly and locally generated sea (a!so known as the Clean Water Act) as amended,40 waves may be needed to determine the suitability of a CFR Part 122,40 CFR Part 423, and State water quality site. In lieu of detailed investigations, Regulatory st andards. The applicant should also determine wheth-Guide 1.59 and Section 2.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 c: there are other regulations that are current at the time present acceptable analytical techniques for evaluating sites are under consideration. Section 401(a)(1) of the seismically induced flooding. FWPCA requires, in part, that any applicant for an NRC construction permit, early site permit, or com-Water Asallability bined license for a nuclear power station provide to the Nuctear power stations require reliable sources of N RC certification from the State that any discharge will water for steam condensation, service water, emergen. comply with applicable effluent limitations and other cy core cooling system, and other functions. Where wa. water pollution control requirements, in the absence of ter is in short supply, the recirculation of the hot cooling such certification, no construction permit, early site water through cooling towers, artificial ponds, or im. permit, or combined license can be issued by NRC un-poundments has been practiced. less the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within a reasonable period of time. A Na-Water requirements for nuclear power plants are tional Pollution Discharge Elimietion System that sufficient water be available for cooling during (NPDES) permit to discharge effluents to navigable plant operation and normal shutdown, for the ultimate streams pursuant to Section 402 of the FWPCA may be heat sink, and for fire protection. The limitations im- required for a nuclear power station to operate in com-posed by existing laws or allocation policies govern the pliance with the Act, but it is not a prerequisite to an use and consumption of cooling water at potential sites NRC construction permit, operating license, or com-for normal operation. Regulatory Guide 1.27, "Ulti- bined license.

mate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants,"2 provides Evaluations of the dispersion and dilution capabili-guidance on water supply for the ultimate heat sink and discusses the safety requirements. Consumption of wa-ties and potential contamination pathways of the ter may necessitate an evaluation of existing and future ground-water environment under operating and acci-dent conditions with respect to present and future users water uses in the area to ensure adequate water supply am mquired. Potential radiological and nonradiologi-during droughts for both station operation and other cal contaminants of ground water should be evaluated.

l water users (i.e., nuclear power station requirements versus public water supply). Regulatory agencies The suitability of sites for a specific plant design in f

should be consu'.ted to avoid potential conflicts. areas with a complex ground-water hydrology or of sites located over aquifers that are or may be used by Where r. quired by law, demonstration of a request large populations for domestic or industrial water sup-l for cer&ation of the rights to withdraw ar consume plies or for irrigation water can only oc determined after water and an indication that the request is consistent reliable assessments have been mne of the potential 4.7-6

impacts of the reactor on the ground water. According- of operation to reduce the likelihood or severity of po-4 tential accidents involving the nuclear station to an ac-j ly,10 CFR Part 100 requires that site environmental parameters, which include hydrological and meteoro- ceptable level.

' logical characteristics, be characterized and used in or An accident during the uansport of hazardous ma-compared to those used in the plant PRA and environ- terials (e.g., by air, waterway, railroad, highway, or mental analysis.

pipeline) near a nuclear power plant may generate l- Although management of the quality of surface shock waves, missiles, and toxic or corrosive gases that waters is important, water quality is not generally a de- can affect the safe operation of the station. The conse-termining factor in assessing the suitability of a site quences of the accident will depend on the proximity of

i. since adequate design alternatives can be developed to the transportation facility to the site, the nature and meet FWPCA requirements and the Commission's reg- maximum quantity of the hazardous material per ship-ulations implementing NEPA. ment, and the layout of the nuclear station.

The following are examples of potential environ. Airports are transportation facilities that pose spe-mental effects of station construction and operation that cialized hazards to nearby nuclear power stations. Po-must be assessed: physical and chemical environmen. teritial threats to stations from aircraft result from the tal alterations in habitats of important species, includ. aircraft itself as a missile and from the secondary effects ing plant-induced rapid changes in environmental con. of a crash, e.g., fire.

ditions; changes in normal current direction or velocity The acceptability of a site depends on establishing of the cooling water source and receiving water; scour- that (1) an accident at a nearby industrial, military, or ing and siltation resulting from construction and cool- transportation facility will not result in radiological ing water intake and discharge; alterations resulting consequences that exceed the dose guideline in 10 CFR from dredging and spoil disposal; and interference with 50.34(a)(1), or (2) the accident poses no undue risk be-shoreline processes. cause it is sufficiently unlikely to occur (less than about 10'4 per year), or (3) the nuclear powe station can be INDUSTRIAL, MILITARY, AND designed so its safety will not be affected by the acci-TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES dent.

Accidents at present or projected nearby industrial, . .

. . . Potentially hazardous facilit.ies and activities with-military, and transportation facilities may affect the . . . .

m) a pmpos s ,an mapanports safety of a nuclear power station (see Section 2.2 of Re- '". nule within 10 miles (16 km) of a pmposed site, should be gulatory Guide 1.70). According to 10 CFR 100.21(c),

identified. If a prehmmary evaluation of potential acci.

" Potential hazards associated with nearby transporta-

. . dents at these facilities mdicates that the potential haz-tion routes, industrial and military facilit.ies must be ..

" ** waves and missiles approach or exceed evaluated and site parameters established such that po- .

. . those of the design basis tornado of the regian or if po.

tential hazards from such routes and facilities will pose .

. tential hazards exist such as flammable vapor clouds, no undue risk to the type of facility proposed to be 10- . . .

• ' "" #"'*' * '"'"" "'I . " E *"" "' ""'"

cated at the site."

ity of the site should be determined by a detailed evalu-Accidents at nearby industrial facilities such as ation of the degree of risk imposed by the potential chemical plants, refineries, mining and quarrying op- hazard.

crations, oil or gas wells, or gas and petroleum product The identification of design basis events resulting storage installations may produce missiles, shock from the presence of hazardous materials or activities in waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or m-the vicinity of a nuclear power station is acceptable if cendiary fragments. These may alTect the station itself the design basis events include cach postulated type of or the station operators in a way that jeopardizes the accident for which a realistic estimate of the probability safety of the station, of occurrence of potential radiation exposures in excess Accidents at nearby military facilities, such as of the dose specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) exceeds munitions storage areas and ordnance test ranges, may approximately 104per year. Because of the difficulty threaten station safety. An otherwise unacceptable site of assigning precise numerical values to the probability may be shown to be acceptable if the cognizant military ofoccurrence of the types of potential hazards generally organization agrees to change the installation or mode comidered in determining the acceptability of sites for 4.7- 7

nuclear stations, judgment must be used as to the ac- from a plant to a railway, highway, or navigable water-ceptability of the overall risk presented by an event. way beyond which any explosion that might occur on these routes is not likely to have an adverse effect on l In view of the low probability events under consid-plant operation or prevent a sale shutdown.

eration, the probability of occurrence of. he t m. it. iating events leading to potential radiological consequences Section 3.5.1.6 of the Standard Review Plan in excess of the dose specified in 10 CFR (NUREG-0800) describes review procedures regard-50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(1) should be based on assumptions ing potential aircraft hazards, that are as realistic as is practicable. In addition, be- ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND lilOTA cause of the low probability events under consider- Areas of great importance to the local aquatic eco-ation, valid statistical data are often not available to per-system may present major difficulties in assessing po-mit accurate quantitative calculation of probabilities. terwial impacts on populations of important species or Accordingly, a conservative calculation showing that ecological systems. Such areas include those used for the probability of occurrence of potential radiation ex- breeding (e.g., nesting and spawning), wintering, and posure in excess of the value specified m 10 CFR feeding as well as arcas where there may be scasonally 50.34(a)(1)is approximately 104per yearis acceptable high concentrations of individuals of important spe-if, when combined with reasonable qualitative argu- cgc,,9 Where the ecological sensitivity of a site under ments, the realistic probability can be shown to be consideration cannot be established from existing in-I"*" formation, more detailed studies, as discussed in Regu-The effects of design basis events have been appro. latory Guide 4.2, may be necessary. Impacts of station priately considered if analyses of the ef fects of those ac. construction and operation on the biota and ecological l

cidents on the safety-related features of the proposed systems may be mitigated by design and operational l nuclear power station have beer, performed and ap- practices if justifiable relative to costs and benefits. In propriate measures (e.g., hiuden4 fire protection) to general, the important c(msiderations in the balancing mitigate the consequences of suco events have been of costs and benefits are (a) the uniqueness of a habitat j'

taken. or ecological system within the region under considera-tion and (b) the amount of habitat or ecological system l The studies desen. bed in Section 2.2 of the Stan- that would be destroyed or disrupted relative to the total dard Review Plan. NUREG-0800," Standard Review I

amount of. the habitat or ecological system present m i Plan f or the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nu- the region or the vulnerability of the tproductive ca-i clear Power Plants,"2should be made to evaluate in de-pacity of important species, popublions to the cl.i.ccts tail the sm.tability of. a site m regard to potential acci- .

