ML20237F892
| ML20237F892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1980 |
| From: | Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F870 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-462 NUDOCS 8708130212 | |
| Download: ML20237F892 (19) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:p . p . m
. J !
[7590-01) i l, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
. [10 CFR Parts 50, 51 and 100] I Environmental Impact Statement for Reactor Siting Criteria ,
l AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Revision of the Regulations Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power ] l Plants. 1
SUMMARY
- On July 29,1980 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment " Advance Notice of Rulemaking: Revision of Reactor Siting Criteria" (ANR) in the Federal Register (45 FR 50350). As part of this rulemaking, the NRC intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement -
(EIS). This Notice of Intent requests comment on (1) the range of alter-natives which should be evaluated for each of the items identified in the ANR as suitable to be addressed irf the regulations, and (2) the issues which should be evaluated in the EIS. DATES: Comment period expires January 16, 1981. NOTE: Comments received after the expiration date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments filed on or before that date. 0 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. 8708130212 870810 gg gggg hAD -462 PDR _ { ' 5'
[7590-01) Single copies of the " Advance Notice of Rulemaking: Revision of Reactor Siting Criteria" and the " Report of,'the Siting Policy Task Force," NUREG-0625, may be obtained without charge by writing to the Director, i Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. IAEA Safety Guide 50-SG-54, " Site Selection and Evaluation for Nuclear Power Plants with Respect to Population _ Distribution," (Inter-national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1980) may be examined at the
~
Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC, or at local public document rooms in the vicinity of nuclear power plant i 1 sites or copies may be purchased from UNIPUB, 345 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010. ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Dr. William R. Ott, Office of Standards - Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, (301)443-5966. ) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice of Intent is part of the scoping process for the EIS which the NRC is planning to prepare in connection with the proposed revision of its regulations governing the siting of nuclear power plants. The purpose of this scoping process is to define ] both the alternatives (for specifying criteria for identified topics) i which will be examined in detail and the issues that will be addressed ! l-in comparing the alternatives in the environmental impact statement. j J
.i e
[ . a i [7590-01) I i 9 Scope of the Rulemaking and the Environmental Impact Statement ! The items urbe consideration for rulemaking were identified in I
" Advance Notice of Rulemaking; Revision of Reactur Siting Criteria" (45 FR 50350) (ANR) and are listed in Table 1. This set of items ]
together with the restrictions established in the ANR establishes the presently intended scope of the rulemaking. Additional items identified I l by commenters will be considered if the NRC staff judges that they are l sufficiently important to the overall success of this rulemaking that I l they require immediate resolution. Specific alternatives for establishing i 4 i criteria with respect to some of these items were listed in the ANR. In addition, for the purposes of the scoping process for the EIS, the NRC staff l
- will consider alternatives for criteria that may be identified during the comment period on this Notice of Intent. l l
Although the NRC staff considered a wide range of information in arriving at the recommendations1 which formed the main thrust of the ANR, additional technical studies will be required to fully document the impacts of the proposed criteria and reasonable alternatives to those criteria. The l NRC staff has developed a tentative outline for the EIS to aid in identifying areas in which additional studies will be needed. Appendix A presents this tentative outline with notations after appropriate sections indicating whether the ANR or the NRC FY 1980 Authorization Act is the primary basis for the section. Appendix B presents a more detailed discussion of the technical . t approach for assessing issues that the NRC staff believes may be.important in mahing informed choices among the alternatives. 1" Report of the Siting Policy Task Force," NUREG-0625, August 1979. 3 i
[7590-01) TABLE 1 ITE,MS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RULEMAKING Demographic criteria Fixed exclusion distance Fixed protective action distance Population density Population distribution l Minimum standoff distance from external hazards Airports LNG and LPG terminals and pipelines Large quantities of explosive or toxic materials Majordams : Navigable waterways which are transportation routes for hazardous l materials - i Other nuclear power plants Interdiction of contaminated groundwater Consideration of post-licensing changes in off-site activities Prohibition of sites requiring unique orl unusual design to compensate - for site inadequacies Site approval at earliest decision point; criteria for reopening NRC review termination upon State agency disapproval I 1 Relative to the issues identified in the appendices, comments will be most useful which:
- 1. Suggest other realistic alternatives to those presented in Appen-dix A, Chapter III (e.g., a. specific approach or combination of approaches for establishing demographic criteria together with e e 4
[7590-01) l
+ l a technical justification of the approach2 ). Indicate why any identified alternatives are not worthy of further consideration.