of construction and operation of the plant and ancillary dents mvolving hazardous maten.a ls and activities at facilities.

nearby ind ustrial, military, and transportation facilities.

h aheradon of one or more of the existing envi-Section 2.2.3 of NUREG-0800 describes evaluation ronmental conditions may render a habitat unsuitable procedures and criteria for potential accidents in the site vicinity. 9 A species, whether animal or plant,is important (for the purpose of this guide ) if a specific causal link can be identified between the nucleat R egulatory Guide 1.78," Assumptions for Evaluat- pmver station and the species and if one or more of the following crite.

" " P"

ing the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control g f3 if b spedes is o mmerdany or recreationany valuable.

Room During a Postulated Hantrdous Chemical Re- (2) If the species is endangered or threatened.

(3) If the species affects the well-being of some important species I

lease,*'2 desen.bes assumptions acceptable to the NRC within criteria ( 1) or (2)or ifit is critic 2d tothe structure and function ot staff for use in assessing the habitability of the control a saluable emingical sysiem or is a biological indicator of radionu.

elides m the environment.

room during and af ter a postulated external release of I ndangered and threatened species are defined by 6- Endangered hazardous chemicals and describes criteria that are gen- Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S C 1531 et seg ). as amended, as 101m erally acceptable to the staff for the protection of the "I he term ' endangered species' means any species which is in danger e n ont oug out aU or a g ant por on o range other control room oPcrators. than a species of the Class insecta determmed by the secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under thc pnn.ons of this Act Regulatory Guide 1.91, " Evaluations of Explo- would present an merwht hning and overriding na to man.""'Ihe

'"nribn atened spedes' rneans any spedes which is Mety to bnume sions Postulated To Occur on TransEortation Routes an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or Near Nuclear Power Plants,-2 describes a method ac- nigniricant ponion of its range."1.ists of endangered and threniened

'"" P" ' " " " ' " """ "

ceptable to the NRC staff for determining distances LP'Nfth(n ij r

4.7-8

i as a breeding or nursery area. In some cases, organisms site characteristics, intake structure design, and place-use identical breeding and nursery areas each year; if ment of the structures at the site.

j. . the characteristics of the areas are changed, breeding Site characteristics should be considered relative to success may be substantially reduced or enhanced. De-l design and placement of cooling system features and struction ofpart or all of a breedmg or nursery area may the potential of the cooling system to hold fish in an cause population shifts that result in increased competi-area longer than the normal period of migration or to tion for the remaming suitable areas. Such population entrap resident populations in areas where they would shifts cannot compensate for the reduced size of the be adversely affected, either directly or indirectly, by bremog or nursery areas if the remaining suitable area limited food supply or adverse temperatures. Canals or is already occupied by the species. Some species will areas where cooling waters are discharged may induce desert a breeding area because of man's activities in the fish to remain in an unnaturally warmed habitat. The proximity to the area, even in the absence of physical cessation of station operation during winter can be le.

disturbance of the actual breeding area.

that to these fish because of an abrupt drop in water tem-Of special concem relative to site selection are perature.

those unique or especially rich feeding areas that might be destroyed, degraded, or made inaccessible to impor-LAND USE AND AESTHETICS tant species by station construction or operation. Evalu- Many impacts on land use at the site and in the site ation of feeding areas in relation to potential const uc- neighborhood arising from construction and operation tion or operation impacts includes the following f the plant, transmission lines, and transportation cor-considerations: size of the feeding area onsite in rela. ridors can be mitigated by appropriate designs and tion to the total feeding area offsite, food density, time practices. Aesthetic impacts can be reduced by select-of use, location in relation to other habitats, topography ing sites where existing topography and forests can be relative to access routes, and other factors (including utilized for screening station structures from nearby man's activities). Site modification may reduce the scenic, historical, or recreational resources. Restora-quality of feeding areas by destruction of a portion of ti n of n tural vegetation, creative landscaping,10and the food base, destruction of cover, or both. the integration of structures with the environment can mitigate adverse visual impacts.

Construction and operation of nuclear power sta- .

tions can create barriers to migration, occurring mainly Preconstruction archeological excavations can usually reduce losses. Short-term salvage archeology m the aquatic environment. Narrow zones of passage .. .

nay not be sufficient if extensive or valuable archeo-for migratory am.mals in some rivers and estuaries may .

. . logical sites are found on the potential site for a nuclear be restricted or blocked by station operation. Partial or . .

station. For areas of archeological concern, the Chief complete blockage of a zone of passage may result irom . . . .

. Archeologist of the National Park Service is an mfor-the discharge of heat or chemicals to receiving water mation source, as are the State Archeolog.is t and the bodies or the construction and placement of. power sta- ..

State or Native American tribal Liaison Officer, or tion structures m. the water body. Strong-swimming . .

both, responsible for the National Historic Preservat. ion aquatic ammals often avoid waters of adverse quality, .

but larval and immature forms are usually moved and Act activities for a particular State, Reservation, or both' dispersed by water currents. It is therefore important in site selection that the routes and times of movement of Proposed alternative land use may render a site un-the immature stages be considered in relation to poten- suitable for a nuclear power station. For example, lands tial effects, specified by a community (1) as planned for other uses or (2) as restricted to compatible uses vis-a-vis other A detailed assessment of potential impact on the lands may be unsuitable. Therefore, official land use species population would be required for sites where plans developed by governments at any level and by re-l placement of intake or discharge structures would gional agencies should be consulted for possible con-markedly disrupt normal current patterns m m Eration flicts with power station siting. A list of Federal agen-paths ofimportant species. The potentials for impmge-l cies that have jurisdiction or expertise in land use l- ment of orgamsms on coolmg water intake structures and entrainment of organisms through the cooling sys-

. . 30 station protection requircrnents for nuclear sufcguards may influ-tem are determmed by a number of variables, m.eludm.g en= tandscape design and cicaring ut vegciaiion.

4.7-9

1 planning, regulation, or management has been pub-

• Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) lished by the Council on Environmental Quality.11 National Forest Wilderness, Primitive Areas, Na-Another class of impacts involves the preempting tional Forests.

of existing land use at the site itself. For example, nu- Individual States and local governments adminis-clear power station siting in areas uniquely suited for ter parks, recreation areas, and other public use and growing specialty crops may be considered a type of benefit areas. Information on these areas should be ob-land conversion involving unacceptable economic dis- tained from cognizant State agencies such as State de-location. partments of natural resources. The Advisory Council Sites adjacent to lands devoted to public use may on Ilistoric Preservation or the appropriate State or Na-be considered unsuitable. In particular, the use of some tive American tribal historic preservation officer sites or transmission lines or transportation corridors should be contacted for information on historic areas.

close to special areas administered by Federal, State, or it should be recognized that some areas may be un-local agencies for scenic or recreational use may cause suitable for siting because of public interest in future unacceptable impacts regardless of design parameters. dedication to public scenic, recreational, or cultural Such cases are most apt to arise in areas adjacent to nat- use. Relatively rare land types such as sand dunes and ural-resource-oriented areas (e.g., Yellowstone Nation- wetlands are examples. However, the acceptability of al Park) as opposed to recreation-oriented areas (e.g.' sites for nuclear power stations at some future time in Lake Mead National Recreation Area). Some historical these areas will depend on the existing impacts from in-and archeological sites may also fall into this category. dustrial, commercial, and other developments.

The acceptability of sites near special areas of public use should be determined by consulting cognizant gov- SOCIOECONOMICS crnment agencies. Social and economic issues are important determi-The following Federal agencies should be con. nants of siting policy. lt is difficult both to assess the na-sulted for the special areas listed: ture of the impacts involved and to determine value schemes for predicting the level or the acceptability of e National Park Service (U.S. Department of the In-potential impacts.

tenor)

The siting, construction, and operation of a nuclear National Parks; International Parks; National Me-power station may have significant impacts on the so-morial Parks; National Battlefields Battlefield .

cioeconomic structure of.a community and may place Parks, and Battlefield Sites; National Military severe stresses on the local labor supply, transportation Parks; liistoric Areas and National llistoric Sites; facilities, and community services in general. There National Capital Parks; National Monuments and may be changes in the tax basis and in community ex-Cemeteries; National Seashoret and Lakeshores; penditures. and problems may occur in determining National Rivers and Scenic Riverways; National equitable levels of compensation for persons relocated Recreation Areas; National Scenic Trails and as a result of the station siting. It is usually possible to Scientific Reserves; National Parkways molve such difficulties by proper coordination with

• National Park Service Preservation Program impacted communities; however, some impacts may be National Landmarks Program; liistoric American locally unacceptable and too costly to avoid by any rea-Buildings Survey; National Register of liistoric sonable program for their mitigation. Evaluation of the Places; National Historical Landmarks Program; suitability of a site should therefore include consider-National Park Service Archeological Program ation of purpose and probable adequacy of socioeco-nomic impact mitigation plans for such economic im-

• Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (U.S. De- pacts on any community where local acceptance partment of Intenor) problems can be reasonably foreseen.

National Wildlife Refuges Certain communities in the neighborhood of a site may be subject to unusual impacts that would be exces-sively costly to mitigate. Among such communities are u see U.s. omncit on rnvironmeniat ouainy." National Environmen.

towns that possess notably distinctive cultural charac-tal Polig Act t NI PA) Implementation Proadurro AppenJaxes I,II. ,

and 111.'* 49 IR 49750, Dcamber 21.1984. ter,1.c., towns that have preserved or restored numerous 4.7 - 10

r places of historic interest, have specialized in an unusu- rial underlying the site in accordance with 10 CFR l al industry or avocational activity, or have otherwise 100.23.

l markedly distinguished themselves from other k% .

2. ATMOSPHERIC EXTREMES AND communities.

1)lSPERSION Siting decisions should reflect fair treatment and As noted in the Discussion Section of this guide, meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of site atmospheric conditions are site suitability charac-race, ethnicity, culture, income or educational level t" teristics, principally with respect to the calculation of assure equitable consideration and to minimize radiation doses resulting from the release of fission I disproportionate effects on minority and low-income products as a consequence of a postulated accident. Ac-populations.12 cordingly, each applicant for site approval should col-NOISE lect meteorological information for at least one year that is representative of the site conditions, including Noise levels at nuclear stations occur during both wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, and atmo-the construction and operation phases and could have spheric stability.

unacceptable impacts. Cooling towers, turbmes, and

, transformers contribute to the noise levels during sta. Nonradiological atmospheric considerations such l tion operation. as local fogging and icing, cooling tower drift, cooling tower plume lengths, and plume interactions between C. REGULATORY POSITION cooling tower plumes, as well as plumes from nearby industrial facilities, should be considered in evaluating

1. GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY the suitability of potential sites. The atmospheric data Preferred sites are those with a minimal likelihood necessary for the assessment of nonradiological con-of surface or near-surface deformation and a minimal siderations are described in Regulatory Guide 1.23, likelihood of earthquakes on faults in the site vicinity *'Onsite Meteorological Programs."2

] (within a radius of 8 km (5 miles)). Because of the un-

. certainties and difficulties in mitigating the effects of 3. EXCLUSION AREA AND LOW ,

permanent ground displacement phenomena such as POPULATION ZONE 4 surface faulting or folding, fault creep, subsidence or An applicant for a reactor license is required by collapse, the NRC staff considers it prudent to select an 10 CFR Part 100 to designate an exclusion area and to I alternative site when the potential for permanent have authority to determine all activities within that ground displacement exists at the site. nica, including removal of personnel and property.

Sites located near geologic structures, for which at Transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, the time of application the data base is inadequate to de- and waterways are permitted to traverse the exclusion termine their potential for causing surface deformation, area provided (1) these are not so close to the facility as are likely to be subject to a longer licensing process in to interfere with normal operation of the facility and view of the need for extensive and detailed geologic (2) appropriate and effective arrangements are made to and seismic investigations of the site and surrounding control traffic on the highway, railroad, or watenvay in region and for the rigorous analyses of the site-plant the case of emergency to protect the public health and combination. {

safety.

Sites with competent bedrock generally have suit. According to 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(1), the ex-f able foundation conditions. In regions with few or n clusion area must be oi such a size that an individual as-such sites, it is prudent to select sites with competent sumed to be located at any point on its boundary would and stable solid soils, such as dense sands and glacial not receive a radiation dose in excess of 25 rem total ef-tills. Other materials may also provide satisfactory fective dose equivalent (TEDE) over any two-hour pe-foundation conditions, but a detailed geologic and geo- . . .

. . riod following a postulated t..ission product release into techm. cal investigation would be required to determ.me

. . the etmta.mment.

j static and dynamic engineering properties of the mate-I 32The NRCmmmitted to carry out the measures set forth in Executive nuppheant b aM mquidy W N Part W W l Order 12898.*Tederal Actions to Address EnvironmentalJustin in designate an area immediately beyond the exclusion consider the effects ofits actions on minority and he(mcume area asmmmu-Minoriiy a low Population zone (LPZ) ropulations The and size of the tminmme ropulations nitic' LPZ must be such that the distimee to the nearest 4.7 -11

)

< boundary of a densely populated center containing higher population density being found acceptable. Ex-more than about 25,000 residents (" population center amples of such factors include, but are not limited to, distance") must be at least one and one-third times the the higher population density site having superior seis-distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the mic characteristics, better rail or highway access, short-LPZ. The boundary of the population center should be er transmission line requirements, or less environmen-determined upon consideration of population distribu- tal impact upon undeveloped areas, wetlands, or tion, not political boundaries. endangered species.

According to 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(2), the The transient population should be included for LPZ must be of such a size that an individual located on those sites where a significant number of people (other its outer radius for the course of the postulated accident than those just passing through the area) work, reside (assumed to be 30 days) would not receive a radiation part-time, or engage in recreational activities and are dose in excess of 25 rem TEDE. not permanent residents of the area. 'I h.: transient popu-lation should be taken into account for site evaluation

4. POPULATION CONSIDERATIONS purposes by weighting the transient population accord-ing to k fmdon Eme me tansknb am in th ama, As stated in 10 CFR 100.21(h), " Reactor sites should be located away from very densely populated Projected changes in population within about 5 centers. Areas oflow population density are, generally, years after initial site approval should be evaluated for preferred. However, in determining the acceptability of the proposed site and any alternative sites considered.

a particular site located away from a very densely popu- Population growth in the site vicinity after initial site lated center but no' in an area of low density, consider. approval is normal and expected and will be periodical-ation will be given to safety, environmental, economic, ly factored into the emergency plan for the site, but pop-or other factors, which may result in the site being ulation increases after initial site approval will not be a found acceptable." factor in license renewal or, by itself, used to impose other license conditions or restrictions on an operating Locating reactors away from densely por.ulated centers is part of the NRC's defense-in-depth philoso-phy and facilitates emergency planning and prepared- 5. EMERGENCY PLANNING ness as well as reducing potential doses and property As stated in 10 CFR 100.21(g)," Physical charac-damage in the event of a severe accident. Numerical teristics unique to the proposed site that could pose a values in this guide are generally consistent with past significant impediment to the development of emer-NRC practice and reflect consideration of severe acci-gency phns must be identified."