1
- 2. Address the relevancy of the issues identified in Appendix 8 ,
i and the staff's planned -approach to analysis of these issues. 1
- 3. Identify and justify any other issues which should be considered-in this rulemaking. 1 i
Scoping Process for the EIS. The scoping process for the EIS will consist of publication of the ANR and this Notice of Intent and consideration of the comments on each in preparation of the Scoping Summary Report. , No public scoping meeting q is planned; participation in the scoping process will be limited to written responses to this Notice of Intent. A;special mailing of this Notice - will be made to persons, organizations and agencies who have indicated an interest in this subject area. Federal agencies identified by the i Council on Environmental Quality as having special expertise in this
- area will be included in this mailing. Other agencies which have l 4
t jurisdiction by law or'special expertise with respect to any environ- i mental impact involved, or which are authorized to develop and enforce t
'To help the public provide informed comment on the range of alternatives'-
for setting demographic criteria which may be appropriate for considera ' tion in the EIS, copies of IAEA Safety Guide 50-SG-54 " Site Selection and
. Evaluation for Nuclear Power Plants with Respect to Population Distribu- -
tion"'are available for examination at the Commission's Public. Document Room at 1717 H Street NW. , and at all local Public Document Rooms.- ' This guide presents a survey of procedures used by regulatory authorities in' IAEA member nations for considering population in reactor reviews. There is no special significance given to any of these approa:hes by the NRC staff but this summary does present most of the alternatives which may be-reasonable to consider in establishing demographic criteria. 5
4 (7590-01) relevant standards are invited to participate in this scoping effort. Affected State and local agencies or any affected Indian tribes that wish to participate by c6mmenting are invited to do so. At the conclusion of the comment period for this Notice of Intent, the NRC staff will assess the comments on both this Notice and the ANR; and will define the alterna- ) tive criteria which will be considered in detail in the EIS. Since there will likely be considerable overlap and redundancy amongst various suggested alternative criteria, the staff will utilize its judgment and experience to establish a reasonable number of alternatives (which may differ from - those tentatively listed in Appendix A) that have significant differences but have a good chance of equitably establishing appropriate siting restrictions for future nuclear power plants. The issues to be examined for each of the criteria will also be defined (see Appendix B). The scoping process will be completed by the preparation ~and pub-lication of a Scoping Summary Report. This report will include a final statement of the items that will be covered in this rulemaking, the rea-sons for deleting any of the items included in the ANR and a revised and ! more detailed outline for the EIS. A brief. description of the reasons for including alternative criteria not presently identified, eliminating alternatives presently under consideration or combining similar alterna-tives will be presented. The report will also identify any issues with respect to these alternatives which have been included for detailed exami- ' nation or have been dismissed from further consideration as peripheral,- insignificant or adequately covered elsewhere. The report will also pro-vide information on (1) the schedule for completion of the rulemaking, (2) related environmental studies, and (3) arrangements for others to prepare background information for the EIS. Copies of this report will 6
i [7590-01] be distributed to those who participated in the scoping process by commenting on the ANR or Notice of Intent. l l \ l i 1 I I l l 4 l
. I I
1 l i e e O 7
[759001) l APPENDIX A Tentative Table of Contents for Siting EIS
!. Summary I.1 Introduction ,
I.2 0,escription of Proposed Action 1.3 Description of Alternatives I.4 Sut:ary of Major Issues (Including Unresolved Issues) 1.5 Identification of Preferred Alternatives j n- *' Purpose' and Need for the Actierr I!. 11.1 Purpose of Promulgation of Reactor Siting Criteria 11.2 Need for Reactor Siting Criteria; Discussion of No Action Alternatives III. Identification of Alternatives j III.1 Introduction III.1.a Discussion of ANR and EIS Scoping Process as determinants of Scope of Rulemaking and Analyses of Alternatives 4 III.1.b Term Goals for Ra;ision of Siting Criteria-
- Lonkonale Rat for Selection of Criteria (ANR, Itas 1) 111.1.b.1 Separation of siting from design (LWR specific?)