dents. as well as the demographic and geographic con-ditioru characteristic of the United States. An examination and evaluation of the site and its vicinity, including the population distribution and Preferably a reactor would be located so that, at the transportation routes, should be conducted to deter-time of initial site approval and within about 5 years mine whether there are any characteristics that would thereafter, the population density, including weighted pose a significant impediment to taking protective ac-transient population, averaged over any radial distance tions to protect the public in the event of emergency.

out to 20 miles (cumulative population at a distance di-vided by the circular area at that distance), does not ex- Special population groups, such as those in hospi-ceed 500 persons per square mile. A reactor should not tals, prisons, or other facilities that could require spe-be located 21 a site whose population density is well in ci l needs during an emergency, should be identified-excess of the above value. Physical characteristics of the proposed site that If the population density of the proposed site ex- e uld pose a significant impediment to taking protec-ceeds, but is not well in excess of the above preferred tive measures, such as egress limitations from the area surrounding the site, should be identified.

value, the analysis of alten;ative sites should pay partic-ular attention to alternative sites having lower popula- An evacuation time estimate (ETE) should be per-tion density. However, consideration will be given to formed to estimate the time periods that would be other factors such as safety, environmental, or econom- required to evacuate various sectors of the plume expo-ic considerations, which may result in the site with the sure emergency planning zone (EPZ), including the en-4.7-12

tire EPZ. The ETE is an emergency planning tool that plant of the stated approximate capacity and type of assesses, in an organized and systematic fashion, the cooling system can be obtained by the applicant from feasibility of taking protective measures for the popula- the appropriate State, local, or regional agency.

tion in the surrounding area. Information on perform-ing an ETE analysis is given in Appendix 4 to 7.3 Water Quality NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, " Criteria The potential impacts of nuclear power stations on for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emer- water quality are likely to be acceptable if effluent limi-gency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support cf tations, water quality criteria for receiving w ters, and Nuclear Power Plants"(November 1980).2 The value other requirements promulgated pursuant to the Feder-of the ETE analysis is in the methodology required to al Water Pollution Control Act are applicable and perform the analysis rather than in the calculated ETE satisfied.

times. While lower ETEs may reflect favorable site The c.iteria in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 will be used characteiistics from an emergency planning standpoint, by the NRC staff for determining permissible con-there is no minimum required evacuation time in the centrations of radioactive materials discharged to sur-regulations that an applicant has to meet. face water or to ground water.13

6. SECURITY PLANS 7.4 Fission Prvduct Retention and Transport According to 10 CFR 100.21(0, " Site characteris- To be able to assess fission product retention and tics must be such that adequate security plans and meas. transportation via ground water, the following informa-ures can be developed." Also,10 CFR Part 73 describes tion should be determined for the site:

physical protection requirements for nuclear power

• Soil, sediment, and rock characteristics (e.g., vol-plants as well as special nuclear materials.

canic ash, fractured limestone),

Generally, a distance of about 110 meters (360 feet) . Absorption and retention coefficients for radioac-to any vital structure or vital equipment would provide tive materials, sufficient space to satisfy security measures of 10 CFR e Ground-water velocity, and 73.55 (e.g., protected area barriers, detection equip-ment, isolation zones, vehicle barriers). If the distance . Distance to nearest body of surface water.

to a vital structure or vital equipment is less than about This information should be used in the environ-110 meters (360 feet), special measures or analyses mentai report required in 10 CFR Part 51 and compared may be needed to show that adequate security plans can to the hydrological information used in the PRA or oth-be developed.

er analyses for a certified plant design (if such a design is to be located at the site) or used in the site-specific

7. HYDROLOGY PRA for a custom plant located at the site.

7.1 Flooding Aquifers that are or may be used by large popula-To evaluate sites located in river valleys, on flood tions for domestic, municipal, industrial, or irrigation plains, or along coastlines where there is a potential for watersupplies provide potential pathways for the tne.-

flooding, the site suitability studies described in Regu- port of radioactive material to man in the event of an ac-latory 1.59," Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power cident. To evaluate the suitability of proposed sites 10-Plants "2 should be made. cated over such aquifers, detailed studies of factors identified in Section 2.4.13 of Regulatory Guide 1.70, 7.2 Water Availability " Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Re-A highly dependable system of water supply ports for Nuclear Power Plants,"2should be completed.

sources must be shown to be available under postulated

8. INDUSTRIAL, MILITARY, AND occurrences of natural and site-related accidental phe-TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES nomena or combinations of such phenomena as dis-cussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59. According to 10 CFR 100.21(e), " Potential haz-ards associated with nearby transportation routes, in-To evaluate the suitability of sites, there should be reasonable assurance that permits for ccmsumEtive use "^PP'"di" I '" 3 C3 R P" 50P '"id'5 ""'"*ric"1 8 "id'"" '"' di8 "

oby clives and technical specification requirernents for limi4ng conds-of water in th: quantities needed for a nuclear power tions of operation for light-water omica nuclear power stations.

4.7 - 13

dustrial and military facilities must be evaluated and ties. Accordingly, a conservative calculation showing site parameters established such that potential hazards that the probability of occurrence of doses in excess of from such routes and facilities will pose no undue risk the value specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) is approxi-to the type of facility proposed to be located at the site." mately 104per year is acceptable if, when combined with reasonable qualitative arguments, the realistic The acceptability of a site would depend on estab- probability can be shown to be lower.

lishing that (1) an accident at a nearby industrial, mili- I The effects of design basis events have been appro-tary, or transportation facility would not result in radio-priately considered if analyses of the effects of those ac-logical consequences that exceed the dose specified in cidents on the safety-related features of a proposed nu-10 CFR 50.34, or (2) the accident poses no undue risk clear station have been performed and appropriate because it is sufficiently unlikely to occur (less than measures (e.g., hardening, fire protection) to mitigate about 104 per year), or (3) the n uclear power station can )

the consequences of such events have been taken.

be designed so its sa fety will not be affected by the acci, dent. 9. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND lilOTA The ecological systems and biota at potential sites Potentially hazardous facilities and activities with.

and their environs should be sufficiently well known to in 8 km (5 mi) of a proposed site, and major airports all w reasonably certain predictions that there would I within 16 km (lu mi)of a proposed site. should be iden-be no unacceptable or unnecessary deleterious impacts tified. If a preliminary evaluation of potential accidents at these facilities indicates that the potential hazards on populations of important species or on ecological from shock waves and missiles approach or exceed systems with which they are associated from the construction or operation of a nuclear power station at those of the design basis tornado for the region or there the site.

are potential hazards such as Hammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or incendiary fragments, the suitabil- When early site inspections and evaluations indi-ity of the site should be determined by detailed evalua- cate that critical or exceptionally complex ecological tion of the degree of risk imposed by the potential haz- systems will have to be studied in detail to determine ard. The design basis tornado is described in the appropriate plant designs, proposals to use such Regulatory Guide 1.76," Design Basis Tornado for Nu- sites should be deferred unless sites with less complex clear Power Plants."2 characteristics are not available.

it should be determined whether any important The identification of design basis events resulting species (as defined in the Discussion section of this from the presence of hazardous materials or activities in guide under Ecological Systems and Biota) inhabit or the vicinity of a nuclear power station is acceptable if use the proposed site or its environs. If so, the relative the design basis events include each postulated type of abundance and distribution of their populations should accident for which a realistic estimate of theprobability be considered. Potential adverse impacts on important of occurrence of doses in excess of the value specified species should be identified and assessed. The relative in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) exceeds approximately 10-7 per abundance of individuals of an important species in-year. Because of the difficulty of assigning precise habiting a potential site should be compared to avail-numerical values to the probability of occurrence of the able information in the literature concerning the total types of potential hazards generally considered in de.

estimated local population. Any predicted impacts on termining the acceptability of sites for nuclear stations, the species should be evaluated relative to effects on the judgment must be used as to the acceptability of the local population and the total rsopulation of the species.

j overall risk presented by an event.

The destruction of, or sublethal effects on, a number of l Inviewof thelow-probability events underconsid- individuals that would not adverstly affect the repro-eration, the probability of occurrence of initiating ductive capacity and vitality of a population or the crop events leading to potential consequences in excess of of an economically important harvestable population the dose specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) should be or recreationally important population should general-based on assumptions that are as realistic as is practica- ly be acceptable, except in the case of certain endan-ble. Because of the low-probability events under con- gered species. If there are endangered or threatened spe-sideration, valid statistical data are often not available cies at a site, the potential effects should be evaluated to permit accurate quantitative calculation of probabili- relative to the impact on the local population and the to-4.7 - 14

tal estimated population over the entire range of the The potential for blockage of movements ofimpor-7.s species as noted in the literature. tant terrestrial animal populations caused by the um of I[ j the site for a nuclear power station and the availability

(/ It should be determined whether there are any im- of alternative routes that would provide for mainte-portant ecological systems at a site or in its environs. If nance of the species' breeding population should be so, determination should be made as to whether the eco- assessed.

logical systems are especially vulnerable to change or if . .

. If,lustifiable relative to costs and benefits, the po-they contam. important species habitats, such as breed- . .

tential impacts of plant construction and operation on ing areas (e.g., nesting and spawning areas), nursery, the biota and ecological systems can generally be miti-feeding, resting, and wintering areas, or other areas of gated by adequate engineering design and site planning seasonally high concentrations of individ uals ofimpor-and by proper construction and operations when there is tant species.

adequate information about the vulnerability of the im-Important considerations in balancing costs and portant species and ecological systems.

benefits include the uniqueness of a habitat or ecologi- A summary of environmental considerations, pa-cal system within the region under consideration, the rameters, and regulatory positions for use in evaluating amount of the habitat or ecological system destroyed or sites for nuclear power stations is provided in Appendix disrupted relative to the total amount in the region, and B to this guide.

the vulnerability of the reproductive capacity ofimpor-tant species populations to the effects of construction 10. LAND USE AND AESTHETICS and operation of the station and ancillary facilities. Land use plans adopted by Federal, State, regional, or local agencies should be examined, and any conflict If sites contain, are adjacent to, or may impact on between these plans and use of a potential site should be important ecological systems or habitats that are resolved by ecmsultation with the appropriate agency.

O unique, limited in extent, or necessary to the productiv-For a potential site on land devoted to specialty

(\- ity of populations of important species (e.g., wetlands crop production where changes in land use might result and estuaries), they cannot be evaluated as to suitability for a nuclear power station until adequate assessments in market dislocations, a detailed investigation should for the reliable prediction of impt ets have been com. be provided to demonstrate that potential impacts have pleted and the facility design characteristics that would been identified.

satisfactorily mitigate the potential ecological impacts The potential aesthetic impact of nuclear power have been defined. In areas where reliable and suffi- stations at sites near natural-resource-oriented public cient data are not available, the collection and evalua- use areas is of concern, and evaluation of such sites is tion of appropriate seasonal data may be required. dependent on consideration of specific station design layout.

Migrations of important species and migration routes that pass through the site or its environs should 11. SOClOECONOMICS be identified. Generally, the most critical migratory The NRC staff considers that an evaluation of the routes relative to nuclear power station siting are those suitability of nuclear power station sites near distine-of aquatic species in water bodies associated with the tive communities should demonstrate that the construc-cooling systems. Site conditions that should be identi- tion and operation of the nuclear station, including fied and evaluated in assessing potential impacts on im- transmission and transportation corridors, and poten-portant aquatic migratory species include (1) narrow tial problems relating to community services, such as zones of passage, (2) migration periods that are coinci- schools, police and fire protection, water and sewage, dent with maximum ambient temperatures, (3) the po- and health facilities, will not adversely affect the dis-tential for major modification of currents by station tinctive character of the community nor disproportion-structures, (4) the potential for increased turbidity dur- ately affect minority or low-incorne populations. A pre-

-[ ing construction, and (5) the potential for entrapment, liminary investigation should be made to address

( entrainment, or impingement by or in the cooling water environmental justice considerations and to identify system or for blocking of migration by facility struc- and analyze problems that may arise from the proximi-tures or effluents. ty of a distinctive community to a proposed site.

4.7 - 15

12. NOISE Except in those cases in which the applicant pro-Noise levels at proposed sites must comply with poses an acceptable alternative method for complying applicable Federal, State, and local noise regulations. with the specified portions of the NRC's regulations, the methods in this active guide will be used in the evaluation of applications for construction permits, D. IMPLEMENTATION early site permits, operating licenses, combined li-censes, or design certification. This guide would not be The purpose of this section is to provide guidance used in the evaluation of an application for an operating to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's license submitted after January 10,1997, if the plans for using this regulatory guide. construction permit was issued prior to that date.

l l

l O

l O

4.7 -16

r APPENDIX A

/

\

SITE SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITAlllLITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS This appendix provides a checklist of site safety characteristics, relevant regulations and regulatory guides, and regulatory experience and positions for assessing site suitability for nuclear power stations.

Relevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.1 Geology / Seismology Geologic and seismic character- 10 CFR 100.23, " Geologic and Where the potential for permanent istics of a site, such as surface Seismic Siting Factors" ground deformation such as faulting, faulting, ground motion, and folding, subsidence, or collapse exists foundation conditions (including Regulatory Guide 1.70, Chapter at a site, the NRC staticonsiders it liquefaction, subsidence, and 2 (identifies safety-related site prudent to select an alternative site.

landslide potential), may affect characteristics)1 the safety of a nuclear power Sites should be . selected in areas for station. Regulatory Guide 1.29 (discusses which an adequate geologic data base plant safety features which should exists or can be expeditiously be controlled by engineering developed through site-specific design)1 investigations to identify and characterize potential geological and Regulatory Guide 1.165,"Identi- seismic hazards. Delay in licensing

- fication and Characterization of can result from a need for extensive

[3)

U/

Seismic Sources and Determi-nation of Safe Shutdown geologic and seismic investigations.

Conservative design of safety-related Earthquake Ground Motion"1 structures will be required when i geologic, seismic, and foundation Regulatory Guide 1,132," Site information is questionable.

Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants"t Sites with competent bedrock generally have suitable foundation conditions.

If bedrock sites are not available, it is prudent to select sites in areas known to have a low subsidence and  !

liquefaction potential. Investigations q will be required to determine the static and dynamic engineering properties of the material underlying the site as i stated in Appendix A to 10 CFR ' -t 100 and 10 CFR 100.23. z ICopies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, f PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop t.L-6, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (202)634 3273; fax (202)634 3343. Regt single copies of regulatory guides should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 2055 Attn: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section, or by fax to (301)415-5272; or guides may be purchased from the Nationa l cal Information Service by writing NT1S at 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield, VA 22161. 1

(

I A-1

Relevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.2 Atmospheric Dispersion The atmospheric conditions at a 10 CFR Part 50," Domestic Unfavorable safety-related design site should provide sufficient Licensing of Production and basis atmospheric dispersion dispersion of radioactive Utilization Facilities" characteristics can be compensated for materials released during a by engineered safety features.

postulated accident to reduce the Regulatory Guide 1.23. "Onsite Accordingly, the regulatory position radiation exposures of individ- Meteorological Programs"1 on atmospheric dispersion of uals at the exclusion area and radiological effluents is incorporated low population zone boundaries Regulatory Guide 1.145, into the section " Exclusion Area and to the values in 10 CFR 50.34. " Atmospheric Dispersion Models Low Population Zone"(see A.3 of for Potential Accident Conse- this appendix).

quence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants"1 Regulatory Guide 1.3, "Assump-tions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Conse-quences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors"1 Regulatory Guide 1.4,"Assump-tions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Conse-quences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors"1 Regulatory Guide 1.5,"Assump-tions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Conse-quences of a Steam Line Break Accident for Boiling Water Reactors"1 Regulatory Guide 1.25,