III.1.b.2 Desired degree of remoteness; i regionalization j. III.1.b.3 Consideration of accidents beyond the , design basis - 1
. 1 III.1.b.4 Attainable risk for nuclear compared i to risks from other power generation sources (Individual vs. Societal Risk) l III.2 Demographic Criteria (ANR, Item B; NRC FY 80 Authorization Act)
III.2.a. Exclusion distance (ANR, Item B)
~
8 i
wp g 3 [7Mrr01)
~
a t o III.2.b. Specificati.in of populatf an/ density limit , (ANR, Item B) $f /. ( t 4; III.2.b.1 Siting' Policy Task Force recommenda-
- tion (ANR, Item B,' Alternative A) ' ,
4 3 ) , ; /; i n, n III.2.b.2 Three tier approachi(AR1,\ Ites B,. Q ., , , - Altermtive B) >'
y , cg,y
- ' h III'.2.b.3Singlelimit(ANR,ItesB,Questien[2)Mc/e
/ . ;t/
III.2.b.4 Incorporgiosif meteorolo ica/and "/
. topograpigical c'enstraints ANRLItem ,B, ACRS connent * /' '!
/
III.2.c. Specification of' population distribution j limit-(ANR, Item B) 4 (m
.. w rv ,.:. w :my n ,;g, g fit % f F M i W T 5 t~F M -'" " E)!'j , _d.
recoramendation (ANR, Item B, x ! - Alternative A) ; i ' Itam T, I III.2.c.2Threetierapproach(ARR,(yl
. Alternative B) (
,r s III.2.c.3Singlevalue,uniformIM,t' t t (ANR, Ites B, Question O' I , r' III.2.c.4INorporationofmeteorolodical' T. ?
and topographical constraints (ANR, Item B, ACRS comments) [~ I? III.3 Restrictions on Proximity to External Hazards (ANR. Ites C) 1 i) Practicality of proximity limitation'(i.e. . ~ III.3.a.
- ttandoff distancti) for each type.of hazard (ANR,. Item C, A hernative A) r ..
III.3.b. Feasibility of design performance requirements
~(ANR, Item C, ACRS comments with regard to other nuclearplants) . III.3.c. Three tier approach (ANR, Item C, Alternative B)
III.3.d. Defer generie . resolution; continue case-by-case- -
. . . - ' determinations ,
111.4 Capability to Interdict Contaminated Groundwater (ANR, Item D) III.4.a. Unacceptable site characteristics plus performance requirements-III.4.b. Performance requirements' g
r 7ghe pl(
* \} J
.[7590-01) 3
,IIll.c. Case-by-case review for compliance with performance requirements III.5 Post-Licensing Changes in Offsite Activities (ANR, Item E)
, , III.S.a. Passivecontrols(ANR,ItemsF1,F2) e
,4(,.