" Assumptions Used for Evalu-ating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors"1 l

9 l A-2 1

Relevant Regulations and Regu-Considerations latory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.3 Exclusion Area and Low Population Zone x

in the event of a postulated a 10 CFR Part 100," Reactor Based on the assumptions in accident at a nuclear power Site Criteria," requires an Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4, the station, radiological conse- " exclusion area" surrounding required distances to the exclusion quences for individual members the reactor in which the area boundary and the outer boundary of the public outside the station ' reactor licensee has the- of the LPZ will depend upon plant must be acceptably low. authority to determine all design aspects such as the reactor activities, including exclusion power level, allowable containment or removal of personnel and leak rate, and those engineered safety property, and a " low popula- features incomorated into the design, tion zone"(LPZ) which as well as the atmospheric dispersion immediately surrounds the characteristics of the site.

l exclusion area.

l

. 10 CFR Part 50," Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,"

l l requires that at any point on l the exclusion area boundary t and on the outer boundary of l the LPZ the exposure of an individual to a postulated release of fission products (as a consequence of an accident) be less than 25 rem total effective dose equivalent, for I specified time periods.

l

- Regulatory Guides 1.3,1.4, l 1.5, and 125 give l calculational methods (see A.2 of this appendix.)

l l

I l

A-3

Helevant Regulations and l Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.4 Population Considerations l Locating reactors away from 10 CFR Part 100," Reactor Site A reactor should preferably be located l densely populated centers is part Criteria," requires the following: such that, at the time of initial site l of the NRC's defense-in-depth approval and within about 5 years philosophy and facilitates

• An " exclusion area" surround- thereafter, the reputation density, emergency planning and ing the reactor in which the including weighted transient popula-

! preparedness as well as reducing reactor licensee has the tion, averaped over any radial distance potential doses and property authority to determine all out to 20 miles (cumulative popula-damage in the event of a severe activities, including exclusion tion at a distance divided by the area accident. or removal of personnel and at that distance), does not exceed 500 property, and a " low popula- persons per square mile. A reactor tion zone"(LPZ), which should not be located at a site whose immediately surrounds the population density is well in excess of exclusion area. the above value.

l

. The nearest distance to the if the population density of the boundary of a densely proposed site exceeds, but is not well populated center contammg in excess of, the preferred value, the more than about 25,000 analysis of alternative sites should pay i residents must be at least one particular attention to alternative sites l and one-third times the having lower population density.

distance from the reactor to Consideration will be given to other the outer boundary of the factors, such as safety, environmental.

l LPZ- or economic, which may result in the

! site with higher population density

• Reactor sites should be being found acceptable.

t located away Irom very densely populated centers.

Transient population should bc l Areas of low population included for those sites where a density are, generall>l- significant number of people (other preferred. However, in

, . than those just passing through the determimng the acceptability area) work, reside pa t-time, or engage of a particular site located in recreational activ; ties, and are not j away from a very densely permanent residents of the area. The l populated center but not in an transient population should be taken area of low density, consider-into account by weighing the transient i ation will be given to safety, population according to the fraction of environmental, economic, or l time the transient 3 are in the area.

j other factors, which may result in the site being found acceptable.

O A-4

Relevant Regulations and

. Consideratians Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.5 Ementency Planning To ensure that adequate protec- 10 CFR Part 100," Reactor Site An examination and evaluation of the tive measures can be taken to Criteria," requires that: site should be conducted to determine protect members of the public in whether there are any characteristics the event of an emergency, the

• Site characteristics must be that would pose a significant characteristics of the site should such that adequate plans to impediment to taking protective not preclude development of take protective actions for actions to protect the public in the such plans. members of the public in the event of emergency.

event of emergency can be developed. Physical characteristics of the proposed site that could pose a 10 CFR Part 50," Domestic significant impediment to taking Licensing of Production and protective actions, such as egress Utilization Facilities," requires: limitations from the area surrounding the site, should be identified.

Reasonable assurance that adequate protection can and Special population groups, such as will be taken in the event of a those in hospitals, prisons, or other radiological em- rgency. facilities that could require special needs during an emergency, should be Emergency planm.ng zones identified.

(EPZ) consisting of the plume exposure pathway EPZ with An evacuation time estimate (ETE) an area about 16 km (10 mi) should be performed to estimate the m radtus, and the ingestion time periods that would be required to pathway EPZ with an area

. evacuate various sectors of the plume about 80 km (50 mi) m radius. exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ), including the entire EPZ. The NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 ETE analysis is an emergency Rev.1," Criteria for Prepare. ion planning tool that assesses, in an and Evaluation of Radiological organized and systematic fashion, the Emergency Resp (mse Plans and feasibility of taking protective Preparedness in Support of measures for the population in the Nuclear Power Plants" surrounding area. While lower ETEs (November 1980),2 provides may reflect favorable site guidance on performing an ETE.

characteristics from an emergency planning standpoint, there is no minimum required evacuation time an applicant must meet.

2 Copies are available at current rates from the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington. DC 20402-9328 (telephone (202)512-2249); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing Nils at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

Copics are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 21201. Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR*s mailing address is Mail Stop I.1.-6, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343.

A-5

l 1

llelevant llegulations and Considerations llegulatory Guides llegulaory Experience and l'osition A.6 Security I'lans ,

To prevent plant damage, and 10 CFR 100.21(f) states that site Generally, a distance of about 110 possible radiological characteristics must be such that meters to any vital structure or vital consequences to the public as a adequate security plans and equipment would provide space result of acts of sabotage, the measures can be developed. sulficient to satisf y security measures characteristics of the site should specified in 10 CFR 73.55 (e.g.,

not preclude development of Also,10 CFR Part 73," Physical protected area barriers, detection adequate security plans. Protection of Plants and equipment, isolation zones, vehicle Materials," prescribes barriers).

requirements for establishment and maintenance of a physical if the distance to a vital structure or protection system for the vital equipment is less than about 110 protection of special nuclear meters, special measures or analyses materials at fixed sites and of may be required to show that adequate plants in which special nuclear security plans can be developed.

material is used.

A.7113 drology A.7.1 Flooding

['recipitation, wind, or 10 CFR 100.23, " Geologic and To evaluate sites located in river seismically induced flooding Seismic Siting Criteria" valleys, on flood plains, or along (e g., resulting from dam failure, coastlines where there is a potential from river blockage or diversion, Regulatory Guide 1.59," Design for flooding, the studies described in or from distantly and locally Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Regulatory Guide 1.59 should be generated sea waves) can affect Plants"1 made.

the safety of a nuclear power station. Regulatory Guide 1.70,

" Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants"(Section 2.4)1 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix A,

" General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants;" Criterion 2," Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena"

. O A-6

Helevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.7.2 Water Availability A safety-related water supply is 10 CFR 100.23, " Geologic and A highly dependable system of water required for normal or Seismic Siting Criteria" supply sources should be shown to be emergency shutdow 1 and available under postulated occurrences cooldown. Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design of natural phenomena and site-related Basis Floods for Nuclear Power accidental phenomena or Plants"1 combinations of such phenomena as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.

Keguia:ory Guide 1.27,

" Ultimate licut Sink for Nuclear To evaluate the suitability of a site, Power Plants"i there must a reasonable assurance that permits for water use and for water consumption in the quantities needed for a nuclear power plant of the stated approximate capacity and type of cooling system can be obtained by the applicant from the appropriate State, local, or regional agency.

A.7.3 Water Quality Contamination of ground water 10 CFR Part 20," Standards for The criteria provided in 10 CFR Parts and surface water by radioactive Protection Against Radiation" 20 and 50 will be used by the NRC materials discharged from staff for determining permissible nuclear stations could cause 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of concentrations of radionuclides

{

public health hazards. Production and Utilization discharged to surface water and l I Facilities" ground water.

A-7

l i

l l

Helevant Regulations and Considerations Regulatory Guides Regulatory Experience and Position A.8 Industrial, Military, and Transportation Facilities Accidents at present or projected 10 CFR 100.21, "Non-seismic Potentially hazardous facilities and nearby industrial, military, and Siting Criteria" activities within 8 km (5 mi) and transportation facilities may major airports within 16 km (10 mi) affect the safety of the nuclear 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, of a proposed site should be power station. " General Design Criteria for identified. If a preliminary evaluation Nuclear Power Plants," Criterion of potential accidents at these facilities 4," Environmental and Dynamic indicates that the potential hazards Elfects Design Bases" from shock waves and missiles approach or exceed those of the design Regulatory Guide 1.70," Standard basis tornado for the region, or Format and Content of Safety potential hazards such as Dammable Analysis Reports for Nuclear vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or j Power Plants," Section 2.21 (lists incendiary fragments exist, the I types of facilities and potential suitability of the site should be accidents) determined by detailed evaluation of the potential hazard.

Regulatory Guide 1.78,

" Assumptions for Evaluating the The acceptability of a site depends Habitability of a Nuclear Power upon establishing that (1) an accident Plant Control Room During a at a nearby facility or route will not Postulated Hazardous Chemical result in radiological consequences Release"I that exceed the dose set forth in 10 CFR 50.34, or (2) the accident is sufficiently unlikely to occur that it poses no undue risk, or (3) the nuclear power station can be designed so its safety will not be affected by the accident.

The identification of design basis events resulting from the presence of nearby hazardous materials or activities in the vicinity of a nuclear power station is acceptable if the design basis events include each postulated type of accident for which a realistic estimate of the probability of occurrence of a potential dose in excess of that set forth in 10 CFR 50.34 cxceeds approximately 10-7 per year.

O A-8 I

c APPENDIX H

./

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS This appendix summarizes environmental considerations related to site characteristics that should be addressed in the early site selection process. The relative importance of the different factors to be considered varies with the region or State in which the potential sites are located.

Site se.lection processes can be facilitated by establishing limits for various parameters based on the best judgment of specialists knowledgeable of the region under consideration. For example, limits can be chosen for the fraction of water that can be diverted in certain situations without adversely affecting the local populations of important species. Although simplistic because important factors such as the distribution ofimportant species in the water body are not taken into account, such limits can be useful in a screening process for site selection.

Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position H.1 Preservation orimportant Habitats important habitats are those that The proportion of an important in general, a detailed justification are essential to maintaining the habitat that would be destroyed should be provided when the '

reproductive capacity and or significantly altered in relation destruction or significant alteration of vitality of important species to the total habitat within the more than a few percent of important populations (defined in the region in which the proposed site habitat types is proposed.

Discussion section of this guide is to be located is a useful under EMogical Systems and parameter for estimating The reproductive capacity of Biota) or the harvestable crop of potential impacts of the populations of important species and f economically or recreationally important species. Such habitats construction or operation of a nuclear power station. The value the harvestable crop of economically or recreationally important

\

include breeding areas (e.g., of the proportion varies among populations must be maintained nesting and spawning areas), species and among habitats. The unless justification for proposed or nursery, feeding, resting, and region considered in determining probable changes can be provided.

wintering areas, wetlands, or proportions is the normal other areas of seasonally high geographic range of the specific concentrations ofindividuals of population in question.

important species.'

If endangered or threatened The construction and operation species occur at a site, the of nuclear power stations potential effects of the (including new transmission construction and operation of a lines and access corridors nuclear power station should be constructed in conjunction with evaluated relative to the potential the station) can result in the impact on the local population destruction or alteration of and the total estimated habitats of important species population over the entire range leading to changes in the of species, abundance of a species or in the species composition of a See also Chapter 2 of Regulatory community. Guide 4.2," Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations."1 3

Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the

, PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555-47001; tele, 'none (202)634 3273; fax (202)634-3343. Requests for

( single copies of regulatory guides should be made in writing to the Il.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555-4)001 Attn: Reprod uction and Distribution Services Section, or by fax to (301)415-5272; or guides may be purchased from the National Techni-cal Information Service by writing !TilS at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

1 -1

Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position  !

11.2 Migratory Routes ofImportant Species Seasonal or daily migrations are The width or cross-sectional area Narrow reaches of water bodies essential to maintaining the of a water body at a proposed site should be avoided as sites for locating reproductive capacity of some relative to the general width or intake or discharge structures.

important species populations. cross-sectional area in the portion of the water used by migrating A zone of passage that will permit Disruption of migratory patterns species should be estimated. normal movement of important can result from partial or species populations and maintenance complete blockage of migratory Suggested minimum zones of of the harvestable crop of routes by structures, discharge passage range from 1/3 to 3/4 of economically important populations plumes, environmental the width or cross-sectional areas should be provided.

siterations, or human activities of narrow water bodies 2 3 (e.g., transportation or transmission corridor clearing Some species migrate in central, and site preparation). deeper areas while others use marginal, shallow areas. Rivers, streams, and estuaries are seldom homogeneous in their lateral dimension with respect to depth, current velocity, and habitat type.

Thus, the use of width or cross-sectional area criteria for determining adequate zones of passage should be combined with a knowledge of important species and their migratory requirements.

2sgater guahty Criteria, National Academy of Sciences--National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC,1972.

311andbook of Environmental Control, Volume lis: It'ater Supply and Ircarment, R.G. Band and C.P. Straub { Editors) CRS Press, Cleveland Ohio,1973 O

11 - 2

Considerations l'arameters llegulatory l'osition m

( i IL3 Entrainment and Impingement of Aquatic Organisms l

Plankton, including eggs, larvae, The depth of the water body at The site should have characteristics and juvenile fish, can be killed the point of intake relative to the that allow placement of intake or injured by entrainment general depth of the water body structures where the relative through power station cooling in the vicinity of the site. abundance of important species is systems or in discharge plumes. small and where low approach The proportion of water velocities can be attained. (Deep The reproductive capacity of withdrawn relative to the net new regions are generally less productive important species' populations available water at the site is an than shallow areas. It is not implied may be impaired by lethal indirect measure of the that benthic intakes are necessary.)

stresses or by sublethal stresses destruction of plankton, which in that affect reproduction of turn is indicative of possible important habitats (see B.1 of this individuals or result in increased effects on populations of Appendix B) should be avoided as predation on the affected species important species. It has been locations for intake structures.

population. suggested that the fraction of available new water that can be Fish and other aquatic organisms diverted is in the range of 10% to can be killed or injured by 20'# of How#

impingement on cooling water intake screens 4 or by The simplistic parameter entrainment in discharge plumes. (proportion of water withdrawal) is suitable for use in a screening process or site selection.

Ilowever, other factors such as e distribution of important species should be considered and in all cases the advice of experts on the local fisheries should bc I

)

consulted to ensure that proposed j withdrawals will not be l excessive.

IL4 Entrapment of Aquatic Organisms Cooling water intake and Site characteristics that will Sites where the construction of intake j discharge system features, such accommodate design features or discharge canals would be as canals and thermal plumes, that mitigate or prevent necessary should be avoided unless can attract and entrap organisms, entrapment. the site and important species i principally fish. The resulting characteristics are such that entry of f conecntration of import.mt fish important species to the cimal can be species near the station site can prevented or limited by screening. 1 rc3 ult in higher mortalities from j station-related causes, such as )

l impingement, cold shock, or gas i

bubble disease, than would l otherwise occur.

Entrapment can also interrupt normal migratory patterns.

(N 4 Approach velocity and screen-face velocity are design enteria that may a!!cet the impingement oflarger organisms, principally fish, on intake screens. AcceptaNe approach and screen face velocities are based on swimming speeds of fish, which will vary with the species, 1

j

'( ) site, and season.

(/ )

5The Wateri ffdge: CriticalfroMems of thc Coastal 2<me, Illi. Ketchum (Editor). Mll Press Cambridge, Mass.,1972.

6" Engineering for Resolution of the Energy-Environment Dilemma,' National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC,1u72. l B-3

Considerations Parameters Regulatory Position 15.5 Water Quality Effluents discharged from Applicable EPA-approved State Pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the nuclear power plants are wi.ter quality standards. FWPCA. certification from the State governed under the authority of that any discharge will comply with .