4 i' III.5.a.1 Private sector; notification requirements
. T III.'5.a.2 Local authorities; information requirements s'
III.S.a.3 Other Federal agencies; notification y y) v
; requirements III.S.L. Generic responses restricting plant operation; criteria for action (ANR, Item F4, Questions 2 and3) 6 i
. t.II'.'5fei" "'tesislattort to"'accurre 'dir~etti control'(ANR,-
~
) Item F, Question 1)
III.6 No site characteristics requiring unique or unproven compensating x design features. (Alternative is case-by-case design review.) ( - (ANR,ItemG) h III.7 3}te approval at earliest decision point. (Alternatives no action.) (ANR, Item H) III.8 Termination of Review Upon Disapproval by State Agency Whose Approval is Necessary (ANR, Ites I) l III.8.a. Letterfromgovernor(ANR,ItemI, Question 2) III.8.b. State designated overall approval authority j (ANR, Item I, Question 2) III.8.c. AnyStateAgency(ANR,ItemI, Question 2) j ! III.8.d. NoResponsetoStateAgencyDisapprovals(ANR, l ItesI, Question 2) 1 IV. Issues Important to the Specification of Reactor Siting Criteria IV.1 Radiological Source Terms (Releases) and the Consequences of a - Full Range of Accidents (ANR, Item 8; NRC FY 80 Authorization Act) IV.2 Feasibility of Protective Actions (ANR, Item B, ACRS comments; NRC FY 80 Authorization oct) IV.2.a. ?m'ilation -ifvt.s 10
[7590-01] IV.2.b. Transportation constraints IV.2.c. External hazard initiators 9 l l IV.3 Site / availability (NRC FY 80 Authorization Act) .! l .. ! IV.3.a. Population density and distribution criteria effects l '(Meteorology, topography, and regionalization). (ANR, Item B) IV.3.b. Effects'of Physiographic constraints H (NRC FY 80 Authorization Act)
~l IV.3.c. Land use/ external hazards considerations' (ANR, Item C)'
IV.3.d Irrpacts of criteria with respect to alternative
.. . ~ , ,
fuels (ANR,
,....;.2 .
Ite.m A)
. - . . . . . . 3 . ... + . . , . s; .;n v . . .. ..:..,.
IV.3.e. Groundwater interdiction requirements effects (ANR, Item D) l I; IV.3.f. Use of Existing sites or Federal lands (ANR, Item F) 4 l- IV.3.g. Effect of prohibition on sites requiring unusual or unproven design to compensate for site d deficiencies (ANR, Item G) l IV.4 Socioeconomic Impacts IV.5 Severity of External Hazards (ANR, Item C) ,
\
IV.6 Effects of Post-Licensing Land Use Control (ANR, Item 5) ] IV.7 Implications of Site Approval at Earliest Decision Point 1 (ANR, Item H) i IV.8 Implications of Deferral to State Agency Disapprovals (ANR, ItemI)
. V. - Comparison of Alternatives; Selection of . Proposed Criteria V.1 Introduction; Discussion of Comparative Analyses Consistent -
!. with Siting Goals V.1. a. Separation of siting from design .. V.1.'b . Degree of remoteness; regionalization V .1. c. Accidents-beyond the design basis , V.1.d. Attainable risk with respect to other power ! generation sources 11
(7590-01) I l V.2 Demographic Criteria l V. 2. a. Exclusion distance-V.2.b. Population density Itaits j V.2.c. Population distribution limits V.3 Proximity Restrictions for External Hazards i V.4 Groundwater Interdictive Capability V. 5 Post-Licensing Changes in Of' site Activities V.6 Unique or Unusual Design Prohibition V.7 Earl,yw;iteApproval S
%. esso .e,* *g M .\ =( 9 e ,s ?.v*:.es +'s 6%*
.m,eo '.m vs. yss .e . . .y ar'w . y e . ,(s . .
l V.8 Deferral to State Agency Disapproval VI. List of Preparars VII. Appendices _ ,
/
f l i l 4
**' .. j
)
e 4 G 12
+ \
[7590-01] l ! I j i APPENDIX B Technical Approach to Detailed Analyses 1
- 1. Issue: Radiological consequences of' accidents Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.1)
Proposed criteria will be compared with realistic alternatives on the basis of impacts on public health and safety. For demographic criteria this-.mean,est
. hat variation
~.......:. . . .in
. .. doses
, . . to .the maximally
. . , , ,. exposed
. - s .a . . , , . . .
individual and the. population from a full range of accident releases l J l must be examined for alternative ways of specifying constraints on popula-
- tion densi.ty and distribution. The consequences will be evaluated with an updated version of the Reactor Safety Study Consequences Model (CRAC) l computer code. Existing sites and a' hypothetical site will be evaluated.
Consequences considered will include early fatalities, injuries, latent fatalities, and property damage. Both individual and societal risk will be evaluated but may differ in relative importance for establishing differ--
. ent criteria. (Comment on the role of societal versus individual risk as determinants of exclusion distance and population ' density and distribution limits would be' useful.) i 1
II. Issue: Feasbility of Protective Actions l
~
Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.2) .
)
The topics under consideration for rulemaking with respect to ) demographic criteria and external hazards will be examined to determine , i 13 j
[ _ . .
~
[759001] whether the capability to'take protective action in the vicinity of a site under accident conditions might be impaired or enhanced by various choices of alternative criteria. , i III. Issue: Definition of region { Prooosed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.3.a) Alternative schemes of regionalization will be examined to determine a proper basis for establishing regional criteria. Socioeconomic and p.)ysiographic units will be examined to e.stablish
. . . .potential
. , regional
,s . break- ..
downs.
- Effects of uniformity of population
- distribution, water resource restrictions and any other appropriate regicnal concerns will be considered f 1
l when deciding on the proper regionalization scheme. (Com:nent would be useful with regard to appropriate determinants of region.) ], i IV. Issue: Site availability Proposed Analytical Aporoach: (EIS Sections IV.3.a and IV.3.b) , I Consistent with the intent of the NRC FY80 Authorization Act, the i new demographic criteria should not preclude further siting of nuclear i power plants in any region of the United States. An assessment will be 1 made for each region that identifies the variation in availability of sites for nuclear power plants as a function of the structure of the cri-teria and the variation in numerical values as well as realistic con-straints on siting such as water availability and violation of safety criteria. The benefits of regionally based criteria versus nationwide criteria will be examined. Basic information will be developed from ; existing siting studies which, taken together, cover large portions of the country. 14
[7590-01] V. Issue: Socioeconomic Impacts j Proposed Analytical. Approach: (EISSectionIV.4) The socioeconomic impacts of varying degrees of remoteness will be i investigated. Economic impacts of increased transmission distances, impacts on land use and other factors will be addressed along with socio- I logical penalties and inequities in distribution of cost and benefits of such siting.
. . - . . . . . .,....,.. . . . . .. - .;. f . ... ,. . . . . . . , , ,
~ ' ' * ' ' ' "
'VI .~ 'Is'suei ' S'everiti of"Exiirndl 'Ha'z'ards~ '
Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Sections IV.3.c and IV.5) l A literature review will be performed to establish the potential level of hazard associated with the external hazards listed in the ANR and any other appropriate topics. Staff practice for dealing with these hazards will be assessed. Available models for characterizing the effect l of a hazardous external event will,'be evaluated. The "easibility of establishing a meaningful protective distance will be examined. The availability of sites a'ssociated with the demographic criteria proposed by the staff will be reexamined to determine whether the standoff criteria will significantly alter site availability. '
. i VII. Issue: Engineering Alternatives to Standoff Distances i
Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Sections UI.3 and IV.5) The feasibility of design performance requirements as opposed to specific standoff distances will be evaluated. 15 ;
[7590-01] VIII.. Issue: Precluding Siting of Nuclear Reactors in any Region of l J the United States. Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.3.d) Energy generation from any source has its_ associated risk and risks from some energy sources may,be greater than that of the nuclear option. ' Therefore, it has been suggested that the siting criteria should not be so stringent as to preclude the-use of nuclear power from any region of the United States. The implications of not precluding nuclear power fros
' any region of.the , United States,, will be,,,exa, mined.,
. . . , . ...s...
l IX. Issue: Effect of Groundwater Interdiction Criteria on Site Avail-l ability. Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.3.e) The effect on site availability of alternative siting criteria that-assure the capability for groundwater interdiction would be examined. X. Issue: Post-Licensing Land Use Control Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.6) The feasibility of passive and active controls on post-licensing land use in the vicinity of a nuclear plant would be explored. Alterna-l tive controls on population risk (given that criteria are exceeded) such i as changes in operating procedures or authorized power level or additional risk reducing engineering systems would be addressed. l 16
~-
[7590-01) XI. Issue: Use of Existing Sites Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.3.f) The existing sites would be examined for various levels of criteria to determine which sites were acceptable under each proposal. The feasibil-ity of adding additional unit,s to each of these sites would then be examined and an estimate made by region of remaining siting capacity. Using the characteristics of the selected site, an estimate would.be prepared of the availability of multi-unit' sites as a modification of the availability information ,for,the,various demographic criteria. and standoff distances. ,, , , , , XII. Issue: Use of Federal Lands Proposed Analytical Approach: .(EIS Section IV.3.f) Federal land would be surveyed to establish suitability for location of single unit plants up through many-unit energy centers. The historical availability of Federal land would be explored for uses such is public. i power supply systems (Bonneville Power Authority, Tennessee Valley Authority, etc.), oil shale lease program, forestry timber management, water supply projects. The possible benefits would be examined regionally from well planned use of Federal lands to supplement areas already available to utilities and implement a multi-unit existing site approach. The degree of improvement in criteria that is possible if the availability associated with the recommended criteria is held constant after Federal lands are . added would be assessed. L 17 a______ - _ _ _ -_ - - _______- ___ - __-__ _ ___- _ = __ _-___ -_- - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - ___ __ . _ - _ _ ._ _- - _ __ :
i [7590-01] l xill. Issue: Use of Unusual or Unproven Engineering Design to Cc pensate for Site Deficiencies Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.3.q) An estimate would be made of the ef fect on site availability of. insti-tuting such a requirement, particularly where large areas might have a l common deficiency which might preclude siting from a large region. i J XIV. Issue: Termination of Review After State Disapproval l Proposed Analytical Approach: (EIS Section IV.8) l l - i . The implications ;of establishing adtoma' tic ' review ~ termination 'with respect to various levels of State disapproval will be examined. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this //I22 day of November 1980. ' For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-{;
, . \ ! S M & .h.p" Ray-G. Smith, Acting Director Office of Standards Development U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. l l
s
*%g l
J
1 UEtif40 tiaf 4 W4048 RG0utatoa,ts .; _
"'88"*Gtch 9 C 3pses F l nostam . ,n ....
*"*"***" W$ Ehmsmo assaanse
- L- J ,
g, 120555003959 1 CFCGCJCOCSCTC US NRC ACN CIV OF RUL ES 6 RECORDS DIVI SION DIRECTOR 4210 MNBB
. W ASHl hGT ON DC 20555 l .
I i e S 1
1 y" .h U h h Y*g)( 1 %.,vuev) S.: r ,) . - 7 s + b . , 6 .c ) ,.< *J .r14 ). >, I 7 u ,,a . ; po , g, bs1
@ % J'd
- yncJ,nu,s,5 ;
lan9uag e is ( lim < 41<3 p %e Art we vi 7 L 9c dq cow - k ew;od v dh unk A
,u i ;c *tios ',
U2 T,p 33 ._ pu,;l;;;;
- yp,p,j ,,,,,,,j ,
-d .e 1
l 4 l I 1 For A-sc.-42. A6 4 J
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >}}