J the Federal Water Pollution For states without EPA-approved applicable effluent limitations and Control Act (FWPCA)-(PL water quality standards, the water other water pollution control 92-500). quality criteria listed in Water requirements is necessary before the Quality Criteria,1972,2 will be NRC can issue a construction permit, used for evaluation. early site permit, or combined license unless the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within a reasonable length of time.

Issuance of a permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act is not a i prerequisite to an NRC license or I permit.

Where station construction or operation has the potential to degrade water quality to the possible detriment of other users, more detailed analyses and evaluation of water quality may be necessary.

1 15.6 Water Asailability The consumptive use of water Applicable Federal, State, and Water use and consumption must for cooling may be restricted by local statutory requirements. comply with statutory requirements statute, may be inconsistent with and be compatible with water use water use planning, or may lead Compatability with water use plans of cognizant water resources to an unacceptable impact to the plan of cognizant water resource planning agencies.

water resource. planning agency.

Consumptive use should be restricted in the absence of a water use such that the supply of other users is plan, the effect on other water not impaired and that applicable users is evaluated, considering surface water quality standards could flow or volume reduction and the be met, assuming normal station resultant ability of all users to operational discharges and extreme obtain adequate supply and to low flow conditions defined by meet applicable water gr.lity generally accepted engineering stan< lards (see B.5, Wat r practices.

Quality, of this appendix).

For multipurpose impounded lakes and reservoirs, consumptive use should be restricted such that the magnitude and frequency of drawdown will not result in unacceptable damage to important habitats (see B.1, Preservation of important Habitats, of this appendix) or be inconsistent with the management goals for the water body.

11 - 4

j Considerations Parameters 1(egulatory Position 15.7 Established Public Amtnity Arras Areas dedicated by Federal, Proximity to public amenity area. Siting in the vicinity of designated State, or local goverriments to Viewability (see B.10, Visual public amenity areas will generally scenic, recreational, or cultural Amenities, of this appendix). require extensive evaluation and purposes are generally justification.

prohibited areas for siting power stations. The evaluation of the suitability of sites in the vicinity of public amenity Siting nuclear power stations in areas is dependent on consideration of the vicinity of established public a specific plant design and station amenity areas could result in the layout in relation to potential impacts loss or deterioration ofimportant on the public amenity area.

public amenities.

15.8 Pruspective Designated Amenity Arras Areas containing important Comparison of possible amenity Public amenity areas that are resources for scenic, reen:ational, areas in number and extent with distinctive, unique, or rare in a region or cultural use may not currently other similar areas available on a should be avoided as sites for nuclear be designated as such by public local, regional, or national basis, power stations.

agencies but may involve a net as appropriate.

loss to the public if converted to power generation. These areas may include locally rare land types, such as sand dunes, I wetlands, or coastal cliffs.

15.9 Public Planning Land use for a nuclear power Officially adopted land use plans. Land use plans adopted by Federal, station should be compatible State, regional, or local agencies must with established land use or be examined, and any conflict zoning plans of governmental between these plans and use of a agencies. proposed site must be resolved by consultation with the appropriate governmental entity.

H.10 Visual Amenities The presence of power station The solid angle subtended by The visual intrusion of nuclear power structures may introduce adverse station structures at critical station structures as viewed from visual impacts to residential, viewing points. nearby residential, recreational, recreational, scenic, or cultural scenic, or cultural areas should be areas or other areas with controlled by selecting sites where significant dependence on existing topography and forests can be desirable viewing characteristics, utilized for screening station structures from those areas in which visual impacts would otherwise be unacceptable.

~

11 - 5

Considerations Parameters llegulatory Position 11.11 Local Fogging and icing Water and water vapor released increase in number of hours of The hazards v.a transportation routes to the atmosphere from fogging or icing caused by from fog ar ice that result from station recirculating cooling systems operation of the station. operation should be evaluated. The can lead to ground fog and ice, evaluation should include estimates of resulting t transportation frequency of occurrence of hazards and damage to electric station-induced fogging and icing and transmission systems. their imnact on transportation, electrical transmission, and other activities and functions.

11.12 Cooling Tower Drill .

Concentrations of chemicals, The percent drift loss from The potential loss of important dissolved solids, and suspended recirculating condenser cooling terrestrial species and other resources solids in cooling tower drift water, particle size distribution, should be considered.

could affect terrestrial biota and salt deposition rate, local result in unacceptable damage to atmospheric conditions, and loss vegetation and other resources. of sensitive terrestrial biota affected by salt deposition from cooling tower drift.

11.13 Cooling Tower Plume Lengths Natural draft cooling towers The number of rours per year the The visibility of cooling tower plumes produce cloud-like plumes that plume is visible as a function of as a function of direction and distance vary in size and altitude direction and distance from the from cooling towers should be depending on the atmospheric cooling towers. considered. The evaluation should conditions. The plumes are include estimates of frequency of usually a few miles in length occurrence for plumes as well as before becoming dissipated, potential hazards to aviation in the although plume lengths of 20 to vicinity of commercial and military 30 miles have been reported airports.

from cooling towers. Visible plumes emitted from cooling towers could cause a hazard to commercial and military aviation in the vicinity of commercial and military airports. The plumes themselves or their shadows could have aesthetic impacts.

11.14 Plume Interaction Water vapor from cooling tower The degree to which impacts may The hazards to public health, plumes may interact with occur will vary depending on the structures, and other resources from industrial emissions from nearby distance between the nuclear and potential plume interaction between facilities to form noxious or fossil-fueled sites, the hours per cooling tower plumes and plumes toxic substances that could cause year of plume interaction, the from fossil-fueled sites and industrki adverse public health impacts, or type and concentration of emissions from nearby facilities result in unacceptable levels of chemical reaction products, the should be considered.

damage to biota, structures, and area of chemical fallout, and the other resources. local atmospheric conditions.

< )

11 - 6

__-_____-__a

Considerations l'arameters l Regulatory I'osition 11.15 Noise Undesirable noise levels at Applicable Federal, State, and Noise levels at proposed sites must nuclear power statians could local noise regulations. comply with statutory requirements.

occur during both th.:

construction and operation phases and have unacceptable impacts near the plant.

11.16 Economic impact of Preemptive Land Use Nuclear power stations can The level of local economic if a preliminary evaluation of net local preempt large areas, especially dislocation, such as loss of economic impact of the use of when large cooling lakes are income, jobs, and production, productive land for a nuclear power constructed. The land caused by preemptive use of station indicates a potential for large requirement is likely to be an productive land and its effect on economic dislocation, the NRC staff important issue when a proposed meeting foreseeable national will require a detailed evaluation of site is on productive land (e.g., demands for agriculture products. the potential impact and justification agricultural land) tha' is locally for the use of the site based on a limited in availability and is cost-effectiveness comparison of important to the local economy, alternative station designs and or which may be needed to meet site-station combinations. To complete foreseeable national demands for its evaluation, the staff will also need j agricultural products. information on whether and to what extent the land use affects national requirements for agricultural products.

11.17 Envirimmental Justice A proposed site could have Applicable Federal, State, and Areas that disproportionately affect inequitable impacts on minority local statutory and regulatory minority or low-income populations and low-income communities. requirements. should be avoided as sites for nuclear power stations.

O B-7

k DRAFT REGULATORY ANALYSIS A separate regulatory analysis was not prepared for this guide. The regu-latory analysis prepared for the amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 provides the regulatory basis for this guide and examines the costs and benefits of the rulemaking as implemented by the guide. A copy of the regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW.,(Lower Level), Wash-ington, DC, with the file on the amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100.

UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS Mall POSTAGE AND FEES PAID NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 PERMIT NO G-67 OFFICIAL BUL'INESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 0

120555064215 2 ISB115 US NRC-OIRM INFORMATION C RECORDS MGMT DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK IWFN-P117 hASHINGTON DC 20555 0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _