Regulatory Guide 4.2
| ML18071A400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/2018 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | |
| O'Donnell E | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18071A399 | List: |
| References | |
| DG-4026 RG-4.002, Rev. 3 | |
| Download: ML18071A400 (192) | |
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGULATORY GUIDE 4.2, REVISION 3
Issue Date: September 2018 Technical Lead: J. Davis
Written suggestions regarding this guide or development of new guides may be submitted through the NRCs public Web site in the NRC Library at https://nrcweb.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/, under Document Collections, in Regulatory Guides, at https://nrcweb.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/contactus.html.
Electronic copies of this RG, previous versions of RGs, and other recently issued guides are also available through the NRCs public Web site in the NRC Library at https://nrcweb.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/, under Document Collections, in Regulatory Guides. This RG is also available through the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under ADAMS Accession Number (No.)
ML18071A400. The regulatory analysis may be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A068. The associated draft guide DG-4026 may be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A067, and the staff responses to the public comments on DG-4026 may be found under ADAMS Accession No. ML18071A401.
PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
Purpose This regulatory guide (RG) provides guidance to applicants for the format and content of environmental reports (ERs) that are submitted as part of an application for a permit, license, or other authorization to site, construct, and/or operate a new nuclear power plant.
Applicability This RG applies to applications for a permit, license, or other approval for a nuclear power plant subject to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (Ref. 1), 10 CFR Part 52 Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants (Ref. 2), and the associated review under 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions (Ref. 3).
Applicable Regulations
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4321 et seq.) (Ref. 4) requires that Federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements (EISs) on proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require a Federal agency to consider, in its decision-making process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major Federal action and alternative actions, including alternative sites. Additional direction is provided in Executive Order 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (Ref. 5), as amended by Executive Order 11991 Environmental Impact Statements (Ref. 6), and in the Council on Environmental Qualitys regulations at 40 CFR Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality - Parts 1500-1508 (Ref. 7). Regarding the CEQ regulations, as stated in
10 CFR 51.10, the NRC takes account of those regulations voluntarily, subject to certain conditions.
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 2
10 CFR Part 50 governs the licensing of nuclear power plants. Applicable sections in
10 CFR Part 50 provide requirements for submittal of ERs in support of applications for early site permits (ESPs), combined licenses (COLs), limited work authorizations (LWAs), construction permits (CPs), and operating licenses (OLs).
10 CFR Part 51 provides requirements for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs)
preparation and processing of EIS and related documents under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.
10 CFR Part 52 governs the issuance of ESPs, design certifications (DCs), COLs, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses for nuclear power facilities licensed under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) (Ref. 8), and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5841-5853) (Ref. 9). Applicable sections in 10 CFR Part
52 describe requirements to include ERs for ESPs, DCs, COLs, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses.
Related Guidance While the guidance provided in the related documents listed below may overlap with guidance in this RG, the purposes of the documents are different. Some of the related documents offer guidance in the development of reference sources that may be useful in the development of an ER, but, unlike this RG,
none are specifically intended to offer guidance directly pertinent to preparing the ER itself.
RG 1.206, Combined License Application for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition) (Ref. 10),
identifies sources of information that can be used by applicants in the development of ERs for COL applications.
RG 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations (Ref. 11), discusses the major site characteristics related to public health and safety and environmental issues that the NRC staff considers in determining the suitability of sites for light-water-cooled nuclear power stations.
RG 4.11, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations (Ref. 12), provides technical guidance that the NRC staff considers acceptable for terrestrial environmental studies and analyses supporting licensing decisions for nuclear power reactors.
RG 4.24, Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations (Ref. 13), provides technical guidance that the NRC staff considers acceptable for aquatic environmental studies and analyses supporting licensing decisions for nuclear power reactors.
NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants (Ref. 14), provides the criteria used by the NRC staff for reviewing ERs submitted with nuclear power plant license applications.
Purpose of Regulatory Guides The NRC issues RGs to describe to the public methods that the staff considers acceptable for use in implementing specific parts of the agencys regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations and compliance with them is not required. Methods and solutions that differ from those set forth in RGs will be deemed acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings required for the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission.
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 3 Paperwork Reduction Act This RG provides guidance for implementing the mandatory information collections in 10 CFR
Parts 50, 51, and 52 that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).
These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under control numbers 3150-0011, 3150-0021, and 3150-0151. Send comments regarding this information collection to the Information Services Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, or by e-mail to Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011, 3150-0021, 3150-0151), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification The NRC may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection request or requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 5 Table of Contents
A. INTRODUCTION
................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Applicability .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Related Guidance ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of Regulatory Guides ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Paperwork Reduction Act .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Public Protection Notification ....................................................................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 5 ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ 13
B. DISCUSSION
........................................................................................................................ 17 Reason for Revision ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Harmonization with International Codes and Standards .............................................................................................. 17 C. STAFF REGULATORY GUIDANCE ............................................................................... 19 General Guidance to Applicants .................................................................................................................................. 19 I.
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 II.
Consultations and Coordinations ...................................................................................................................... 20
III.
Non-NRC Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................................................... 20
IV.
Impact Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 22 V.
Mitigation of Adverse Effects ........................................................................................................................... 22 VI.
Implementation of the LWA Rule - Definition of Construction and Preconstruction ...................................... 23 VII. Storage of Spent Fuel ........................................................................................................................................ 25 VIII. Presentation of Applicant Information .............................................................................................................. 25 CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 27
1.0
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
1.1 Plant Owners and Reactor Type ........................................................................................................... 27
1.2 Description of the Proposed Action and the Purpose and Need ........................................................... 27
1.3 Planned Activities and Schedules......................................................................................................... 28
1.4 Status of Compliance ........................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................ 29
2.0
The Proposed Site and the Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 29
2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 29
2.1.1 Site, Vicinity, and Region ...................................................................................................... 30
2.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Other Offsite Areas .......................................................... 31
2.2 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) ........................................................................... 32
2.2.1 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 33
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 6
2.2.2 Water Use ............................................................................................................................... 33
2.2.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... 34
2.2.4 Water Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 35
2.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 35
2.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology ................................................................................................................. 35
2.3.2 Aquatic Ecology ..................................................................................................................... 38
2.4 Socioeconomics.................................................................................................................................... 41
2.4.1 Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 41
2.4.2 Community Characteristics .................................................................................................... 43
2.5 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................................... 44
2.5.1 Identification of Potentially Affected EJ Populations ............................................................ 45
2.5.2 Identification of Potential Pathways and Communities with Unique Characteristics ............ 47
2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 49
2.6.1 Cultural Background .............................................................................................................. 50
2.6.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site and in the Vicinity ............................................. 50
2.6.3 Consultation ........................................................................................................................... 51
2.7 Air Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 52
2.7.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 52
2.7.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 53
2.7.3 Atmospheric Dispersion ......................................................................................................... 53
2.7.4 Meteorological Monitoring .................................................................................................... 54
2.8 Nonradiological Health ........................................................................................................................ 55
2.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................................................. 55
2.8.2 Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 56
2.8.3 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 56
2.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields ........................................................................................................... 57
2.9 Radiological Environment and Radiological Monitoring .................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................ 59
3.0
Site Layout and Project Description ................................................................................................................. 59
3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout ................................................................................................ 59
3.2 Proposed Plant Structures, Systems and Components.......................................................................... 60
3.3 Building Activities ............................................................................................................................... 61
3.4 Operational Activities .......................................................................................................................... 62
3.4.1 Plant-Environment Interfaces during Operation .................................................................... 62
3.4.2 Radioactive Waste Management ............................................................................................ 63
3.4.3 Nonradioactive Waste Management ...................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................ 67
4.0
Environmental Impacts from Construction of the Proposed Project ................................................................. 67
4.1 Land-Use .............................................................................................................................................. 67
4.1.1 Onsite Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 67
4.1.2 Offsite Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 68
4.2 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) ........................................................................... 69
4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations ........................................................................................................... 69
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 7
4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ................................................................................................................. 70
4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts ........................................................................................................... 70
4.2.4 Water Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 70
4.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 70
4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................ 70
4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 73
4.4 Socioeconomics.................................................................................................................................... 73
4.4.1 Physical Impacts..................................................................................................................... 74
4.4.2 Demographic Impacts ............................................................................................................ 75
4.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community .................................................................................... 76
4.4.4 Community Infrastructure Impacts ........................................................................................ 77
4.5 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................................... 78
4.5.1 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................... 79
4.5.2 Human-Health Effects ............................................................................................................ 79
4.5.3 Subsistence, Special Conditions, and Unique Characteristics ................................................ 79
4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 79
4.7 Air Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 81
4.8 Nonradiological Health ........................................................................................................................ 82
4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................................................. 82
4.8.2 Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 82
4.8.3 Transportation of Construction Materials and Personnel to and from the Proposed Site ....... 83
4.9 Radiological Health .............................................................................................................................. 84
4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures .................................................................................................... 84
4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents ........................................................................ 85
4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents ........................................................................... 85
4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers ...................................................................................... 85
4.10
Nonradioactive Waste Management .................................................................................................... 85
4.10.1 Impacts to Land ...................................................................................................................... 86
4.10.2 Impacts to Water .................................................................................................................... 86
4.10.3 Impacts to Air ......................................................................................................................... 86
4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction Activities ............................. 87 CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................ 89
5.0
Environmental Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Plant ........................................................................ 89
5.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 89
5.1.1 Onsite Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 89
5.1.2 Offsite Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 89
5.2 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) ........................................................................... 90
5.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations ........................................................................................................... 90
5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ................................................................................................................. 91
5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts ........................................................................................................... 91
5.2.4 Water Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 91
5.3 Ecological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 92
5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................ 92
5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 93
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 8
5.4 Socioeconomics.................................................................................................................................... 95
5.4.1 Physical Impacts..................................................................................................................... 95
5.4.2 Demographic Impacts ............................................................................................................ 96
5.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community .................................................................................... 96
5.4.4 Community Infrastructure Impacts ........................................................................................ 97
5.5 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................................... 99
5.5.1 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................... 99
5.5.2 Human-Health Effects ............................................................................................................ 99
5.5.3 Subsistence, Special Conditions, and Unique Characteristics ................................................ 99
5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 100
5.7 Air Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 101
5.7.1 Cooling-System Impacts ...................................................................................................... 102
5.7.2 Air-Quality Impacts ............................................................................................................. 102
5.7.3 Transmission-Line Impacts .................................................................................................. 103
5.8 Nonradiological Health ...................................................................................................................... 103
5.8.1 Etiological Agents and Emerging Contaminants ................................................................. 103
5.8.2 Noise Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 104
5.8.3 Electric Shock Impacts ......................................................................................................... 105
5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields........................................................................... 105
5.8.5 Occupational Health ............................................................................................................. 106
5.8.6 Human Health Impacts from Transportation ........................................................................ 106
5.9 Radiological Health during Normal Operation and Radioactive Waste Management ....................... 106
5.9.1 Exposure Pathways .............................................................................................................. 107
5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public .......................................................................... 107
5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public ........................................................................................ 112
5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers ........................................................................................... 113
5.9.5 Doses to Nonhuman Biota.................................................................................................... 114
5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 115
5.9.7 Solid Waste Management and Onsite Spent Fuel Storage ................................................... 116
5.10
Nonradioactive Waste Management .................................................................................................. 116
5.10.1 Impacts to Land .................................................................................................................... 116
5.10.2 Impacts to Water .................................................................................................................. 117
5.10.3 Impacts to Air ....................................................................................................................... 117
5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents ................................................................................ 117
5.11.1 Design-Basis Accidents........................................................................................................ 118
5.11.2 Severe Accidents .................................................................................................................. 119
5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ............................................................................. 120
5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts during Operation ................................................. 121 CHAPTER 6 .............................................................................................................................. 123
6.0
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning Impacts .......................................................................... 123
6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Waste Management ..................................................................................... 123
6.1.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 124
6.1.2 Water Use ............................................................................................................................. 124
6.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts .............................................................................................................. 124
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 9
6.1.4 Chemical Effluents ............................................................................................................... 125
6.1.5 Radiological Effluents .......................................................................................................... 125
6.1.6 Radiological Wastes ............................................................................................................. 126
6.1.7 Occupational Dose ............................................................................................................... 126
6.1.8 Transportation Dose ............................................................................................................. 126
6.2 Transportation of Fuel and Wastes ..................................................................................................... 126
6.2.1 Components of a Full Description and a Detailed Analysis of Transportation Impacts....... 127
6.2.2 Estimating the Number of Shipments and Normalization of Shipments .............................. 129
6.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................................................................... 130
CHAPTER 7 .............................................................................................................................. 133
7.0
Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................................ 133
7.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects ............................................................... 136
7.2 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 139 CHAPTER 8 .............................................................................................................................. 141
8.0
Need for Power ............................................................................................................................................... 141
8.1 Description of the Applicants Power Market .................................................................................... 142
8.2 Power Demand ................................................................................................................................... 143
8.3 Power Supply ..................................................................................................................................... 144
8.4 Summary of the Need for Power Analysis and Conclusions .............................................................. 145 CHAPTER 9 .............................................................................................................................. 149
9.0
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 149
9.1 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 149
9.2 Energy Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 150
9.3 Site-Selection Process ........................................................................................................................ 151
9.3.1 The Region of Interest .......................................................................................................... 153
9.3.2 Candidate Areas ................................................................................................................... 153
9.3.3 Potential Sites ....................................................................................................................... 154
9.3.4 Candidate Sites ..................................................................................................................... 154
9.3.5 Proposed and Alternative Sites ............................................................................................ 155
9.4 System Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 159
9.4.1 Heat Dissipation ................................................................................................................... 159
9.4.2 Circulating-Water System Alternatives ................................................................................ 160
9.4.3 Other System Alternatives ................................................................................................... 160
CHAPTER 10 ............................................................................................................................ 161
10.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................... 161
10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Actions ........................................................................................................ 161
10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects .................................................................................... 161
10.3 Relationship between Local Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity ...... 161
10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................................. 161
10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 161
10.6 Benefits and Costs .............................................................................................................................. 162
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 10
10.6.1 Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 162
10.6.2 Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 162
10.6.3 Benefit-Cost Balance ........................................................................................................... 163 CHAPTER 11 ............................................................................................................................ 165
11.0 Reference Guidance ........................................................................................................................................ 165
D. IMPLEMENTATION
........................................................................................................ 167 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 169 APPENDIX A - PART 50 AND PART 52 LICENSES AND AUTHORIZATIONS ........ A-1
Early Site Permits .......................................................................................................................................... A-1
Combined License Referencing an Early Site Permit .................................................................................... A-2
Construction Permits and Operating Licenses ............................................................................................... A-3
Limited Work Authorizations and Site Redress ............................................................................................. A-4
Standard Design Certification ........................................................................................................................ A-5
COL Application Referencing Standard Design Certification ....................................................................... A-5
Manufacturing License .................................................................................................................................. A-6
References ...................................................................................................................................................... A-6 APPENDIX B - CONSULTATIONS ..................................................................................... B-1
Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................................................. B-1
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act .................................................................... B-2
National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................................................................. B-3
References ....................................................................................................................................................... B-3 APPENDIX C - SMALL MODULAR REACTORS AND NON-LIGHT WATER
REACTORS .............................................................................................................................. C-1
Licensing Scenarios for SMRs ........................................................................................................................ C-1 C.1.1 Scenario 1: All Modules in One Application ..................................................................................... C-2 C.1.2 Scenario 2: Two or More Separate License Applications (Subsequent application considered an expansion of the existing site) ............................................................................................................ C-2 C.1.3 Scenario 3: Two or More Separate License Applications (Subsequent applications not considered an expansion of the existing site) ............................................................................................................ C-2 C.1.4 Scenario 4: ESP and COL Application .............................................................................................. C-3 C.1.5 Summary of Licensing Scenarios ....................................................................................................... C-3
Information to be provided in SMR Applications ........................................................................................... C-3 C.2.1 Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................... C-3 C.2.2 Chapter 2: Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... C-4 C.2.3 Chapter 3: Site Layout and Plant Description .................................................................................... C-4 C.2.4 Chapter 4: Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site ....................................................................... C-4 C.2.5 Chapter 5: Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site ......................................................................... C-4 C.2.6 Chapter 6: Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning .......................................................... C-5 C.2.7 Chapter 7: Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... C-5 C.2.8 Chapter 8: Need for Power ................................................................................................................. C-5
RG-4.2, Rev. 3, Page 11 C.2.9 Chapter 9: Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ............................................................................ C-5 C.2.10 Chapter 10: Conclusion and Recommendation .................................................................................. C-6 C.2.11 Information to be Provided in Non-LWR Applications That Are Not SMRs .................................... C-6
Reference ........................................................................................................................................................ C-6
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 13 Abbreviations/Acronyms ACHP
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACS
American Community Survey ADAMS
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System APE
area of potential effect BMP
best management practice CBG
Census block group CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality CFR
Code of Federal Regulations CO2 carbon dioxide COL
combined license CP
construction permit CWA
Clean Water Act (aka Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
dBA
decibel(s) on the A-weighted scale DBA
design-basis accident DC
design certification DCD
design control document D/Q
atmospheric deposition factor(s)
DSM
demand-side management EA
environmental assessment EAB
exclusion area boundary EE
energy efficiency EFH
essential fish habitat EIS
environmental impact statement EJ
environmental justice ELF-EMF
extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field EMF
electromagnetic field EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ER
environmental report ESA
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ESP
early site permit FR
Federal Register FSAR
final safety analysis report FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gal gallon(s)
GASPAR
gaseous and particulate (code)
Generic Environmental Impact Statement GHG
greenhouse gas GIS
geographic information system GWP
global warming potential Hz hertz
International Atomic Energy Agency ISFSI
independent spent-fuel storage installation ISG
interim staff guidance ISO
independent system operator kg/ha/mo kilogram(s)/hectare/month km kilometer(s)
kWh kilowatt-hour(s)
LADTAP
Liquid Annual Dose to All Persons (code)
LEDPA
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative LLWR
large light water reactor LPZ
low-population zone LWA
limited work authorization LWR
light water reactor m3 cubic meter(s)
m3/yr cubic meters per year MACCS
MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System MEI
maximally exposed individual Mgd million gallon(s) per day mi mile(s)
mrad millirad mrad/d millirad/day mrem millirem mrem/yr millirem per year MSA
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 MTU
metric ton uranium MWd/MTU
megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium MW
megawatt MW(e)
megawatt(s) electric MW(t)
megawatt(s) thermal MWh megawatt hour(s)
MWh/yr megawatt hour(s) per year NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements NEI
Nuclear Energy Institute NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended NIEHS
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences non-LWR
Non-light water reactor NOx nitrogen oxide NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP
National Register of Historic Places NUREG
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical document O3 ozone OL
operating license OMB
Office of Management and Budget PPE
plant parameter envelope PRA
probabilistic risk assessment rem roentgen equivalent man REMP
radiological environmental monitoring program RG
regulatory guide ROI
region of interest RTO
regional transmission organization SAMA
severe accident mitigation alternative SAMDA
severe accident mitigation design alternative SAR
safety analysis report SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office (or Officer)
small modular reactor SRP
Standard Review Plan SSC
structure, system, and component U.S.
United States USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C.
United States Code
/Q
atmospheric dispersion factor(s)
yr year
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 17
B. DISCUSSION
Reason for Revision Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, Revision 3 updated guidance to align with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, changes in environmental statutes and regulations, and Executive Orders since the last revision of the RG. Examples of changes include, but are not limited to, the assessment of building impacts, greenhouse gas and climate change, socioeconomics, environmental justice, need for power, alternatives, and cumulative effects.
Background Since issuance of Revision 2 in 1976, the NRC staff has developed or revised regulations, including 10 CFR 51.45, which is related to the requirements for submitting environmental reports (ERs),
and 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants. Additionally, while preparing environmental impact statements (EISs) for the first group of combined license (COL)
applications, the NRC staff identified a number of issues that necessitated changes to staff guidance. In
2014, the NRC staff documented these changes in two interim staff guidance documents, COL/ESP-ISG-
026, Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors (Ref. 15), and COL/ESP-ISG-027, Interim Staff Guidance on Specific Environmental Guidance for Light Water Small Modular Reactor Reviews (Ref. 16), which addressed changes to environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders which directly affect the information required by the NRC to develop EISs.
Guidance from the ISGs as it relates to information that applicants should include in an ER was incorporated into this RG, as appropriate. The entirety of interim staff guidance in ISG-026 and ISG-027 will be terminated when it is incorporated into permanent staff guidance in NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants.
Applicants for reactor license renewal should use RG 4.2, Supplement 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications (Ref. 17), for developing ERs submitted as part of an application in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants (Ref. 18).
Harmonization with International Codes and Standards The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has established a series of technical reports and safety guides for protecting people and the environment. These technical reports and safety guides present international best practices to help users striving to achieve high levels of environmental protection and human safety. Similar to this RG, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.11, Managing Environmental Impact Assessment for Construction and Operation in New Nuclear Power Programmes (Ref. 19), addresses the basic concepts of environmental impact assessment and a methodological approach for estimating health and environmental impacts. IAEA Safety Guide NS-R-3, Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations (Ref. 20), contains recommendations for the collection of information to assess the safety and environmental suitability of a site for a nuclear installation. The NRC has an interest in facilitating the harmonization of standards used domestically and internationally. Use of this RG would, in general, be consistent with the principles and basic aspects of environmental impact assessment described in the IAEA Technical Report NG-T-3.11 and Safety Guide NS-R-3 on health and environmental impacts and site evaluation.
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 19 C. STAFF REGULATORY GUIDANCE
General Guidance to Applicants I.
Summary This section summarizes general guidance for developing the format and content of environmental reports (ERs) under 10 CFR Part 51 for applications for licenses, permits, and authorizations for new reactors pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 and 52. The following Chapters outline the format and content of a prospective ER. Applicants may use the same chapters and sections/subsections in their ER.
The information provided in Part C is applicable to ERs for large light-water reactor combined license (COL) applications not referencing an early site permit (ESP). Appendix A provides supplemental guidance for the development of ERs for other authorizations and licenses that can be granted by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, and 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, such as ESPs, COLs referencing an ESP, construction permits (CPs), operating licenses (OLs),
limited work authorizations (LWAs), standard design certifications (DCs), and manufacturing licenses.
Appendix B describes the requirements for the NRC to consult with other Federal agencies under other environmental statutes and the information the NRC staff needs to complete those consultations.
Appendix C provides additional guidance on the preparation of ERs under 10 CFR Part 51 for applications for small modular reactors (SMR) and non-light water reactors (non-LWR). The amount of information needed for an SMR or a non-LWR would depend on application-specific factors such as the size of the reactor, its footprint and the amount of resource it uses (e.g., water). An applicant for an SMR
or a non-LWR should engage with the NRC staff in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40, Consultation with NRC Staff to discuss the appropriate level of environmental studies or information which should be provided for a non-LWR design (e.g., additional information about the fuel cycle, radiological effluents, and accidents should be provided).
General guidance in this section includes information related to consultations, non-NRC permits and approvals, impact findings, mitigation of adverse impacts, and issues related to the definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a). General guidance related to the presentation of referenced material or other information in the ER sufficient to support the NRCs development of the EIS is also provided in this section.
Applicants should be cognizant of the NRCs current environmental review process and practices through the review of:
applicable NRC regulations in Section A of this Regulatory Guide (RG);
the most recent versions of regulatory guidance, particularly the documents in the Related Guidance section in Section A of this RG;
recent EISs prepared by NRC staff; and
the staffs Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1555).
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 20
In addition, applicants are encouraged to confer with the NRC staff as early as possible in the planning process before submitting environmental information or filing an application in accordance with
10 CFR 51.40, Consultation with NRC staff, and as discussed in RG 1.206. If an applicant is a Federal agency, then the applicant should inform the staff of its NEPA and regulatory responsibilities during the pre-application review. Furthermore, applicants should be aware that they should assess environmental impacts in proportion to their significance as described in 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1), which is based on Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.1, Purpose, and is consistent with the definition of Significantly, at 40 CFR 1508.27.
The NRC staff in its EIS generally follows the terminology used by the applicant in its ER to describe commonly used terms such as station, plant, unit, facility, or project. The applicant should define the terms that it uses and be clear and consistent throughout its ER.
II.
Consultations and Coordinations The NRC is responsible for conducting consultations under certain Federal laws, as appropriate, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531 et seq.) (Ref. 21), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996, Section 305 (16 U.S.C. 1855)
(Ref. 22), and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) (Ref. 23). As discussed throughout this RG, the information that the NRC suggests an applicant provide as part of their ER will help the NRC meet its responsibilities to consult with other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies under these Federal laws. The applicant should provide sufficient information in the ER to enable the NRC to complete the consultation processes. Additional information related to consultations is found in Appendix B of this RG.
In addition, there are laws and Executive Orders that may require coordination between the NRC
and other Federal and State agencies before granting a license or a permit. One example is the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Ref. 24), enacted in 1934 to ensure that water resource development projects do not conflict with the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as well as the State agency exercising administration over fish and wildlife resources when any body of water is proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be modified by any public or private agency under a Federal permit or license. Although coordination with other Federal agencies is the responsibility of the NRC, the proponent of the action (the applicant) should provide sufficient information to enable the NRC to complete the coordination process.
III.
Non-NRC Permits and Approvals In many cases, the NRC cannot issue a license or permit until the appropriate State or other Federal agencies have granted licenses or permits to the applicant. Applicants are required to comply with applicable Federal and State environmental statutes.1 The exact license or permit requirements will be dependent on factors such as water sources, proposed activities, as well as State permitting requirements, which can vary between States. Examples include the following:
Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (Ref. 25), was enacted to preserve and restore the quality of the Nations surface waters. Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit that may result in a discharge of regulated pollutants into
1 An additional source for permits that an applicant may need can be found in Appendix A of EPAs "309 Reviewers Guidance for New Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Impact Statements.
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 21 waters of the United States obtain, and provide to the Federal licensing agency (i.e., the NRC), a Section 401 water-quality certification from the State, interstate agency or authorized Tribe with jurisdiction over the discharge. The NRC cannot issue a license or permit until the appropriate jurisdiction has granted or waived the Section 401 certification. Conditions in the 401 certification become conditions of the license in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(aa). Additionally, the NRC cannot issue a license or permit if certification has been denied by the State, an interstate agency, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator.
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to regulate point source discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. An NPDES permit sets specific discharge limits for point sources discharging pollutants into waters of the United States and establishes monitoring and reporting requirements, as well as special conditions. The EPA is charged with administering the NPDES permit program, but can authorize states to assume many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement responsibilities of the NPDES permit program. Authorized states are prohibited from adopting standards that are less stringent than those established under the Federal NPDES permit program, but may adopt or enforce standards that are more stringent than the Federal standards if allowed under state law.
Section 404 of the CWA requires a 404 permit for discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the EPA are responsible for administering and enforcing Section 404. States and Tribes can administrate the 404 permit program in certain non-navigable waters that are within their jurisdiction.
Clean Air Act, Section 176 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) (Ref. 26), prohibits Federal agencies from undertaking, licensing, permitting, approving, or supporting any action in a maintenance or non- attainment area that does not conform to the applicable State Implementation Plan. The General Conformity Rule requires that Federal agencies demonstrate conformity to the applicable State Implementation Plan. If required, the conformity determination must be completed before the license or permit is issued.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) (Ref. 27), requires that activities of Federal agencies that are reasonably likely to affect coastal zones be consistent with any applicable State-approved Coastal Management Program to the maximum extent practicable.
Applicants must submit to both the NRC and to the State a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the States program. If the Coastal Zone Management Act applies to the project, the NRC cannot issue its license or permit until the State has concurred with the applicants certification of a coastal consistency determination.
These examples are illustrative, not all-inclusive. An applicant should understand the permitting requirements, processes and schedules of applicable agencies when planning to apply for a license and construct a nuclear power plant. This guide does not contain guidance for preparing permit applications for submission to other agencies, including the USACE. Such guidance should be obtained from the applicable agencies. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) prepared NEI 10-07, Revision 1, Industry Guideline for Effective Interactions with Agencies Other Than NRC during the Early Site Permit Process, (Ref. 28), to provide guidance to applicants about interactions with other agencies. NEI 10-07 is endorsed in this RG for ESP, COLs, CP and OL applications. In addition, applicants for an NRC permit or license should be aware that the USACE may be a cooperating agency with NRC for preparation of an EIS related to a proposed nuclear power plant. NEPA allows for agencies to cooperate on EISs so that one EIS can satisfy the NEPA requirements for both agencies. This cooperation improves the efficiency of the
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 22 process. However, the applicant should engage with the USACE to ensure that their application to the USACE meets the USACEs requirements.
During pre-application interactions, applicants for a CP, OL or a COL should inform the staff if they plan to use Title 41 of the Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (42 U.S.C. §
4370m) (Ref. 29).
IV.
Impact Findings Applicants should assess environmental impacts in proportion to their significance as described in
10 CFR 51.45(b)(1), which is based on CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.1, and is consistent with 40 CFR 1508.27.
In assessing the significance of environmental impacts for new reactor applications, the NRC uses the same definitions of significance levels as codified in the footnotes to Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, of
10 CFR Part 51:
SMALL: For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commissions regulations are small.
MODERATE: For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE: For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
V.
Mitigation of Adverse Effects Applicants are required to consider alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects as described in 10 CFR 51.45(c). In addition, applicants should identify in their ERs any ongoing or planned mitigation for other permit-related activities and discuss the potential need for additional mitigation. Mitigation alternatives should be considered in proportion to the significance of the impact. In
40 CFR 1508.20, Mitigation, the CEQ identifies five types of mitigative actions:
avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
An applicant should identify in the ER all relevant, reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid adverse effects, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the NRC. This
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 23 approach is consistent with CEQs response documented in Question 19b of its 40 questions (see 46 FR
18026) (Ref. 30).
The applicant should provide the reason why the mitigation measures are considered reasonably foreseeable. A mitigation measure can be considered reasonably foreseeable if, for example, it is 1)
required by the NRC as a license condition (e.g., a requirement imposed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(aa)),
2) required or likely to be required by another regulatory agency (e.g., USACE), or 3) mitigation that the applicant intends to perform and identifies in the ER.
Where applicable, the applicant should specify what Federal, State, or local laws require the mitigation measures, or if there is (or is expected to be) a Federal, State, or local permit that requires the particular measures. The applicant should clearly explain the requirements that are being imposed by the regulatory agency with authority over the resource and explain how it relied on the mitigation to determine the impact level by discussing how the mitigation will be accomplished and whether it is expected to lower the impact level. For example, for a project where a wetlands mitigation plan is required by a State permit issued to the applicant and/or by State laws and regulations, the applicant should consider this information in the ER.
VI.
Implementation of the LWA Rule - Definition of Construction and Preconstruction On October 9, 2007, the NRC issued revisions to its rules related to LWAs (72 Federal Register
[FR] 57416) (Ref. 31). Prior to this revision, the regulations had allowed for site preparation, excavation, and certain other onsite activities to proceed before a CP was issued, but only after NRC review and approval in the form of an LWA. With the revised regulations, NRC authorization would be required only before undertaking activities that have a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or common defense and security. The revised rule clarified which activities are defined as construction and which activities are not considered construction, as discussed below. In discussing the environmental impacts of the proposed action, activities defined by the LWA rule as not constituting construction are referred to in this RG as preconstruction activities. Preconstruction activities are not considered direct impacts of the NRCs Federal action because they may occur in the absence of an NRC license and are not part of the NRCs licensing action. This change has implications for how impacts are described within the NRCs EISs, even when the application does not include a request for an LWA.
According to 10 CFR 50.10(a), construction includes those activities such as driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing, which are for:
safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs) of a facility, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, Definitions;
SSCs relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or used in plant emergency operating procedures;
SSCs whose failure could prevent safety-related SSCs from fulfilling their safety-related function;
SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system;
SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials (Ref. 32);
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 24
SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR 50.48, Fire protection, and Criterion 3 of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix A; and
onsite emergency facilities, that is, technical support and operations support centers, necessary to comply with 10 CFR 50.47, Emergency plans, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
Construction does not include:
changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes;
site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other reconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection of environmental values;
preparation of a site for construction of a facility, including clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas;
erection of fences and other access control measures;
excavation;
erection of support buildings (such as, construction equipment storage sheds, warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and office buildings)
for use in connection with the construction of the facility;
building of service facilities, such as paved roads, parking lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and lighting systems, potable water systems, sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, and transmission lines;
procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location at the facility; and
manufacture of a nuclear power reactor under a manufacturing license under Subpart F of 10 CFR
Part 52 to be installed at the proposed site and to be part of the proposed facility.
The activities defined by 10 CFR 50.10, License required; limited work authorization, as not being included in the definition of construction are considered to be preconstruction activities because they may occur in the absence of an NRC license and are not part of the NRCs licensing action.
Where this guide refers to building, it includes all preconstruction and construction activities.
Under the revised LWA rule, the applicant should separate the impacts of preconstruction and construction activities to address the latter, as they are the activities being authorized by the NRC. The applicant should also describe the impacts of the preconstruction activities, so they can be evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts related to the construction activities.
Generally, the estimates of the impact breakdown between preconstruction and construction activities do not need to be detailed. The applicant should provide sufficient information to allow the NRC staff to evaluate the impacts to each resource of NRC-authorized construction, in addition to the combined impacts of preconstruction and construction for the cumulative impacts analysis.
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 25 In a few areas, the level of impact may be so small that anything other than a ballpark estimate of the separation would not be warranted to adequately inform the NEPA decision-making process. As an example and based on staff experience from other construction projects of similar size, an air quality impact may be assessed as small during scoping, if the area is in attainment under EPA regulations. Under these circumstances, no effort beyond a very simple estimate of the preconstruction-construction impact separation, would be necessary to assess the impact of the construction activities.
In addition, the staff anticipates that the USACE will be a cooperating agency on the majority of EISs because it is likely to have permitting actions related to the preconstruction and construction activities and, in some cases, operational activities for the plant. The USACE views the impacts from preconstruction and construction activities as impacts of the proposed project based on USACE
regulations. The NRC and the USACE will cooperate on the EISs in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed on September 12, 2008 and published in the Federal Register (73 FR 55546)
(Ref. 33), covering environmental reviews related to the issuance of authorizations to construct and operate nuclear power plants. The NRC and the USACE established the cooperative agreement because both agencies have concluded it is the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources to write one EIS that will address both agencies NEPA obligations. Other Federal agencies may also become cooperating agencies on an EIS.
VII.
Storage of Spent Fuel In 2014, the NRC issued a revised rule at 10 CFR 51.23, Environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor, and published NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Ref. 34). As a result of the revised rule, the environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent fuel (beyond the licensed life of the plant), are deemed incorporated into an EIS for a new reactor review. As part of the basis for the analysis in NUREG-2157, the NRC staff assumed that an independent spent fuel storage installation of sufficient size to hold all of the spent fuel from operations would be built during the licensed life of the plant. The applicant should be cognizant of the analysis in NUREG-2157 and should provide a discussion of its plans for management of spent fuel during the licensed life of the plant.
VIII.
Presentation of Applicant Information Information and data should be provided in or with the application at a level sufficient for the NRC staff to comply with Section 102(2) of NEPA. The applicant should describe and provide the following data and information:
geographic information and geospatial data used to support analyses, including appropriate description of the data formats and sources of the information;
data formats used to create figures and maps; and
description and documentation of computer modeling codes that are used to support analyses in sufficient detail to allow the NRC staff to conduct an independent evaluation.
Information obtained from publications or other information from the literature should be concisely summarized and documented using references to original data sources. Where the availability of original sources that support important conclusions is limited, the sources should be adequately summarized in the application and should be available for auditing in the applicants records. In all cases, information derived from published results should be clearly distinguished from information derived from the applicants field measurements.
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 26 The information the applicant provides to support the conclusions in the NRCs EIS must be publicly available. Because the EIS relies on information from the ER, applicants should ensure that key information supporting the conclusions in the ER can be made publicly available. Publicly available information is information that can be accessed by the public; for example: 1) publicly available information in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
recordkeeping system or maintained in the NRCs Public Document Room, 2) copyrighted information with proper citation, or 3) a publicly accessible Web site with a reference that allows the NRC and public to find the information. The applicant may reference copyrighted information but must not submit copyrighted material as public information in support of an ER.
However, the copyrighted information should be properly referenced so that the NRC and the public can access it. Regarding sensitive information, a request for withholding such information from the public must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.390, Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding; if the information satisfies those requirements and the Commission grants the request to withhold the information from the public, then the information would not be made publicly available.
Applicants should also ensure the consistency of information presented within different sections of the ER, as well as between the ER and the safety analysis report.
If the NRC is not relying on the information to reach its conclusions in the EIS, applicants are not required to make references and other supporting information publicly available, but are appropriate for review in an audit setting. If the NRC is relying on the information in its EIS, and the information is not otherwise publicly available as discussed above, then the information must be docketed so that it can be made publicly available.
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 27 Chapter 1
1.0
Introduction
1.1 Plant Owners and Reactor Type The owner(s) and the applicant(s) for the proposed project must be specified. Other information that must be provided is specified in 10 CFR 50.33, Contents of applications; general information.
Information on reactor type shall be provided in the safety analysis report (see 10 CFR 52.17, Contents of applications; technical information, and 10 CFR 52.79, Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis report).
1.2 Description of the Proposed Action and the Purpose and Need According to 10 CFR 51.45(b), Environmental report, among other things the Environmental Report (ER) shall contain a description of the proposed action and a statement of its purposes. The purpose and need statement is the foundation of the environmental analysis on which the rest of the environmental impact statement is built. The purpose and need statement is developed by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, but is informed by the applicants objectives,2 as stated in Chapter 1 of its ER.
In NRC licensing actions under Parts 50 and 52, the purpose and need has typically been described in terms of providing a specific quantity of baseload electricity to a defined service area within a defined time period. However, neither NEPA nor NRC regulations require the purpose and need statement to be restricted to baseload generating capacity. As discussed in Chapter 8 of this regulatory guide, an applicant may use different means than a baseload generating capacity analysis to demonstrate the need for the power to be provided by the proposed project. In addition, the purpose and need statement may address additional needs other than the production of electricity. Additional purposes or needs for the project may provide greater insight to the benefits of the proposed project and assist the NRC staff in defining reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Additional purposes could include, but are not limited to, the following:
meeting greenhouse gas emission goals
replacing existing plants
meeting State or Federal energy policy goals
enhancing energy diversity
consideration of Federal policy not related to environmental quality (10 CFR 51.71(d))
However, it is the production of electricity that provides the primary justification in terms of benefits. The purpose and need statement cannot be so restrictive that there are no alternatives, other than the proposed project, that would meet the purpose and need. For example, the purpose and need could not be to build and operate a specific light-water reactor design at a specific location. In that case, there would
2
40 CFR 1502.13 defines purpose and need as follows: The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.
RG. 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 28 be no alternative energy technology or site that would meet that purpose and need statement. An alternative is not reasonable if it does not meet the purpose and need statement.
1.3 Planned Activities and Schedules The applicant should supply a schedule of planned activities, including dates for the start of building and full-power operation. These dates are used by staff in the EIS analyses for construction, operation, cumulative impacts, and need for power.
1.4 Status of Compliance In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45(d), the ER shall:
list all Federal permits, licenses, approvals and other entitlements that must be obtained in connection with the proposed action
describe the status of compliance with these requirements
include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, thermal and other water pollution limitations, or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 29 Chapter 2
2.0
The Proposed Site and the Affected Environment As specified by 10 CFR 51.45(b), the environmental report (ER) shall contain a description of the environment affected by the proposed action. The information in this chapter of the ER should present the relevant information concerning those physical, ecological, societal, and human characteristics of the environment in and around the proposed site that might be affected by building and operation of a proposed nuclear station. For each environmental resource, applicants should describe only the affected environment for those areas within which the resource could potentially be subject to direct or indirect impacts from the action. The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) refers to this area as the resource impact area. Table 7-1 in Chapter 7 of this RG provides examples of resource impact areas for each environmental resource area typically affected by building or operating a nuclear reactor. The applicants resource impact area may be different from the examples in Table 7-1. The NRC does not expect applicants to precisely define resource impact areas for each environmental resource, but the area within which the applicant characterizes the affected environment should generally correspond to the potential spatial extent of direct and indirect impacts, i.e., to what the NRC will define as the resource impact area.
The applicant should provide proposed plant location information (e.g., state and county in which the site will be located), an aerial photograph of the site as it exists at the time of the application, and one or more maps showing the site location and plant arrangement within the site, including the extent (if any)
to which the plant is co-located and/or interfaces with an existing power plant or other existing industrial facility. The applicant should provide coordinates for the proposed center point for the nuclear island for each proposed new unit and the total acreage of the proposed site. In addition, this section can be used to provide other descriptive information about the setting of the proposed project.
2.1 Land Use The applicant should provide data and information about the site, local vicinity, and the wider region. For the purposes of this section, the site is defined as the immediate property effectively controlled by the applicant (e.g., within the site boundary), upon which the proposed project would be situated. The vicinity is the surrounding landscape encompassing the site, local access routes, nearby cities and towns, and other local resources with the potential to be affected by the proposed project. The region includes the vicinity and the wider surrounding area. The definition of vicinity and region is left to the discretion of the applicant; however, as a general suggestion for consideration of land use issues, a typical distance limit of a 6-mi radius from the site perimeter can be used for vicinity and a 50-mi radius from the site perimeter can be used for region. The vicinity should be large enough to encompass surrounding areas whose land uses could reasonably be influenced to a noticeable degree by the proposed project and associated facilities. The region should be large enough to encompass any areas encompassed by applicable regional land-use or local economic-development plans. The guidance provided in this paragraph applies only to defining a vicinity and region for evaluation of land use impacts; geographic areas of other sizes and shapes may be appropriate for evaluation of other environmental impacts.
The vicinity should include any offsite areas upon where related project structures would be sited or routed as part of the action covered in the application. Examples include transmission facilities (e.g., switchyards, substations, and transmission-line towers), and access roads needed to connect the plant to the grid. Other examples include reservoirs, barge slips, water-intake facilities, blowdown or other discharge lines, and related infrastructure.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 30
The applicant should identify and describe the land-use characteristics of the site, vicinity, and region. These descriptions should provide reasonably foreseeable land-use changes near the site, including commercial, residential, and industrial developments and the anticipated effects of land-use or related regional-development plans.
2.1.1 Site, Vicinity, and Region The ER should include the following land-use information relating to the proposed site, vicinity, and region, as necessary to assess potential land use impacts:
A site area map prepared according to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.206.
Zoning information for the proposed site including any existing or proposed land-use plans and any regional economic-development plans that include the proposed site or vicinity within their scope.
Maps and summary tabulation of areas occupied by the principal land uses for the site, vicinity, and region.
Map showing existing topography of the site and vicinity.
Maps showing highways, railroad lines, waterways, and utility corridors located on, or that cross, the site, vicinity, and region.
Special land uses (e.g., recreation areas, parks, Tribal lands, designated wild and scenic rivers, or areas of other special designation) that could be affected by building the proposed project.
Raw material resources (e.g., timber, sand and gravel, coal, oil, natural gas, ores, groundwater, and geothermal resources) and the owners thereof on or adjacent to the site that are presently being extracted or are of known commercial value.
Principal agricultural and forest products of the vicinity and region, if agriculture or forestry is a predominant land use.
Maps showing major public and trust land areas in the region.
Discussion of whether any land at the proposed site or any affected offsite lands would be subject to requirements in the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1451 et seq.).
Discussion of whether any land at the proposed site or any affected offsite lands constitute prime or unique farmlands (7 CFR 657, Prime and Unique Farmlands (Ref. 35)).
Maps and discussion of any floodplains or wetlands on the site (can cross reference to other ER
sections).
Discussion of whether the applicant intends to acquire additional land to expand the proposed site.
All associated geographic information system (GIS) coverages used to produce the map products in the ER.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 31
Brief discussion of the major geological aspects of the site that could influence land use, including brief descriptions of soil and rock types, and unique geologic features (e.g., karst;
geothermal resources; paleontological resources; unique formations, outcrops, or exposures of special interest (e.g., glacial erratics); and water supplies). Reference the final safety analysis report for detailed geologic, seismologic, and geotechnical information.
2.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Other Offsite Areas Building or upgrading of electric power transmission lines to serve a nuclear power plant does not require U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval (10 CFR 50.10(a)(2)(vii)). The NRC
recognizes that new transmission lines and corridors may not necessarily be built, operated, or owned by an applicant seeking a permit or license from the NRC. However, the impacts of new transmission lines and corridors, or changes to existing lines or corridors, are relevant to the NRCs analysis of cumulative impacts in an environmental impact statement (EIS) (10 CFR 51.45(c)).
To the extent that the indicated information is readily available, the ER should present the best available land-use information relating to (1) offsite corridors or areas that would be affected by building and operating electric power transmission lines or other offsite project elements, (2) new transmission corridors, and (3) building activities that would occur in existing transmission corridors:
description of new transmission-related facilities (e.g., transmission lines and substations) that would be needed, including voltage specifications and the name of the entity that would build and own any new transmission-related facilities and the associated process for obtaining approved rights-of-way;
map showing the potential or planned routing (i.e., the specific route or a band encompassing the route) of any new or existing (affected by the proposed project) transmission corridor(s) and location of transmission-related facilities;
tabular summarization of the dimensions (length and width) of affected transmission corridors by each specific corridor segment or right-of-way;
tabular summarization of existing land use and land cover within affected transmission corridors and other offsite areas (e.g., pipeline corridors);
highways, railroad lines, and utility corridors crossed by new transmission lines or access corridors;
special-use land areas that would serve as constraints in the selection of transmission-line routing or other offsite project activities (e.g., pipeline corridors);
location of any project activities that would be in a floodplain, on wetlands, or on a waterbody;
discussion of whether any land used for new transmission corridors or other offsite building activities would be subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.);
discussion of whether any land that would be used for new transmission corridors or other offsite building activities would constitute prime or unique farmlands (7 CFR 657);
discussion of any expected private land access requirements;
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 32
description of proposed routes of access corridors (e.g., roads and railroads) to serve the proposed project and any land-use restrictions or land-use plans affecting such corridors; and
all associated GIS coverages used to produce the map products in the ER.
Information on the routing and design of transmission lines and other offsite facilities may be limited at the time that a licensing application is submitted, especially for ESP applications or if a party other than the applicant will own or be responsible for all or some of the offsite facilities. The ER should present only that information that can reasonably be obtained by the applicant at the time of submittal.
The ER may explain when more detailed information may be available or that more detailed information may not be available until some unspecified time in the future. The ER should include the best available information on the possible transmission lines to support an analysis of the possible contribution of building and operating the transmission lines on the cumulative environmental impacts of the action.
2.2 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
The applicant should provide sufficient information for the water resource impact area to establish the baseline condition for evaluating the effects of station building and operation on water resources (surface water and groundwater) and its uses and users. For the purposes of this section, the resource impact area may be defined as the station and the surrounding area out to a distance sufficient to encompass those water resources that may affect or be reasonably assumed to be affected by the building or operation of the station. For groundwater resources, the resource impact area may generally be defined by the extent to which building or operating the plant affects the underlying aquifers. For reclaimed water, such as treated wastewater (if part of the proposed project), the resource impact area may generally be defined by the geographical extent of its prospective uses and users.
The applicant should describe, in quantitative terms, the hydrological and chemical characteristics of surface-water and groundwater bodies in the resource impact area. In addition, water use within the resource impact area should be described. The amount of data and information provided should be sufficient to evaluate the effects of station building and operation on water resources, and is anticipated to depend on the magnitude of the potential impacts. Greater potential impact will require more data and information to support the evaluation. Alternative interpretations of data and characteristics should be described when reasonable or when uncertainty in impacts exist. Characteristics should be substantially based on data obtained from a pre-application monitoring program and integrated with data from other studies conducted in the area and region (as applicable).
A statistical description should accompany all data. Average or median values, standard deviations or interquartile range, and the historical extremes should be described. Temporal trends in characteristics, including seasonal variation, should be identified and explained. Temporal variations of important characteristics (e.g., river flow rates) should be described in sufficient detail to provide accurate evaluation of impacts. For many characteristics, monthly variations may be sufficient, but daily or shorter increments should be provided (e.g., low river flows) when important for evaluating environmental impacts. Spatial variations of characteristics (e.g., aquifer hydraulic conductivity) should be described when they are important for evaluating environmental impacts radionuclide transport in groundwater.
All data for hydrologic characteristics, including water use, should be adjusted to both present- day conditions and to those that may reasonably be expected to occur over the proposed period of the license (e.g., future conditions). Where features of a proposed station (e.g., foundations, excavations, artificial lakes, and canals) modify the hydrologic conditions, the applicant should furnish sufficient site- specific detail for evaluation of the effects of building and operating the station on hydrologic characteristics, water use, and potential radionuclide transport for those water bodies and systems that
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 33 may receive radionuclides from the station. In addition, the applicant should describe reasonably foreseeable changes in the hydrologic environment (e.g., climate and land use).
When a mathematical model is used to support the evaluation of hydrologic characteristics, the applicant should describe the conceptual basis for the model, including the rationale for eliminating plausible alternative conceptualizations, the assumptions used in developing the model, the range of applicability of the model, the input data used, the resulting output, the basis for boundary conditions, parameter estimation and calibration procedures followed, and estimates of uncertainty in model forecasts. The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, data used, and approaches to allow for an adequate NRC staff evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), design control document (DCD) or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
2.2.1 Hydrology The applicant should describe the hydrologic characteristics of surface waterbodies and groundwater aquifers that could be affected by station water use or be affected by building or operating the station. These characteristics collectively define the supply of water within the resource impact area, including the location, quantity, and temporal variability of that supply. The applicant should include the following information in the ER:
Discussion of rivers and streams including, but not limited to, drainage areas and gradients, discharge, bathymetry, wetlands and floodplain descriptions, flood and drought characteristics, flood control measures, and other hydrographic modifications.
Discussion of lakes and impoundments including, but not limited to, bathymetry, temperature, currents, inflows and outflows, evaporation, seepage, and a description of reservoir characteristics (e.g., elevation-area-capacity curves) and operations.
Discussion of estuaries and oceans including, but not limited to, bathymetry, tidal and nontidal currents, temperature, salinity, sedimentation rates, and sediment gradation and sorption characteristics.
Discussion of groundwater including, but not limited to, descriptions of aquifers and confining units, occurrence and extent of perched groundwater conditions, recharge and discharge areas and fluxes, groundwater head contour maps, hydraulic gradients, permeabilities, total and effective porosities, advective travel times, bulk density, and storage coefficients.
Groundwater transport characteristics (e.g., dispersion and adsorption coefficients), when necessary to evaluate impacts.
Data concerning use of groundwater including drawdown caused by withdrawals from neighboring major industrial and municipal wells.
Maps or figures showing information requested above, as appropriate (e.g., areas affected by saltwater intrusion).
2.2.2 Water Use The applicant should provide present and known future surface-water, groundwater, and reclaimed water uses (as applicable) that could affect or be affected by building or operation, including
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 34 for the following uses: public and self-supplied (or private) withdrawals for domestic, municipal, industrial, agricultural, mining, and power generation uses.
Data and information provided for each use should include, but not be limited to, the following:
location and nature of water users and water-use areas;
distance from the station;
withdrawal rate by use category and return rate; and
statutory or other legal restrictions on the water use or the water resource.
Additional information for groundwater use should include the following:
identification of the aquifer from which withdrawal occurs;
location and depth of wells;
identification of any U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-designated sole source aquifers that may be affected by station building or operation;
characterization of consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses over the resource impact area;
temporal variations in consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses; and
existing capacities (including available capacities) of local and regional water and wastewater utilities.
Station water-use requirements are not addressed in this chapter; however, Chapter 3 of this RG
addresses the information to be included in the ER related to station water-use requirements.
2.2.3 Water Quality The applicant should describe the water-quality characteristics of surface waterbodies, groundwater aquifers, and reclaimed water (as applicable) that could be affected by station water use and effluent disposal. Data and information should include, but not be limited to, the following characteristics:
physical (e.g., temperature),
chemical (e.g., pH); and
biological (e.g., biological oxygen demand).
The mean, range, and temporal and spatial variation of these water-quality characteristics should be provided. Data should be gathered for a sufficient period of time to understand long term (annual) and short term (seasonal or other) variations in both quality and availability of water (flow rates, water levels, etc.).
A description of existing aquatic environmental stressors, including a list of any Clean Water Act
303(d)-impaired waters, should be provided. The applicant should identify, to the extent possible, the
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 35 source and nature of existing impairments. The status of the permitting process for the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) certifications should also be described.
2.2.4 Water Monitoring The purpose of the pre-application water monitoring program is to establish a baseline for assessing subsequent environmental effects on water resources attributable to building and operating the proposed station. The applicant should describe the pre-application monitoring program used to assess the characteristics of the surface-water and groundwater resources in the resource impact area.
The ER should describe the pre-application monitoring program in sufficient detail to demonstrate a thorough and comprehensive approach to environmental assessment. The adequacy of the monitoring program with respect to both spatial coverage (i.e., surface area and depth), and temporal coverage (i.e., duration and sampling frequency) should be demonstrated. The description of this program should include the following:
locations of monitoring stations;
frequency and duration of monitoring;
monitoring equipment used;
sampling and analysis procedures followed;
data analysis methods used; and
documentation of any data-quality objectives.
2.3 Ecological Resources The ER should describe the terrestrial, wetland and aquatic ecological resources existing at the proposed project site and in the vicinity and region. The applicant should provide sufficient details in the ER as a baseline for determining the impacts to terrestrial, wetland and aquatic species and habitats that might be affected by building and operating the proposed nuclear station.
2.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology The ER should include a baseline description of potentially affected terrestrial resources. The description should also address offsite parcels and corridors needed for components such as reservoirs, barge docks, heavy-haul roads, access roads, laydown areas, electric transmission lines, water pipelines, and mitigation sites. When describing terrestrial resources, the applicant should use the same definitions of vicinity and region as used for the land and water use sections of the ER. The baseline description should focus on the anticipated footprint of land disturbance and may be less detailed for peripheral areas.
Much of the needed information may be summarized from the background reports prepared using RG
4.11. Information should be updated to reflect recent land-use changes and natural successional processes.
Guidance on consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is provided in Appendix B.
Terrestrial Habitats Detailed guidance on identifying and describing terrestrial habitats is provided in RG 4.11. The ER should include the following information to characterize terrestrial habitats:
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 36
Identification and description of each ecoregion (or equivalent) encompassing potentially affected areas using a widely recognized system such as that used by the EPA (EPA Ecoregion maps).
Figures identifying and mapping each terrestrial habitat on, or adjacent to, the site (or offsite parcels or corridors).
Description of each terrestrial habitat type using guidance provided in RG 4.11. Detailed field survey or quantification of vegetation characteristics may not be necessary. Descriptions based on recent site observations are typically more useful than older or regionalized descriptions. Studies would ideally show the condition of the ecological resources that exist no more than 5 to 10 years prior to NRC receiving the application. If older ecological baseline data is used, a discussion of the basis for determining that the data provides for an accurate and meaningful evaluation of potential impacts should also be included.
Tables estimating the area of each habitat onsite (or offsite parcels or corridors).
A table estimating the approximate area (or percentage) of each habitat type in the landscape surrounding the site and any offsite facilities.
A qualitative discussion of terrestrial habitat in the region.
Wetlands Wetlands are specialized habitats with properties intermediate between terrestrial and aquatic.
The Federal definition of wetlands is presented in 33 CFR 328, Definitions of Waters of the United States (Ref. 36), but not all areas meeting this definition are subject to Federal regulatory jurisdiction.
Unregulated areas meeting the Federal definition are termed non-jurisdictional wetlands. Some states and localities regulate wetlands independently using definitions that may vary from the Federal definition.
Wetland information presented in the terrestrial ecology portions of the ER should be consistent with wetland information presented in the aquatic ecology portions. Regulatory Guide 4.11 provides additional guidance on wetlands. In general, the ER should include the following information with respect to characterizing wetlands:
An indication of whether a wetland delineation has been completed for the site and offsite parcels, what areas were addressed, what wetland procedure(s) were used, and whether the delineation follows procedures required by applicable Federal and State agencies.
A wetland delineation map and identification of each wetland using a classification system such as that used in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (Ref. 37),
for those areas addressed by wetland delineation.
A description and estimate of the area of each wetland falling under each National Wetlands Inventory classification.
Wetland mapping data from a published source (e.g., the National Wetlands Inventory maps or State wetland maps) or identification of the terrestrial habitats on the site, if any, that may contain wetlands for those project areas where no wetland delineation was performed.
A discussion of the functions and values of each wetland or cluster of interrelated wetlands (sometimes referred to as an assessment area) on the site or offsite parcels.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 37
Citation and summary of any jurisdictional determination issued by the USACE or another applicable agency. For project areas lacking a jurisdictional determination, a description of the anticipated process for acquiring one.
Identification, when practicable, of whether each wetland is under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act or applicable State or local wetland protection laws (note that a jurisdictional determination may not have been made at the time of an application).
An estimate of the approximate extent of wetlands in the surrounding landscape using National Wetland Inventory maps or another source and a separate estimate for each National Wetland Inventory class or for each mapping unit used.
An estimation of wetland losses in the context of their relative abundance in the surrounding landscape.
A qualitative discussion of wetlands in each relevant ecoregion, including the typical landscape positions commonly occupied by wetlands (e.g., stream valleys, estuarine or lacustrine fringes, and topographic depressions), and the history of wetland disturbance.
Wildlife Guidance on identifying terrestrial wildlife is provided in RG 4.11. The ER should include the following:
Tables of wildlife species observed in each habitat (upland or wetland) on the site (and each offsite parcel or corridor) based on a minimum of one year of observations, if availabl
e. See RG
4.11 for additional direction.
A discussion of the potential value of each habitat to each major wildlife grouping: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. The discussion can be qualitative and should have an ecological focus; discussions individualized to species are not usually necessary.
A discussion of wildlife activities that have the potential to substantially alter the composition or distribution of terrestrial habitat (e.g., overbrowsing or burrowing)
Presence of indicator organisms that could be used to gauge changes in habitat quality, biodiversity, and the distribution and abundance of species populations.
A brief discussion of trophic interactions between predators and prey potentially occurring on or near project activities. This discussion may be generalized and qualitative.
A discussion of possible wildlife movement and migration patterns. The discussion may be generalized and does not need to be based on field observations.
A discussion of wildlife used for subsistence or recreational hunting.
Important Species and Habitats Guidance on important terrestrial species and habitats is provided in RG 4.11 and Table 2-1. Note that important species and habitats include, but are not limited to, threatened or endangered species and critical habitats. The ER should include the following information on important species and habitats:
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 38
Each important terrestrial species or habitat known to occur or that has a reasonable likelihood of occurring in the area. Briefly indicate why each meets the criteria for importance in Table 2-1.
A brief description of each important terrestrial habitat, which can cross reference the habitat descriptions already provided.
A brief paragraph for each important terrestrial species, which provides key data on habitat requirements and life history as necessary to support an assessment of potential effects from the project.
A discussion related to any correspondence that has been initiated with the FWS or State, local, or Tribal natural resource agencies on important species or habitats (Table 2-1) including endangered, threatened, or special status species. Briefly summarize and provide copies of key correspondence (e.g., letters, e-mail, or phone call summaries).
Table 2-1. Important Species and Habitats to be considered in the ERa Species Habitat Federally threatened or endangered and proposed species for listing by FWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that occupy habitat or have an ecosystem function that may be affected by the proposed project Candidate species for Federal listing by the FWS or NMFS of particular interest to the review that occupy habitat or have an ecosystem function that may be affected by the proposed project Representative State status species of particular interest to the review Other species for which a Federal or State agency has established a monitoring requirement at or near the site Representative commercially or recreationally valuable species Potentially significant nuisance or invasive species Other species of known or indicated interest Federally designated or proposed critical habitat or essential fish habitat.
Protected areas such as sanctuaries, parks, refuges, or preserves, including marine protected areas Habitats identified by Federal or State agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for protection; e.g., areas that have been designated as habitat for an evolutionary significant unit, distinct population segment, critical habitat, or essential fish habitat Other habitats of known or indicated interest, e.g., known breeding, spawning, nesting, or nursery grounds
(a) The criteria presented in this RG represent updated guidance developed by the NRC subsequent to the publication of RG
4.11.
2.3.2 Aquatic Ecology The ER should include a baseline description of the potentially affected aquatic resources. The description should also include any waterbodies that could reasonably be expected to exhibit detectable changes to aquatic resources from building and operating of the new facilities. This includes waterbodies associated with offsite transmission and pipeline corridors, large component transport routes, and any other affected offsite areas. The description should focus on the information that is needed for the evaluation of potential impacts to the aquatic environment that may result from building and operating the facilities. The extent of the description should extend to any potentially affected habitats, including rivers, perennial and intermittent streams, reservoirs and impoundments, estuaries, lakes, ponds, and ocean areas and should, when appropriate, consider effects on a watershed basis.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 39 Regulatory Guide 4.24 provides guidance on designing and implementing aquatic environmental studies for baseline descriptions and for impact analysis. The subsections below address specific elements of characterizing baseline aquatic conditions, including aquatic habitats, organisms, and important species and habitats. Guidance on consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act or under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is provided in Appendix B.
Aquatic Habitats The ER should include the following information to characterize aquatic habitats:
A description of the aquatic environment, including the relative significance of habitats in waterbodies onsite or in the landscape surrounding the site, including those that would be used for plant cooling or that could be affected by other activities.
Maps or figures, including electronic layers, showing waterbodies and aquatic habitats on the proposed site and in the vicinity and region, including the natural structure of the benthic habitat (when readily available), the location and depth of any associated underwater structures in the vicinity of the site (e.g., submerged dams), and the proposed location of the intake and the discharge systems. Similar maps and figures of transmission and pipeline corridors that extend offsite or other affected offsite areas and their relationships to waterbodies and aquatic habitats.
A discussion of the existing aquatic habitats in the landscape surrounding the proposed intake and discharge structures and associated systems.
Bathymetry, substrate, and other habitat information, including maps or figures, for the affected aquatic habitats in the vicinity of plant structures including the discharge and intake facilities.
A description of any natural, anthropogenic, and pre-existing environmental stressors and the current ecological conditions indicative of such stresses.
Aquatic Organisms The ER should include the following information to characterize the aquatic organisms:
Distribution and abundance data for fish and macroinvertebrates found on the site and in other potentially affected waters. Data should be collected for a sufficient period of time and frequency and from locations that will provide an understanding of the long term (annual) and short term (seasonal or other) variations in distribution and abundance of species potentially affected by building and operation. Studies would ideally show the condition of the ecological resources that existed no more than 5 to 10 years prior to NRC receiving the application. If older ecological baseline data is used, a discussion of the basis for determining that the data provides for an accurate and meaningful evaluation of potential impacts should also be included. Data collection should be consistent with the guidance on baseline studies presented in RG 4.24.
Locations and values of local commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries and the historic and current seasonal distributions of harvest by species.
List and description of species essential to the maintenance and survival of commercially or recreationally valuable species.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 40
Presence, distribution, and abundance of key aquatic indicator organisms (e.g., diatoms, benthic macroinvertebrates, submerged aquatic vegetation, and fish) that could be used to gauge changes in habitat quality, biodiversity, and the distribution and abundance of species populations. Key indicator organisms are those that would be particularly vulnerable to impacts on forage or habitat.
A brief discussion of trophic interactions between predators and prey potentially occurring on or near project activities. This discussion may be generalized and qualitative.
Presence of nuisance, invasive, and introduced species, including fish, aquatic vegetation, and benthic invertebrates (e.g., Corbicula spp. or Mytilus spp.) onsite or in the vicinity.
Presence of disease and parasite outbreaks (e.g., viral hemorrhagic septicemia affecting North American salmon and trout, the myxosporean parasite (Myxobolus cerebralis) that causes whirling disease, or the marine dinoflagellate responsible for red tide (Karenia brevis) that could potentially be affected by operations.
Important Species and Habitats The ER should provide the following information to characterize important species and habitats as defined in Table 2-1:
A description of important aquatic species or habitat using the guidelines in Table 2-1 and a brief description of why each meets the criteria in Table 2-1. Additional guidance on identifying important species and habitats is provided in RG 4.24.
A brief discussion for each important species (or representative species as indicated in Table 2-1),
which considers all life stages necessary to support an assessment of potential effects on the species from the project. Include a description of their temporal and spatial (including depth)
distribution and abundance and any observed occurrence in relationship to the intake and discharge sites and frequency of observations, if appropriate.
A summary related to any correspondence or discussions with the FWS, NMFS, or State, local or Tribal natural resource agencies on important species or habitats associated with the proposed project (Table 2-1) including endangered, threatened, or special status species and federally designated critical habitat. Briefly summarize and provide copies of key correspondence (e.g., letters, e-mail, or phone call summaries).
When proposed new transmission corridors, pipeline corridors, or affected offsite areas would intersect or be adjacent to aquatic resources, the following information should be included in the ER to the extent the information is available to the applicant:
A map or figure and description of the location of important aquatic species and habitats known or expected to be potentially affected by the transmission and pipeline corridors. Consideration should be given to affected offsite areas together with any specific habitat requirements or community interrelationships; e.g., areas that have been designated as an evolutionary significant unit, distinct population segment, critical habitat, or essential fish habitat.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 41
2.4 Socioeconomics The applicant should provide sufficient data and information in the ER to establish the environmental baseline for estimates of socioeconomic effects, including: the demographic region, and the economic region. The NRC considers the demographic region to be defined as the site and the surrounding area within a 50-mi radius from the center of the proposed site, and should encompass the majority of population groups potentially affected by building and operations.3 The economic region is considered to be defined as the subset of counties (or other appropriate identifiable geographic grouping)
within the 50-mi demographic region where the applicant believes the majority (typically around 75 to 80
percent) of socioeconomic impacts will be experienced. Socioeconomic assessments should also include the following:
reasonable projections about the affected region for the expected license period of the proposed project; and
a detailed discussion of the methodologies used to develop each projection.
2.4.1 Demographics The ER should provide detailed information about the characteristics for the proposed demographic region, with special emphasis on the economic region, to define the magnitude of any potential social or economic impacts from building or operating the proposed project. The applicant should rely upon the most recent demographic estimates available (preferably from a single source) for the demographic region that can be disaggregated to the Census block group (CBG) level for all of the demographic subcategories identified below and for environmental justice (EJ) reviews of low-income populations. The data source used should match the data source used for EJ analyses performed in the ER.4 The ER should include the following information related to demographics:
Racial and ethnic categories by county or other important geographical area in the demographic region (see the discussion of environmental justice in this RG for additional guidance). At a minimum, demographic data should include the following racial and ethnic categories:
- White (Not Hispanic or Latino)
- African American or Black
- American Indian or Alaska Native
- Asian
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
3 In most cases, the 50 mile radius will be sufficient to encompass all of the perceivable environmental impacts, but the applicant should be sensitive to site-specific pathways that have the potential for extending that boundary beyond the suggested 50 miles. Potential pathways would include such things as downstream river-borne impacts, road and rail transportation impacts.
4 Because the decennial Census no longer reports individuals or households in poverty, those data are only available at the Census block group level through the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. For consistency, these ACS data have become the NRC staffs principal source for all demographic analyses (including environmental justice analyses) for new reactor licensing.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 42
- Other Race (including races not mentioned above and Two or More Races)
- Ethnicity: Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (may be of any race)
- Aggregate minority (calculated as Total Population minus White, not Hispanic or Latino)
An overview map and accompanying tables identifying the counties and principal cities and towns that pertain to the demographic region and the economic region.
A table providing historic and projected population data for the counties of the demographic region, with summary totals for the counties pertaining to the economic region. Population values should include historic data for the previous two decennial censuses and extend forward to at least the decennial year after the expected license period of the proposed project.
A table providing the current racial and ethnic distribution of the population, accompanied by discussion of expected trends in racial and ethnic distribution over the license period.
A discussion of any current migrant workforce or other migrating population (see latest Census of Agriculture). Discuss the historic and expected trend for migrant populations.
A table and accompanying discussion of transient populations affected by the proposed project, including an assessment of local public venues (e.g., stadiums or arenas, resident camps, large employers, and parks and recreation areas) with the following information:
- distance from the site
- peak visitation levels
- timing of the peak visitation levels
- attendance levels
- dates of activities
- other pertinent information
A table presenting the current income distribution, including household income by segments (e.g., by quartiles), Federal median household income level, and the number and percent of households below the Federal poverty level for each county in the demographic region, and each State within the demographic region. Discuss current trends affecting incomes within the demographic region.
Information on how to perform population counts and estimate future populations can be found in the American National Standard Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) ANSI/ANS-2.6-2018, Standard Guidelines for Estimating Present & Forecasting Future Population Distributions Surrounding Power Reactor Sites (Ref. 38).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 43
2.4.2 Community Characteristics Sufficiently detailed information about the economic characteristics of the proposed site and its surrounding economic impact region forms the baseline for estimating the economic impacts that might occur because of building- or operation-related activities at the proposed site. The ER should focus primarily on the community characteristics for the economic region surrounding the proposed site.
However, there may be areas beyond the demographic region that have a unique importance to the project or for cumulative impact purposes, and the applicant should include such areas in the discussion when identified.
The ER should include information related to community characteristics including a table and/or chart illustrating the following:
Information related to the current site labor force (if the proposed site is co-located with an existing power plant), including the peak number of operations workers, a characterization of all temporary outage workers, and the county-level residential distribution of the current operations workforce and temporary outage workers.
Housing information, including sales and rental markets in the economic region, the number and types of units available for rent or sale, vacancy rates, and trends. The applicant should only include habitable structures and the location of existing and projected housing developments.
The regions current and historic economic base, including important regional industries by category, employment, and size. Trend data should be of sufficient depth and scope to provide an accurate account of the changes in the regions economic history, and an indication as to where those changes are most likely leading the regions economy. Describe the nature of the heavy construction industry and construction labor force in the region and the total regional labor force, regional unemployment levels, and future economic outlook projected for the proposed license term.
The ER should identify local and regional planning and administrative organizations and discuss their analyses and trends that may affect conditions, including:
The regions current governmental structure including regional political jurisdictions, school districts, and taxing jurisdictions (including those taxing jurisdictions that would be most affected by the proposed project). Tax rate data should be provided for:
- Federal, State, county, regional, school district, sales and use, and other applicable tax sources and their rates;
- any current agreements for the proposed or existing site for special property tax rates;
- payment-in-lieu-of-taxes; and
- other in-kind payments to local jurisdictions.
The current educational system within the economic region (i.e., public and private primary and secondary schools and higher education institutions) including capacity; student counts; present percentage of utilization; student-teacher ratios; and expected trends affecting these resources.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 44
A review and discussion of the local land-use plans and zoning information relevant to population growth, housing, and changes in land-use patterns within the economic region and relevant trends that would affect the development of the economic region.
A summary, in tabular form, of local social services and public facilities (e.g., water and sewer);
present and projected police and fire capabilities; and medical information including hospitals (available beds and occupancy rates) and number of medical doctors and specialized health facilities.
The name and location for each water- and sewer treatment facility, its design capacity, current usage rate, and any information about future expansions or other pertinent changes, in each county and community in the economic region.
A summary, in tabular form, of access routes to the site of roads (including highways), rail, and waterways. For each mode of transportation, provide a discussion of significant proposed and potential expansions, improvements, and upgrades. Information on transportation should be consistent with information provided in the land use; non-radiological health; and fuel cycle, transportation and decommissioning sections in this RG.
- Roads: A brief summary of which roads will be used for site access should be included in this section. Detailed information regarding roads should be provided in Section 2.8.3.
- Rail: Describe railroads with regard to quality, capacity of the tracks, proximity to the proposed site, road crossings, and the availability of spurs to the proposed site.
- Waterways: Waterway infrastructure refers to freshwater and ocean barge facilities.
Describe all barge facilities (e.g., size, size limitations, and depth of channel).
Potentially affected visual resources within the expected viewshed of the station (e.g., light pollution). Describe any existing standards or applicable regulations affecting the viewshed of the site. Highlight any viewshed management plans or other documents that discuss the current and expected impacts of normal development of the viewshed.
Recreation venues, parks, protected lands, and other visitor attractions in the vicinity of the site.
Describe the type of venue, capacity, occupation rate and seasonal characteristics.
Characteristics of distinctive communities (e.g., historic districts, tourist attractions, cultural resources, American Indian lands and resources, and other popular resources). Discuss any expected trends affecting these resources.
2.5 Environmental Justice Environmental justice (EJ) refers to a Federal policy established by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 Federal Register [FR] 7629) (Ref. 39), under which each Federal agency identifies and addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.5 Although it is not subject to
5 The U.S. Census Bureau list of minority and ethnic categories and the definition of low-income can be found at http://ask.census.gov/.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 45 the Executive Order, the Commission has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews and issued its policy statement on the treatment of EJ matters in licensing actions. NUREG-1555 provides the staffs methodology for performing EJ analyses.
The EJ review involves starting with all of the Census block groups within the 50-mi demographic region and identifying the subset of those block groups that have minority and low-income populations that could experience disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects from building and operating a new nuclear power plant (potentially affected EJ populations). To assist the NRC staff in its review of potential human health or environmental effects that could occur, the applicant should identify:
minority or low-income Census block groups that qualify as potentially affected EJ populations that could be disproportionately affected by building and operating the proposed project;
potential sources of adverse impacts from the construction and operation of the project; and
pathways that could result in any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from an identified source to potentially affected EJ populations.
2.5.1 Identification of Potentially Affected EJ Populations The applicant should use the following process to identify and characterize the demographic region in terms of its minority and low-income populations and communities residing in a 50-mile radius (the demographic region). The principal steps in the process of identifying potentially affected EJ
populations include:
A quantitative assessment of minority and low-income populations (see Section 2.4.1) living in the demographic region (performed at the CBG level) and a determination of whether or not the identified minority or low-income populations in the CBGs are of sufficient size to merit further investigation (i.e., potentially affected EJ populations).
The NRC includes two additional minority or low-income groups in its analyses:
- Other Race (including subcategories of the races mentioned above) or Two or More Races
- Aggregate Minority (calculated as Total Population minus White (Not Hispanic or Latino)).
Investigation of the demographic region to determine whether any potential minority or low-income populations that could be considered potentially affected EJ populations exist in the region and were overlooked during the quantitative assessment.
Identification of communities with unique characteristics including migrant worker communities or minority or low-income elderly or home-bound communities.
Information on how to perform population counts and estimate future populations can be found in the ANSI/ANS-2.6-2018.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 46 Methodology and Analysis Potentially affected EJ populations should be identified in the following three step process. First, the NRC has established specific criteria (see NUREG-1555) to identify a potentially affected EJ
population through Census data:
Any CBG having a minority or low-income population with 50 percent or more of the total population in the CBG, or
Any CBG having a minority or low-income population with a proportion 20 or more percentage points greater than the same minority or low-income proportion measured at the State level.
For example, if the State-level proportion of a minority or low-income population were 20
percent, to meet the potentially affected EJ population threshold a specific CBGs minority, or low- income population proportion, would need to be at least 40 percent. By the same criteria, if the State proportion of the population were 60 percent and the CBGs proportion were 52 percent, then the CBG
would cross the 50 percent threshold and would be considered a potentially affected EJ population, even though the proportion was not 20 percentage points greater than the State average.
Second, potentially affected EJ populations may exist that are too small to be identified using the above percentage criteria. For example, the demographic region may include a CBG that contains small but highly concentrated minority population that is diluted by the larger demographic component within a block group. Consequently, identification of populations of interest at the CBG level should not be considered sufficient by itself for the purposes of the EJ analysis. The existence of unique populations can be found through public outreach and field investigations in the demographic region to determine whether the CBG analysis did not capture any potentially affected EJ populations.
Third, the potentially affected EJ population should then be examined more closely to determine whether or not a pathway exists by which that minority or low-income population could experience a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impact (an EJ impact). The applicant may also look to NUREG-1555 for further insight and clarification on any part of this guidance.
There are also other available EJ guidance and source documents for additional insight into the EJ
process, such as:
Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA) (Ref. 40)
EPA: The Promising Practices Report (Ref. 41) is a compilation of methodologies gleaned from current agency practices identified by the NEPA Committee concerning the interface of EJ
considerations through NEPA processes,
EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (Ref. 42): A new EJ tool based on nationally consistent data and an approach that combines environmental and demographic indicators in maps and reports.
Description in the ER
The applicant should describe their analysis and all public outreach and field investigations performed to develop the demographic data for the ER. The ER should also include the following information:
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 47
A series of maps, one for each important potentially affected EJ population, identifying the CBGs within the demographic region that meet either of the above criteria for minority or low-income populations. The maps should note the location of the proposed site, principal cities and towns, roads, and any other relevant features. The maps should indicate which, if any, CBGs trigger the EJ threshold proportion. Each map should be accompanied by a table containing a count of the CBGs within the demographic region that meet or exceed the comparative threshold criteria (see example Table 2-2 below).
Discussion of the specific methods used to develop the maps and tables, including references to all data sources and literature cited and a discussion of the specific geospatial information system methods and data used.
Table 2-2. CBGs in the demographic region by EJ status State/
County Total Census Block Groups Number of Census Block Groups with Potentially Affected Minority Populations Number of Census Block Groups with Potentially Affected Low- Income Populations Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Other Race
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin Aggregate
State 1
County 1
County 2
County 3
State 2
County 4
County 5
Total
Shaded rows indicate counties in the economic region.
Discussion of minority or low-income migrant communities. Migrant communities refer to communities that may establish residence temporarily or seasonally, based on the availability of agricultural or construction work. For example, migrant agricultural workers may move in to local campgrounds or establish makeshift camps during particular harvest seasons. Migrant construction workers may do likewise during construction of a new subdivision or other substantial projects near the site.
2.5.2 Identification of Potential Pathways and Communities with Unique Characteristics The applicant should identify any potential pathways that could result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to potentially affected EJ populations.
Methodology and Analysis Subsistence practices and communities with unique characteristics should be a focus of the analysis of potential pathways considered in the EJ analysis. The applicant should coordinate its EJ
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 48 analysis with the historic and cultural resources analysis to identify any potential American Indian Tribal linkages to traditional or culturally important resources (e.g., culturally important activities, lands, or waters).
Subsistence Subsistence refers to the activities of low-income communities, households, or individuals to acquire resources by nonmarket means such as home gardening, fishing, hunting, and gathering.
Subsistence practices can accomplish the following:
Provide direct income through sale of harvested resources (e.g., cord wood or mistletoe sales).
Supplement household income by substituting wild or home produced foods for commercially purchased foods, freeing up available income to be applied to other expenses.
Facilitate participation in a traditional ecologically based American Indian lifestyle through the consumption of traditional animal or plant species or through activities on traditional lands.
The existence of specific subsistence and related resource dependencies attributable to any site are most commonly documented by direct observation and interviews with local minority and low-income community leaders. The applicant should determine whether any EJ communities in close proximity to the site or proposed offsite facilities exhibit these practices. Outreach activities should provide a basis for identifying whether such activities may be present near the site.
EJ Communities with Unique Characteristics For the purposes of NRC environmental reviews, unique EJ communities refers to traditional, cultural or religious communities with specific ties to the lands or waters near the site. For example, American Indian Tribes may have specific rights or a cultural or spiritual attachment to natural resources at a site (e.g., wild rice, sweet grasses, and other traditional medicines). However, unique EJ community characteristics can also be physical, such as local community access routes that facilitate a communitys ability to function normally.6 Low-income communities with unique characteristics may be found in areas of low-income housing (private or federally subsidized). The nature of the unique characteristic of a low- income community may need to be determined by interviews and community visits. The applicant should remain sensitive to how project-related activities at the proposed plant could create pathways for a disproportionately high and adverse impact on such communities.
Description in the ER
The ER should contain the following:
Discussion highlighting the methods used to identify EJ-related practices or resources described above.
6 For instance, in the case of Louisiana Energy Services (CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998)) (Ref. 43), the planned closure of a small rural road would have prevented the north-south movement of a local low-income African-American community to and from their local church. And in the case of the V.C. Summer new reactor combined license (Ref.
44), traffic during commute times was found to impede local low-income foot traffic that served the local communitys most used route to market.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 49
Description of any potential pathways that could result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations that would require further analysis in Chapters 4 and 5.
2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Historic and cultural resources are the remains of past human activities and include prehistoric and historic era archaeological sites, historic districts, and buildings, as well as any site structure or object that may be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Historic and cultural resources also include traditional cultural properties important to a living community of people for maintaining its culture. Historic and cultural resources are deemed to be historically significant if they have been determined eligible for or have been listed on the NRHP. A historic property is a historic or cultural resource that is eligible for or listed on the NRHP.7 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to take into account the potential effects of their actions on the cultural environment.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the impacts of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) or a American Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis, and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking, including local governments and the public, as applicable.
The applicant should use Section 106 of the NHPA, and implementing regulations at 36 CFR
Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties (Ref. 46), as a guide for providing historic and cultural resource information in the ER. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, an applicant should engage with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes, and interested parties for the purposes of gathering information in developing its ER. 8 Information gathering by an applicant is not considered consultation pursuant to
36 CFR 800. Consultation with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes, and interested parties is the responsibility of the NRC.
The applicant should determine the boundaries of the proposed direct (e.g., physical) and indirect (e.g., visual and auditory) area of potential effects (APE) 9 to be recommended to the NRC. Once the proposed APE has been determined, the applicant should conduct cultural resource investigations to identify historic and cultural resources located within the APE, determine if they are eligible for listing on the NRHP, assess affects, and develop avoidance or mitigation plans to resolve adverse effect
s. The NRC
will use this information to support its Section 106 consultation and assessment of effects for the proposed project.
7 As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1), Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(2), The term eligible for inclusion in the National Register includes both properties formally determined as such in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet National Register listing criteria. National Register criteria for listing are found in 36 CFR Part 60
(Ref. 45), National Register of Historic Places.
8 Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), the NRC is responsible for consulting with American Indian Tribes that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking.
9 As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), Area of potential effects means the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 50
Consistent with 36 CFR 800.16(d), the NRC typically defines the APE as the area or areas at the power plant site and the immediate environs that may be directly or indirectly impacted by building and operating the proposed new unit(s). The applicant should describe the proposed project area and provide the following information in the ER:
A U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle map that identifies the direct and indirect APEs.
Legal description of the APE appropriate for the proposed project area. Note that not all areas of the U.S. (i.e., the original 13 colonies) use the Public Land Survey System (e.g., township, range, and section information).
Aerial photos of the proposed project site before any land disturbing activities commence.
Identification of any parts of the APE that are Federal, State, or Tribal-owned (i.e., not privately owned) lands.
2.6.1 Cultural Background This section of the ER should provide a discussion of the historic use of the land and the activities that have occurred within the APE and the surrounding area. This includes a description of the cultural history of the region (including the proposed project site) from the beginning of human settlement to the present, and summarizes how this information was collected for the proposed APE. Information can be derived from background research (literature review and site file search) and from the use of plat and other historic maps showing ownership, acreage, property boundaries, and the location of existing or former historic structures. Other sources that can assist with description of the cultural background include land records, archival sources, local museums or historical societies, libraries, planning documents, mapping/imaging, and online sources. If available, consult ethnohistoric sources to identify American Indian Tribes and other groups that may have historic and cultural ties to the proposed project area.
2.6.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site and in the Vicinity This section of the ER should provide a description of historic and cultural resources identified within the direct and indirect APEs (e.g., transmission line corridors, and in the vicinity). All cultural resource survey reports that are developed to identify and assess effects to historic and cultural resources should be referenced and submitted with the license application. However, information (i.e., reports, maps, and site forms) that discloses the locations of unevaluated, potentially eligible, or eligible historic properties (e.g., archaeological sites) should be withheld from public disclosure. This information may be protected under NHPA Section 304 (54 U.S.C. 100707), especially if there is a risk of harm to the resource. The NRC protects cultural resource information disclosing the location of cultural resources (e.g., maps) under Section 304 of the NHPA, consistent with 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3). Section 304 of NHPA
requires the NRC to withhold from disclosure to the public, information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic resource if the agency and the Secretary of the Interior agree that disclosure may
(1) cause a significant invasion of privacy, (2) risk harm to the historic resource, or (3) impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Applicants should discuss with the staff during pre- application interactions how to handle sensitive historic information.
The applicant should rely on qualified professionals who meet the Secretary of Interiors standards, 36 CFR Part 61, Professional Qualification Standards (Ref. 47), to develop the historic and cultural resource sections in the ER. The applicant is encouraged to engage the NRC staff as early as possible in the planning process, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40, Consultation with NRC staff, to
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 51 avoid issues related to disclosing sensitive location information related to historic and cultural resources when drafting the ER.
The ER should provide the following information:
description of all past and current historic and cultural resource investigations conducted to identify historic and cultural resources within and surrounding the APE
documentation of field methods used to identify resources within the APE,
description of all historic and cultural resources, (e.g., prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, standing structures, cemeteries, and traditional cultural properties), and isolated finds and features
evaluation of historic and cultural resources for NRHP eligibility (i.e., historic properties)
including:
- description of the process and methods used to evaluate these resources
- documentation of SHPO, THPO, and American Indian Tribes concurrence with process, methods, and conclusions
2.6.3 Consultation Consultation is the responsibility of the Federal agency, and the NRC is required to take the lead on consulting with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes (on a government-to-government basis),
and interested parties as outlined in 36 CFR 800; consultation is not the responsibility of the applicant. 10
The applicant should engage with these parties to gather sufficient information pertinent to the NHPA
Section 106 review process in order to assist the NRC in the timely completion of its NHPA Section 106 compliance requirements. The ER should contain a summary of the applicants initial outreach efforts to date, including the process used to identify American Indian Tribes and potential interested parties about the proposed project. The applicant should evaluate the significance of the historic and cultural resources and assess any effects the proposed project may have on them. For areas not surveyed (e.g., areas too disturbed or devoid of potential historic and cultural resources), proper documentation, a basis for exclusion, and concurrence on survey methodology from the SHPO should be provided.
The ER should contain copies of all correspondence with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes, or members of the public with whom the applicant engaged to gather information about historic and cultural resources within the APE. These documents should be included in an Appendix of the ER.
Applicants may refer to NEI 10-07 regarding the information gathering process, engaging with potential consulting parties, and the importance of early coordination.
10
If an applicant is corresponding with Indian tribes before the NRC initiates government-to-government consultation, then the applicant should clarify to the Indian tribes that the NRC will be initiating and conducting government-to¬
government consultation at a later date for the project. A federally recognized Indian tribe is not obligated to consult with an applicant or share information about properties of religious and cultural significance with an applicant. A
federally recognized tribe may prefer to communicate directly with NRC at the government-to-government level.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 52
2.7 Air Resources The applicant should describe the climate, meteorology, and air quality of the site and surrounding region, summarize atmospheric dispersion characteristics at the site, and provide details of the onsite meteorological monitoring program. The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data used, resulting output, and approaches to allow for NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., FSAR, DCD or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
2.7.1 Climate The applicant should provide a description of the regional climate and meteorological conditions at the site and include sufficient data to permit an independent evaluation by the NRC staff. The following information should be provided:
A discussion of the sources of climate and meteorological information (e.g., nearby National Weather Service stations and onsite meteorological stations), periods of record, station locations, and station representativeness of local and regional meteorology.
A description of the general climate of the region with respect to types of air masses, synoptic features (e.g., high- and low-pressure systems and frontal systems and principal storm tracks),
general airflow patterns, temperature and humidity characteristics, precipitation, and any mesoscale circulations (e.g., valley flow and land-sea/lake breeze).
Description of topographic features in the immediate vicinity of the onsite meteorological tower and within a 50-mi radius of the proposed plant, including any modifications attributable to the proposed plant that could influence meteorological instrumentation.
Summaries of onsite monthly and annual wind roses and comparisons to nearby representative stations using the wind speed classes defined of RG 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants (Ref. 48), for a consecutive 24-month period of data that is not older than 10 years from the date of the application (and preferably three or more years of data if available).
Summaries of onsite diurnal, monthly, and annual air temperatures and comparisons to regional climatic averages and extremes. Climatic normals are typically defined as 30-year averages.
Summaries of onsite diurnal, monthly, and annual dewpoint temperatures (or other measurements of atmospheric moisture) and comparisons to climatic averages and extremes.
Summaries of onsite monthly and annual precipitation and snowfall amounts and comparisons to climatic averages and extremes.
Summaries of monthly and annual occurrences of heavy fog (i.e., visibility less than 0.4 km
(0.25 mi)) and appropriate summaries of other parameters (e.g., icing) to support the description of cooling-system impacts.
Summaries of onsite monthly and annual atmospheric stability.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 53
Annual joint frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction by atmospheric stability class for measurement heights and wind speed classes as defined in RG 1.23.
Estimates of monthly and seasonal mixing-heights, including frequency and duration (persistence) of inversion conditions.
A description of the severe weather phenomena (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes and waterspouts, thunderstorms, severe wind events, lightning, and hail) affecting the site and vicinity, including seasonal and annual frequencies.
Discussion of potential climate change in the vicinity of the site over the period encompassing the licensing action and impacts on relevant meteorological parameters (e.g., temperature, precipitation, and the frequency and severity of storms). This discussion should be based on assessments conducted by Federal agencies with a mandate to evaluate the effects of climate change (e.g., latest U.S. Global Change Research Program Report), but applicable regional and local studies conducted by other entities may be included. Climate change in the affected environment section should cover the project life and resources that are likely to be impacted by climate change during this period.
2.7.2 Air Quality The applicant should describe the air quality at the site and surrounding region and provide sufficient detail to evaluate impacts from building and operating the plant. The following information should be provided:
A description of the site and regional air quality, including the Air Quality Control Region as listed in 40 CFR Part 81, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes (Ref. 49).
Identification of any nonattainment or maintenance areas with respect to criteria air pollutants identified in 40 CFR Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards (Ref. 50). This should include the county the site is located and surrounding counties
Location of nearest Mandatory Federal Class 1 Areas (40 CFR Part 81), where air quality and visibility are protected under the Regional Haze Program.
Discussion of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and estimates of yearly emissions (expressed in units of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents11) at a global, national, and State level and, if available, provide State or Public Utility Commission GHG emission reduction goals. This discussion should be based on values provided by Federal agencies with a mandate to estimate GHG emissions and is needed to provide context for GHG emissions from the proposed project (Ref. 15.).
2.7.3 Atmospheric Dispersion The applicant should provide short-term dispersion estimates for use in evaluation of dose from design-basis accidents and long-term dispersion and deposition estimates for evaluation of radiological impacts from normal operations. The applicant should provide meteorological data from at least two
11 Carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their global warming potential (GWP). GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time, compared to CO2. Carbon dioxide equivalent is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 54 consecutive annual cycles (and preferably three or more entire years), including the most recent one-year period, at the time of application submittal. If two years of onsite data are not available at the time the application is submitted, the applicant should provide at least one annual cycle of meteorological data collected onsite with the application. Hourly averages of onsite meteorological parameters should be provided using the recommended electronic data format described in Appendix A of the most current revision of RG 1.23. Sufficient input data should be included to permit independent evaluations and assessments of atmospheric diffusion characteristics and station impacts on the environment.
Short-Term Dispersion Estimates Consistent with RG 1.206 (Ref. 10), the applicant should provide estimates of atmospheric dispersion factors (/Q values) at the site exclusion area boundary (EAB) and at the outer boundary of the low-population zone (LPZ) for appropriate time periods using realistic (50th percentile) meteorology. For the EAB, provide the 2-hour 50th percentile /Q estimate. For the LPZ, provide the 50th percentile /Q
estimate for: (1) the 8-hour time period from 0 to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />; (2) the 16-hour period from 8 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />; (3)
the 3-day period from 1 to 4 days; and (4) the 26-day period from 4 to 30 days.
RG 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants (Ref. 51), provides guidance for calculating EAB and LPZ /Q values. The applicant should adequately describe the methods for generating these distributions. Discussion of the effects of topography and nearby bodies of water on short-term dispersion estimates should be provided.
Long-Term Dispersion Estimates Consistent with NRC guidance in RG 1.111, Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors (Ref. 52),
the applicant should provide estimates of annual average /Q and deposition (D/Q) at appropriate locations (e.g., site boundary, nearest vegetable garden, nearest residence, nearest milk animal, and nearest meat cow in each 221/2-degree direction sector within a 5-mi radius of the site), at points of maximum individual exposure, and at points within a radial grid of sixteen 221/2-degree sectors (e.g., centered on true north, north-northeast, northeast) and extending to a distance of 50 mi from the station. A set of data points should be located within each sector at increments of 0.25 mi out to a distance of 1 mi from the plant, at increments of 0.5 mi from a distance of 1 to 5 mi, at increments of 2.5 mi from a distance of 5 to 10 mi, and at increments of 5 mi thereafter to a distance of 50 mi. Estimates of /Q
(undecayed and undepleted; depleted for radioiodines) and D/Q radioiodines and particulates should be provided at each of these grid points.
Regulatory Guide 1.111 presents criteria for characterizing /Q and D/Q conditions for evaluating the consequences of routine releases. The applicant should describe the methods for generating these /Q
and D/Q values. The applicant should provide a detailed description of the model inputs, including the suitability of input parameters, source configuration, and topography. The meteorological data used as input to the models should be provided.
2.7.4 Meteorological Monitoring The applicant should describe the preoperational and operational programs for meteorological measurements at the site, including all data-collection programs used to describe the site meteorological and atmospheric dispersion characteristics. The description should include the following:
A site map showing tower locations with respect to man-made structures, topographic features, and other site features that may influence site meteorological measurements.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 55
Distances to nearby obstructions of the flow in each downwind sector.
Discussion of measurements made; instruments and performance specifications; measurement elevations and instrument siting; calibration and maintenance procedures; data output and recording systems and locations; and data processing, archiving, and analysis procedures.
Estimates of overall system accuracy for each meteorological parameter measured.
Regulatory Guide 1.23 provides guidance for an onsite meteorological measurements program that the NRC staff considers acceptable for the collection of basic meteorological data needed to support plant licensing and operation.
2.8 Nonradiological Health The applicant should describe the environment at the site and within the vicinity of the site with respect to existing nonradiological human-health. This includes the identification of people or groups that could be vulnerable to nonradiological health impacts including public health, etiological agents, transportation activities, noise and electromagnetic fields. This section provides the basis for evaluation of impacts on human health from building and operating the proposed project.
2.8.1 Public and Occupational Health The applicant should identify the State agency or office or Federal agency with regulatory jurisdiction over the public and occupational health at the site and in the vicinity. The applicant should provide the following information in the ER:
Description of the regulations related to potential impacts on public and occupational health at the site and in the vicinity,
Identification of people or groups in the vicinity that could be vulnerable to nonradiological health impacts from building- and operations-related activities (e.g., construction workers, workers at any co-located plants, nearby residents, transients and recreational visitors).
Description of any existing issues involving hazardous chemicals on or near the site.
Occupational Injuries
A discussion of Federal and State statistics for occupational injuries and illnesses related to similar projects. Federal statistics are available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A description of existing safety standards, practices, and mitigation procedures for avoiding or minimizing the incidence of injuries and illnesses to workers and the public.
Etiological Agents and Emerging Contaminants Etiological agents are disease-causing organisms that affect human health. Some of these disease- causing organisms have been associated with the operation of station cooling systems. Etiological agents have been referred to as thermophilic microorganisms in previous NRC documents (e.g., NUREG-
1555). Etiological agents associated with nuclear power stations include more than just thermophilic microorganisms and may be present in elevated numbers in unheated systems as well as in cooling systems, receiving and source waterbodies, and site sewage treatment facilities.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 56 Contaminants and materials are being discovered in water where they previously had not been detected or are being detected at levels that may be significantly different than expected. The proposed use of reclaimed water or impaired water sources for station cooling raises a potential human health and ecological concern related to the release of these chemicals and materials to the environment. These chemicals or materials, found in reclaimed and contaminated source water in very low concentrations, potentially could be harmful to humans and the environment.
The applicant should provide the following information:
A description and the incidence of organisms of concern for public and occupational health, including enteric pathogens (e.g., Salmonella spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa), thermophilic fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.), dinoflagellates (Karenia brevis), blue- green algae, and free-living amoeba (e.g., Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.) during the previous 10 years in the state that the site is located.
Characteristics of the site that could encourage the growth and distribution of etiological agents.
A summary of all the chemicals and materials that are known from the influent for stations using reclaimed water or impaired water for cooling.
The ER should reference information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State public health agencies, and local health agencies.
2.8.2 Noise The applicant should characterize the existing noise environment at the site. The description should include the following:
General description of the site with respect to noise (e.g., rural, industrial, etc.).
Location of the closest noise-sensitive human receptors, including (if within a reasonable distance) closest residence, closest public building, closest recreational area, and closest industrial site.
Results of any ambient noise studies that have been conducted, including the locations of noise sources and measurements, and corresponding noise levels, including meteorological conditions during the measurement period and the resulting effects on the measured noise levels. Any such ambient noise studies should be performed at a representative number of locations, including measurement at the closest noise-sensitive human receptors (see next bullet), each of which is sampled over a number of days that include weekday, weekend, and seasonal variations in noise levels.
Noise regulations or ordinances, including Federal, State, and local code and regulations.
2.8.3 Transportation The applicant should describe the existing road transportation networks for the site, vicinity and region. These discussions will become the basis for analyses in the land use and socioeconomic sections.
The description should include the following:
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 57
Roads: Include carrying capacity and condition, availability and type of public transportation; and planned modifications that might affect traffic flow to and from the proposed plant site. Describe road and highway use in industry-standard terms (e.g., Level of Service designation or similar process). Discuss current and projected trends for usage of these routes, including any existing plant-related commuter patterns for operations and outages. State whether or not heavy-haul roads will be needed.
Current accident statistics for the regional transportation networks.
2.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields The applicant should provide information about the existing sources of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the vicinity and region and the electric shock and chronic effects of transmission lines. The information provided in the ER should include the following:
Electric and magnetic fields for existing or anticipated transmission lines. In the United States, transmission lines operate at a frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second), which is considered to be extremely low frequency.
Electric shocks from exposure to energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures.
Any new information regarding whether a consensus has been reached by the appropriate Federal health agencies pertaining to the effects of long-term or chronic exposure to EMFs. These health effects have been studied for several years and were evaluated in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Initial (Ref. 53), and Revision 1 (Ref. 54), (NUREG-1437).
2.9 Radiological Environment and Radiological Monitoring The purpose of a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP), which is located in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, is to provide a basis for evaluating concentrations of radioactive materials and radiation levels in the environment from radiological releases once a reactor is operational.
A well-designed and well-implemented environmental program will characterize the environment before operations to allow future reasonable, direct comparison with data collected after power operation begins.
The preoperational program can also be used for all or some of the operational REMP.
According to RG 4.1, Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants (Ref.
55), the preoperational monitoring program should be established and implemented at least 2 years before the initial facility operation; however, the preoperational REMP should be described in the ER.
For a partially developed or undeveloped site that does not have operating or permanently shut down reactors, the applicant should summarize any information available from the appropriate literature about background radiological characteristics of the site. This characterization should address the sources of natural background and the background radiation levels from those sources in the area surrounding the site. The naturally occurring background radiation dose rates at the site should be estimated and provided in the ER.
For a proposed new nuclear unit being constructed on or adjacent to currently operating or permanently shut down nuclear plants, information on background radiological characteristics should be provided from the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report and the Annual Radioactive
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 58 Effluent Release Report. The applicant should review approximately 5 years worth of data from the past reports and make a comparison of the exposures and concentrations in air, water, and vegetation between the preoperational monitoring and the operational monitoring results. A 5-year period provides a data set that covers a broad range of activities that occur at a nuclear power plant, such as refueling outages, routine operation and maintenance activities that can affect the generation and release of radioactive effluents into the environment. In addition, any special reporting requirements or special monitoring programs (e.g., groundwater-monitoring programs), whether industry- or NRC-initiated programs, and any event reports for groundwater contamination should be noted in the ER. The applicant should also review the volume and radioactivity content of radioactive solid waste generated each year and the number of shipments of waste and where the waste would be shipped.
The type of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential radiological impacts of the radioactive effluents from the plant. The specific criteria for a radiological monitoring program can be found in RG 4.1.
To the extent the information is available, the ER should include the following information:
A discussion of the environmental exposure pathways (i.e., air, water, and direct) as they relate to the type of reactor and local geography and terrain.
A map or aerial photograph of the site vicinity with proposed monitoring and sampling locations clearly identified and keyed to indicate the medium sampled at each location. The map or photograph should be suitable to show distance and direction of each location from the plant, particularly with regard to the effluent release points.
A description of the existing monitoring program when appropriate, including (1) the number and location of sample collection points and measuring devices and the pathway sampled or measured; (2) sample size, sample collection frequency, and sampling duration; (3) type and frequency of analysis; (4) general types of sample collection and measuring equipment; (5) lower limit of detection for each analysis; (6) the approximate date on which the proposed program will be effective; and (7) the quality-assurance program for REMPs (see RG 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operations to License Termination)Effluent Streams and the Environment (Ref. 56)).
A discussion justifying the choice of sample sites, analyses, sampling frequencies, sampling and measuring durations, sample sizes, and lower limits of detection.
A discussion of the amount of radioactive solid waste generated and transported from the five years of reports reviewed above.
If applicable, a description of NEI 07-07 Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative implementation (Ref. 57).
A description of any NRC initiatives or radiological environmental reporting requirements.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 59 Chapter 3
3.0
Site Layout and Project Description As specified in 10 CFR 51.45(b), the environmental report (ER) shall contain a description of the proposed action. The ER should include sufficient information to describe the site layout, design, and the activities required to construct and operate the plant and associated structures and facilities as well as the physical activities involved in constructing and operating the plant. This description should be sufficiently detailed to support the staffs environmental impact conclusions.
3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout A description of the overall appearance of the proposed plant and all associated facilities is needed to assess the physical scope of the proposed project and visual impacts. Associated facilities include any proposed new structures or structure modifications (onsite or offsite) that need to be completed for the proposed plant to be constructed or operated (e.g., transmission lines; road, rail, barge, or other transportation-related improvements; water-management structures or impoundments; borrow pits; and spoils storage areas).
The applicant should clearly define and use consistent site terminology (e.g., site, property, or project boundaries) throughout the ER. The ER should include the following information relating to the external appearance and layout of the proposed plant:
topographic maps of the proposed site and vicinity showing the layout of the proposed plant relative to the site and vicinity; the exclusion area; site boundary; waterbodies; existing and planned roads, rail lines, and utility corridors; liquid and gaseous release points (and their elevations); meteorological towers; land to be cleared; waste disposal areas; and other buildings and structures (both temporary and permanent) associated with the proposed project;
the relationship between the proposed plant and any existing units, structures or facilities, including removal or modification of existing structures;
whether proposed and existing units would share any proposed or existing facilities or structures;
a description of the proposed plant including any aesthetic principles and concepts used in the design and layout of the proposed facilities, and any plans to seclude and screen the facilities and to architecturally integrate the buildings and landscaping into the environs;
representative ground-level photographs of the site on which major station features are superimposed;
a low, oblique aerial photograph of the site and vicinity on which major station features are superimposed; and
an architectural rendering of the proposed project to include landscaping and all major station features.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 60
3.2 Proposed Plant Structures, Systems and Components A description of the overall proposed nuclear energy generating system is important for the evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The rated and design core thermal power, the rated and design gross electrical output, and the rated and design net electrical output (in megawatts [MW]) should be stated. The rated power is defined as the power level at which each reactor would be operated if licensed, and the design power is defined as the highest power level that would be permitted by the proposed plant design. The gross electrical output is the power level measured at the output terminals of the generator and expressed in MW(e). The net unit electrical output is equal to the gross electrical output minus the nominal service and auxiliary loads. The following information relating to the reactor-power-conversion system for the proposed plant should be included in the ER:
Reactor-power-conversion system, including the manufacturer and the design status (i.e., certified design or design control document revision).
The number of units and description of each reactor, including (as applicable) reactor type, vendor, architect-engineer, contractor, fuel assembly description, total quantities of uranium, and percentage uranium-235 enrichment.
The planned average irradiation level of spent fuel, in megawatt days/ton.
A description of the turbines and condensers.
A simplified flow diagram for the reactor-power-conversion system.
Service or auxiliary power load.
Type of cooling system.
A description of all proposed plant structures, systems, or components is needed to clarify the physical scope of the proposed project for assessing the impacts of building and operation. The description should include, but is not limited to the following:
Plant grade and major structure elevations, using a consistent vertical datum.
Stormwater drainage system (e.g., number, location, and size of temporary and permanent retention/detention ponds, diversion structures, or other hydrological alterations).
Site layout with the location and dimensions (e.g., area and height above grade) of structures and support facilities (e.g., switchyard, laydown areas, parking areas, future independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), warehouses, and training facilities), including offsite support facilities and substations. Indicate permanent and temporary areas of land disturbance.
Heat-dissipation system flow diagram; design, size, and location of cooling towers, cooling lakes or ponds, spray canals or ponds.
Creation or modification of any water storage (reservoir) or cooling pond, including dams or dikes. For any water-storage facility, describe the total and usable storage capacity, surface area, evaporation rate, flow control structures or components, and associated water transfer systems (e.g., refill, withdrawal and conveyance).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 61
Water-intake systems, including plan view and cross-sectional view scale drawings. The description should include location, size, height, and depth of structure; number and size of intake bays and pumps; screen types and sizes; type of screen cleaning system; fish-return system; and associated pipelines or other conveyance structures.
Water discharge system, including plan view and cross-sectional view scale drawings. The description should include the location and type of discharge structure(s) including depth below surface and relationship to bottom of receiving waterbody; discharge receiving area alterations;
and associated pipelines or other conveyance structures.
Other water systems (e.g., service, fire, potable, and sanitary systems) with source, delivery, and discharge (if applicable) identified.
Well structures (use, depth, diameter, construction, location, pumping rate or discharge rate for injection wells).
Supplemental water sources, onsite or offsite (location, design, construction and management).
Transportation infrastructure (e.g., location, extent, and number of roads, culverts, bridges, rail, barge slip, and barge facilities).
Other in- or over-water structures.
Transmission (e.g., location, extent, voltage, and number of existing transmission facilities, modifications to existing transmission facilities, use or modification of existing transmission corridors, new transmission corridors, new transmission lines, transmission structure types, and switchyards).
3.3 Building Activities Building activities, methods, and durations influence the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The applicant should describe the type of activities needed to build or install the proposed structures and associated facilities described in Section 3.2, and should indicate the sequencing and estimated duration of activities, especially when multiple units are proposed. The ER should include consideration of seasonal constraints on building activity. If multiple units are proposed or if the proposed project is co-located with an existing facility, the ER should include consideration of activities and workforce related to concurrent building and operation.
The description of building activities in the ER should also include the following:
Applicants should be prepared to provide spatial data in electronic format (current industry- standard format) for the proposed plant (permanent as-built structures) and associated building uses (including temporary structures and use areas).
Maps or scale drawings showing the extent of area to be disturbed during building (both onsite and offsite) and the construction use of the site or project areas (e.g., laydown, spoils stockpile or disposal, concrete batch plant, module assembly, temporary roads, or parking) relative to the as-built proposed structure locations.
Extent, equipment, and methods for land clearing, grading, and excavation.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 62
Depths of excavations, particularly deep excavations that could require dewatering; and width and depth of trenches (e.g., for pipelines).
In-water and nearshore activities (e.g., dredging, excavation, dewatering, filling, and impoundments).
Equipment and methods should be described, as well as extent and duration of shoreline and in- water disturbance and any temporary structures (e.g., cofferdams, barge moorings, and silt curtains).
Source of water for building purposes, estimated rate and quantity of water use, and proposed wastewater-management practices for building activities.
Source and quantity of fill material for construction purposes.
3.4 Operational Activities The applicant should describe the type of activities involved in operating the proposed plant and the associated structures and facilities described in Section 3.2. Descriptions should provide sufficient detail to assess specific effects of all operating systems on the environment. All modes of operation should be described, including normal operation, refueling, and emergency shutdown situations. Seasonal and operational variations that change amounts of water intake or discharge, gaseous effluent releases, or other potential environmental releases should be discussed.
3.4.1 Plant-Environment Interfaces during Operation The applicant should describe plant design and heat-dissipation system parameters and their associated site interface values, clearly indicating the units of measure for the interface value and whether the value is for a single unit or all proposed units. The applicant should also describe the operational activities for structures and facilities associated with the transmission system, transportation infrastructure, and the stormwater-management system. Information on operational environmental interfaces should include, but is not limited to, the following:
Water Interfaces
- A quantitative water-use diagram showing anticipated flow rates to and from the various station water systems (e.g., heat-dissipation system, sanitary system, radwaste and chemical waste systems, and process water systems), including the source of water for each system and the receiving water for any liquid discharge to a waterbody.
- A table of anticipated normal operational flow rates and maximum flow rates, indicating assumptions and conditions for each.
- The flow diagram and tabulated information that clearly presents the operating plant water balance by accounting for withdrawals, consumptive use (water that is not returned to the source water body, for example, water from a river that is lost to evaporation in the cooling towers), and liquid discharges.
- A description of intake operation, including approach and through-screen velocities, debris, and fish-return-system operation at all intake or pumping locations.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 63
- Pertinent temperatures and methods used for estimating evaporation and drift rates.
- Cooling-tower blowdown volume, flow rates, temperature range, and number of cycles of concentration assumed for normal operation and any other modes of operation considered.
- Description of chemicals (e.g., corrosion inhibitors, antifouling agents) to the intake and discharge system.
- Estimated temperature and chemical constituent concentrations in wastewater at the discharge point.
- A description of controlling structures and flow patterns, residence times, rate of temperature changes, evaporation rate, and seepage rate for any cooling-water reservoirs or discharge canals.
- Maintenance procedures and frequency for the intake and discharge structures (e.g., dredging or mucking, biofouling treatment, screen maintenance, and pump maintenance), including proposed waste- or debris-disposal practices.
- Maintenance procedures and frequency for the stormwater-management system, including proposed waste- or debris-disposal practices.
Land Interfaces
- Maintenance procedures and frequency for transmission corridors and switchyards, roads, parking areas, rail lines, and other infrastructure, including proposed waste- or debris- disposal practices.
Air Interfaces
- Location, including elevation, of plant vents and other exhaust vents. The number and capacity of diesel/turbine generators and other emission sources, estimated frequency of operation, and associated emissions. If air is used for heat dissipation or for the main operational cooling system then describe the system. If a dry cooling tower is used instead of a wet cooling tower then the information for cooling water intake/discharges consumptive water use and aquatic impacts should be adjusted accordingly.
3.4.2 Radioactive Waste Management Radioactive waste-management and effluent-control systems should be designed so as to control and maintain the radioactive material released annually in liquid and gaseous effluents from normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, to a level that is as low as is reasonably achievable in accordance with the requirement of 10 CFR 50.34a, Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents-nuclear power reactors. The information should be taken from the final safety analysis report (FSAR) and summarized in the ER. References to the FSAR
sections should be made in the ER. The following information relating to the radioactive waste- management system should be included in the ER:
a summary description of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste-management and effluent-control systems;
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 64
process and instrumentation diagrams and system process flow diagrams of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste-management and effluent-control systems referenced from the FSAR;
identification of sources of radioactive liquid and gaseous waste material within the proposed plant;
identification of principal release points for radioactive materials to the environment;
elevation of gaseous effluent vents;
identification of direct radiation sources stored onsite as solid waste (e.g., an ISFSI or permanently shutdown units on the site);
information requested in Appendices A and B of RG 1.112, Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors (Ref. 58);
a summary description of the solid radioactive waste-management system to include the expected total volume of the solid radioactive waste that would be shipped offsite annually;
solid radioactive waste storage plans and capabilities, including annual quantities of waste produced;
a discussion on where the Class A, B, and C low-level waste will be sent;
3.4.3 Nonradioactive Waste Management The applicant should describe any nonradioactive solid or liquid-waste materials such as water- management waste, solid waste, gaseous waste, and hazardous waste that may be generated during building and operation. The description should include estimates of the quantities of wastes to be disposed of, their pollutant concentrations, the manner in which they will be treated and controlled and the procedures for disposal. The information related to these waste systems for the proposed plant should include, but are not limited to the following:
description of liquid effluents, including treatment, characteristics, rate and frequency of release,
for effluents containing chemicals or biocides, a list of chemicals, annual amounts used, frequency of use, and concentration in waste stream,
sanitary effluent discharges, treatment, and disposal,
estimates for quantities of solid waste, collection, and disposal,
location and elevation of gaseous effluent vents,
description of gaseous effluents, including treatment, characteristics, quantity and frequency of release; and
hazardous waste accumulation, treatment, and disposal.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 65
description of plant systems producing mixed waste (hazardous and low-level radioactive), and minimization plans;
mixed-waste storage plans and capabilities, including annual quantities of waste produced; and
mixed-waste disposal plans.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 67 Chapter 4
4.0
Environmental Impacts from Construction of the Proposed Project The applicant must describe the impacts of building the proposed project as specified in 10 CFR
51.45(b)(1) and 51.45(c). For each impact category in Chapter 4, the applicant should identify the measures and controls that would be used to mitigate and limit adverse environmental impacts. As discussed in Part B, to the term building includes all preconstruction and construction activities. The definition of what is construction and what is not construction can be found in 10 CFR 51.4. As discussed previously in Section C.VI, under the revised limited work authorization rule, the applicant should separate the impacts of preconstruction and construction activities to address the latter, as they are the activities being authorized. However, the applicant should also describe the impacts associated with preconstruction activities (e.g., site-preparation activities, transmission lines) so they can be evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts related to the proposed action. Specific information to include in the environmental report (ER), as part of or in addition to the description of impacts, is covered in the following sections.
4.1 Land-Use The applicant should describe the land- or ground-disturbing alterations of building activities and the resulting impacts on land use and resource use. All impacts should be quantified to the extent possible using acreage, volumetric, or chronological measures. Applicants should be aware of nearby Superfund and/or industrial or previously industrial sites in order to avoid interference with nearby clean-up activities or site disturbances. The applicant can contact State agencies or regional EPA Superfund divisions for site specific information if necessary. In addition, if the site is industrial or a previously industrial site, the applicant should consider contacting EPA or State agencies to see if there is any possible contamination from previous industrial activities that may require clean-up. If any such site could affect land use or resource use impacts, these impacts should be described in the ER.
4.1.1 Onsite Impacts The following information relating to the land-use impacts from building activities should be included in the ER:
Land disturbance related to building activities on a short-term or long-term basis tabulated and summarized in terms of acreage of land area by activity (e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, dredging, borrow pits, and clearing vegetation).
Disposition of spoils from excavation work or dredging, including volumes of excavated or dredged material and ultimate disposition location by volume to onsite or offsite locations.
Include the acreage required for spoils disposal.
A summary of the proposed footprint of land disturbance (by acre) for permanent and temporary uses (e.g., power block, auxiliary buildings, cooling infrastructure, laydown areas, batch plants, parking, and administration).
Impacts to any affected local or regional land-use or economic-development plans.
Discussion of possible zoning conflicts.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 68
Disruption to ongoing natural resource management activities, including agricultural, forestry, and mineral extraction activities.
Disruption to land- or water-resource access.
Disruption to existing land uses or private land access caused by building activities.
Characterization of raw material resource-extraction volumes associated with building activities (e.g., reservoir timber clearing and sand and gravel mining).
Impacts to legislatively designated lands (e.g., prime farmland) or activities in designated coastal zones and a discussion on the status of any agency coordination or permitting undertaken regarding such lands.
Impacts to floodplains and wetlands (can cross-reference other ER sections).12
Maps depicting the locations of expected land-use impacts including footprints for temporary and permanent facilities.
4.1.2 Offsite Impacts The following information relating to the land-use impacts of building offsite facilities (including new offsite transmission lines and other linear facilities, as well as alterations to existing offsite facilities)
should be included in the ER:
Characterization of land uses that will be altered by offsite development activities.
A summary of the proposed footprint of land disturbance (by acre) for permanent and temporary uses (e.g., transmission towers, substations, intake structures, and pipelines).
Resulting land-use classification conversions summarized by acreage.
Impacts to any affected local or regional land-use or economic-development plans.
Disruption to land- or water-resource access caused by offsite activities.
Disruption to existing land uses at the site or vicinity caused by building activities (e.g., private land access for transmission tower erection).
12 Executive Order 11988 (Ref. 59), Floodplain Management was issued on May 24, 1977 to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. This Executive Order directs agencies to, among other things, determine whether the proposed action will occur in a floodplain, to evaluate the potential effects of any actions that may take place in a floodplain, and to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in floodplains.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 69
Maps depicting the locations of expected land-use impacts including footprints for temporary and permanent facilities.
Discussion of possible effects on floodplains, wetlands, agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction, and hazardous waste cleanup activities (can cross-reference other sections of ER where possible).
4.2 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
The applicant should describe the hydrologic alterations associated with building activities and the resulting impacts on consumptive and nonconsumptive water use13 and on water quality. Water use and discharge of effluents during building are described as part of the site layout and plant description (Chapter 3).
4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations The applicant should identify and describe the building activities, including site preparation, onsite activities and offsite activities that could result in hydrologic alterations at the site, within transmission corridors, and offsite within the resource impact area (see Chapter 2). The description should include analyses of the resulting hydrologic alterations and the physical effects of these alterations on water uses and users (quantity and quality); practices proposed to minimize hydrologic alterations having adverse impacts; and an assessment of compliance with the applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and American Indian Tribal standards and regulations.
Activities resulting in hydrological alterations that could affect water use and water quality may include, but are not limited to, the building of cofferdams and stormwater management and drainage systems, dredging operations, placement of fill material in the water, and the creation of shoreside facilities. Other examples include building of intake and discharge structures for cooling water or other purposes, straightening or deepening of a water channel, building in a floodplain, clearing and grading, excavation, and groundwater dewatering of excavations.
The ER should include a description of the following:
modification of site drainage patterns (e.g. storm water modifications, ditches, drains);
change in floodplain capacity, and expected changes in water levels and groundwater heads;
effects of alterations on the quantity and availability of water within the resource impact area;
effects of alterations to river discharge, including changes in the seasonal variation of flow, or groundwater discharge to wetlands;
effects of effluent discharge on the water quality of the receiving waterbodies, including the effects of erosion and sediment transport;
effects of alterations or dewatering activities on the movement or extent of existing groundwater contaminant plumes;
13 Consumptive water use reduces the available water supply. For instance, evaporation due to cooling-tower operation results in a transfer of water from the cooling system to the atmosphere, thereby reducing the volume of water in the water source. Nonconsumptive water use does not reduce the available water supply, rather it is discharged back into the river and is not consumed by the plant.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 70
proposed actions to minimize the effects of the hydrologic alterations; and
identification of applicable standards and regulations.
When a mathematical model is used to evaluate the effects of hydrologic alterations, the applicant should describe the conceptual basis for the model, including the rationale for eliminating plausible alternative conceptualizations, the assumptions used in developing the model, the range of applicability of the model, input data used, the resulting output, the basis for boundary conditions, parameter estimation and calibration procedures followed, and estimates of uncertainty in model forecasts. The applicant should provide sufficient data to permit staff evaluation of modeling results. The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, data used, and approaches to allow for NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e.,
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), design control document (DCD) or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts The applicant should identify those water uses and water users (Chapter 2 of this RG) that are potentially affected by the changes in the quantity and/or availability of water resulting from hydrologic alterations during building. The applicant should evaluate the water-use impacts by quantifying the anticipated reduction in water availability for each water use, including the projected duration of any forecast reduction, and provide a description of the analyses performed to determine the impacts.
4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts The applicant should identify those water uses and water users (Chapter 2 of this RG) that are potentially affected by the changes in water quality resulting from hydrologic alterations during building.
The applicant should evaluate the water-quality impacts by quantifying the anticipated reduction in use resulting from the changes in water quality and provide a description of the analyses performed to determine the impacts.
4.2.4 Water Monitoring The overall plan for protection of waterbodies that may be affected by building activities should be discussed. A description of the proposed measures to ensure compliance with applicable water-quality and water-use standards and regulations should also be provided. When compliance involves monitoring, the monitoring program should be described in sufficient detail to justify the ability of the monitoring to provide timely and accurate information so that appropriate actions can be taken to limit building impacts.
4.3 Ecological Resources This section addresses the information related to terrestrial, wetland and aquatic ecological impacts from building activities at the proposed site. The applicant should provide adequate details in the ER to fully determine the impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species and habitats as a result of building activities.
4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Impacts to terrestrial resources should be based on a conservatively estimated footprint of ground disturbance encompassing the plant and associated facilities. The estimated footprint should also account
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 71 for temporary features, such as laydown areas. Estimates of the footprint used in the ER should be conservative enough to characterize terrestrial impacts in a way not overwhelmed by future minor adjustments to the proposed site layout. Supplementary guidance on some of the more common environmental impact analyses capable of providing some of the information outlined below is available in RG 4.11.
Terrestrial Habitats The ER should address the following potential effects on terrestrial habitats from building the proposed facilities:
Proposed methods for land clearing and grubbing vegetation; temporary and permanent erosion, runoff, and sedimentation control; and dust suppression and construction best management practices (BMPs) that might be used.
Overlays of the estimated footprint of disturbance on terrestrial habitat maps, with separate indications for permanent and temporary disturbance.
Tables quantifying each terrestrial habitat type within the estimated footprint with separate quantifications for permanent and temporary impacts for the site and for each offsite corridor or parcel.
Tables or text comparing estimated losses of each terrestrial habitat type against total extent in the vicinity and a discussion of the relative importance of habitat types lost based on functions (e.g., importance to wildlife).
Description of any plans for restoration (e.g., grading, contouring, seeding, and planting) of temporarily disturbed terrestrial habitats and an estimate of the time required for restored habitats to regain pre-disturbance conditions and functionality.
Determination of whether excavation or other site-preparation activities might substantially dewater wetlands or surface waterbodies (e.g., ponds, springs, and seepages) or alter surface drainage patterns in a way that might affect terrestrial biota and a discussion of possible impacts to affected habitats and wildlife.
Wetlands Information on wetland impacts should be as consistent as possible with Federal, State, and local wetland permit applications, and possible discrepancies should be explained. Wetland permit applications are sometimes prepared subsequent to the ER; in such cases, wetland impact data presented in the ER
should be conservative enough to account for likely impact levels ultimately reported in permit applications. The ER should also include information on unregulated wetland impacts, including impacts to wetlands not under regulatory jurisdiction. The ER should include the following:
Estimated disturbance footprint overlaid onto the wetland maps developed for Chapter 2.
Tables estimating wetland impacts using a widely recognized wetland classification system (e.g., the National Wetlands Inventory). Separate data should be provided for each wetland classification and each category of impact (e.g., permanent fill, temporary fill, permanent dredging, and temporary dredging). Separate tables should also be provided for the site and for each offsite parcel or corridor.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 72
Discussion of wetland impacts and their effect on the functions and values of wetlands.
Discussion of construction BMPs that may be used to protect wetlands (e.g., buffers, mats, seasonal work limitations, signage, barriers, special erosion, and sedimentation control methods).
Discussion of applicable Federal, State, and local wetland permit requirements and status of the application(s).
Discussion of anticipated wetland mitigation. Address opportunities for avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts as well as possible compensatory mitigation. For mitigation required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), discuss how it would comply with 33 CFR 332 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Ref. 60). If possible, provide a tabular comparison of possible wetland losses and mitigation gains using a common metric such as functional service units (preferred approach) or acreage.
Wildlife Qualitative discussions of possible effects on terrestrial wildlife are generally sufficient for an ER. However, evaluations should be based on quantitatively estimated causal factors (e.g., noise levels, structure heights, and corridor widths). The ER should include a discussion of the following:
Possible mortality or physical injury to wildlife, especially immobile or weakly mobile species or life stages (e.g., eggs and juvenile stages).
Increased traffic from construction workers that might injure terrestrial wildlife. The proximity of traffic to habitat and possible routes of wildlife movement should be considered.
Noise from building activities that could startle wildlife or alter behavior (e.g., feeding, sheltering, movement, and reproduction).
Habitat losses or degradation that could reduce carrying capacity of habitats in the surrounding landscape.
Habitat losses and fragmentation that may affect movement and migration of wildlife.
Tall structures or equipment (e.g., cranes) that might injure birds and bats, considering height and proximity to migration routes and areas of wildlife concentration.
Important Species and Habitats The ER should include discussions related to the effects of building the proposed project on important terrestrial species and habitats:
The effects on each terrestrial species identified as important using the criteria in Table 2-1.
The effects on future viability of Federal or State-listed endangered, threatened, or special status species.
Any relevant correspondence that has been initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or State, local, or Tribal natural resource agencies about endangered, threatened, or other
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 73 special status species and habitats. The ER should briefly summarize and provide copies of key correspondence (e.g., letters, e-mails, or phone call summaries).
Cross references to the aquatic ecology section below may be appropriate for important species using both terrestrial and aquatic habitats (e.g., crocodilians and some waterfowl).
4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts This section addresses the information related to aquatic ecological impacts from building activities at the proposed site. Applicants should consider the important aquatic species and habitat identified in Chapter 2 that may be affected by the proposed project. Supplementary guidance on some of the more common environmental impact analyses capable of providing some of the information outlined below is available in RG 4.24.
The following information relating to aquatic impacts should be included in the ER:
Identification of the aquatic habitats that may be affected or lost by proposed building activities and description of the proposed construction methods used at these locations.
Discussion of the construction BMPs that might be used to minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
Basis for the proposed location of the intake and discharge structures in relationship to the presence and function of aquatic habitats and biota.
Quantity and quality of habitat temporarily or permanently modified, lost, or fragmented as a result of building activities.
Discussion of the tolerances and/or susceptibilities of important aquatic species on the site and in the vicinity to physical or hydrological alterations, runoff, turbidity, and chemical and noise (both surface and subsurface) pollution that may result from building activities.
Spatiotemporal distribution shifts or behavioral alterations of important species that may result from building activities.
A summary of any correspondence or discussions with FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service or, State, local, or Tribal natural resource agencies about the effect of building activities on important species or habitats, including federally designated critical habitat. Briefly summarize and provide copies of key correspondence (e.g., letters, e-mails, or phone call summaries).
Discussion of anticipated stream mitigation. Address opportunities for avoidance and minimization of stream impacts as well as possible compensatory mitigation. For mitigation required by the USACE, discuss how it would comply with 33 CFR 332. If possible, provide a tabular comparison of possible stream losses and mitigation gains using a common metric such as functional service units (preferred approach) or linear feet.
4.4 Socioeconomics The ER should describe socioeconomic impacts that could occur in the region surrounding the proposed site as a result of building activities. Socioeconomic impacts from building activities occur primarily within the economic region identified in Chapter 2 of this RG. The NRC staff considers the
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 74 economic region to be defined by the demographic characteristics as a subset of the 50-mi region surrounding the proposed site. The scope of the review should be guided by the magnitude and nature of the expected impacts of building the proposed project and by the site-specific community characteristics that may be affected by these activities.
4.4.1 Physical Impacts This section should address the direct physical impacts to the community, including people, buildings, transportation infrastructure (roads, railways, and waterways), and the aesthetic quality of the local viewsheds directly attributable to building activities. The geographic scope for this discussion may be smaller than the economic region because, with the exception of aesthetics, physical impacts typically attenuate rapidly with distance. The applicant should provide the following information in the ER for:
Potential impacts of noise from building activities on nearby residents, and nearby users of recreational facilities. The analysis should be based on the expected exposure of the closest residents to the proposed plant.
Potential impacts of changes in air quality from building activities on nearby residents, and nearby users of recreational facilities. (e.g., odors, fugitive dust, and vehicle and machinery exhaust from building activities).
Potential impacts to onsite and offsite structures from building activities (e.g., foundation damage from vibration caused by blasting or driving of piles).
Description of the impacts resulting from any transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, railways)
realignments necessary to accommodate the project.
The extent of expected road deterioration caused by heavy-haul activities, normal deliveries, and construction worker commuting. Any discussion of traffic-related impacts (e.g., additional congestion) should be deferred to the community infrastructure impacts section below.
Anticipated increases in the repair and maintenance of transportation infrastructure necessary to compensate for expected deterioration.
State or local ordinances, if any, that would require the applicant to contribute to transportation infrastructure improvements or repairs to support the project.
Description of degradation in the aesthetic quality of the viewshed visible to the general public (discussion of aesthetic impacts to recreation should be deferred to the discussion of community infrastructure impacts), including:
- Day and night visibility of the proposed site from changes to the existing landscape (e.g., timbering, clearing, and leveling),
- Tall structures and equipment (e.g., cranes and towers), and
- Night-time light nuisances (e.g., light pollution from work area illumination, aircraft warning lights, and light from night delivery vehicles).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 75
- Description of all mitigating actions to be taken by the applicant and any Federal, State, local, Tribal, and industrial standards, regulations, ordinances, and practices related to reducing the direct physical impacts of building activities.
4.4.2 Demographic Impacts The ER should contain a high-level discussion of expected population changes from building the proposed station with emphasis on demographic subcategories. The discussion of population changes should cover the entire demographic region with a focus on the economic region where the majority of impacts are expected to occur. The applicant should provide the following information in the ER:
Text and summary tables presenting the expected direct workforce impacts on the local population from in-migrating construction workers. The information should account for the incremental increase in employment from operations staff present on the site while the plant is being built.
Estimates, and accompanying assumptions and bases related to the general classifications of labor to be used for the proposed project, and the workforce scheduling, including the following:
- starting date,
- workforce schedule (e.g., hours per week, days per week, number of shifts, and percent of workforce by shift);
- quantified monthly workforce increases and decreases over the entire construction period;
- the magnitude and duration of the peak workforce;
- post-peak workforce reductions; and
- the number and timing for all operations workforce members present on the site during building.
Discussion of expected residency patterns for in-migrating construction workers, including the following:
- expected geographic origin of workers, including from within and outside the economic region, and within and outside the demographic region;
- expected residential distribution of in-migrating workers within the economic region and the demographic region; and
- expected in-migrating family characteristics, including family size, children disaggregated by age group (i.e., generally by non-school, elementary, middle, and high school ages, but may include other cohorts).
Discussion of existing site employment (including outage workers) and the proposed projects workforce (i.e., construction and operations workers) for proposed projects co-located with an operating power station.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 76
4.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community Economic impacts from building activities include the stimulation of local economies toward new employment and new businesses. By definition, the area where these impacts are expected to occur is the economic region. Information from this section will inform the benefit-cost conclusions in Chapter 10 of the ER. The applicant should use an industry-standard economic input-output model to derive the impacts to the economic region from building activities. The discussion should include monetized estimates, to the extent practicable.
Economy The applicant should include the following information in the ER on local economic impacts during building activities:
Identification and description of the input-output model, input parameters used, and results generated. The output from most regional input-output models includes:
- expected direct and indirect employment attributable to building activities; and
- expected direct and indirect income effects attributable to purchases and wages in support of building activities.
Description of all assumptions affecting the conclusions drawn from this section, including the number of workers that drive the model, who will receive the benefits, and where in the economic region those benefits would most likely be found. If impacts are derived from a maximum impact as an input (e.g., peak employment), the discussion should describe how the models conclusions are affected by changes in that maximum impact.
Taxes The applicant should provide a comprehensive list and discussion of the direct tax-revenue impacts attributable to building activities. Typical tax revenues include the following:
Income - Federal, State, County, and local income taxes should be described. The applicant should include in this discussion all assumptions about the number of workers, their wages, and their work schedules that serve to fully inform the calculation of taxes.
Sales and use - the applicant should ensure that, if present, State, County, and local sales and use taxes should be based on the contributions from new residents (i.e., in-migrating workers and their families), and from the applicants estimated local purchases of construction-related services, materials, and supplies. The discussion should include an explanation of the tax rate, the assumptions behind the calculation of revenues, and a monetized estimate for each tax entity.
Property - local property taxes may or may not include revenues from the partially completed project and may be subject to special government incentives, payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreements, or other assessment processes that differ from those for the general public. The discussion should include an explanation of the tax rate, the assumptions behind the calculation of revenues, and a monetized estimate for each tax entity.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 77
4.4.4 Community Infrastructure Impacts Community infrastructure impacts include the expected changes to the communities and governments of the economic region attributable to building activities. Beginning with the baseline assessments found in Chapter 2 of this RG, the applicant should assess the change in each of the following categories and provide a detailed discussion of process and assumptions along with tables and/or figures that illustrate conclusions.
Traffic The infrastructure impact to traffic differs from the physical impact to roads in that this assessment should discuss the consequences of the proposed project in terms of changes to the welfare and behavior of local residents. The discussion should be accompanied by sufficient tables and/or figures to support the analysis. The applicant should include the following information in the ER:
traffic assessments discussing the magnitude and schedule of each shift relative to the baseline traffic for key affected roads;
congestion and accident-related consequences of additional traffic from operations and outage workers for projects co-located with an operating nuclear station; and
congestion and accident-related consequences of additional traffic from construction workers for the proposed project.
Recreation Recreation impacts are the changes in recreational experience caused by changes to the viewshed, local environment, or quality and quantity of access to recreation venues. The applicant should base its recreation-impact determination on the local recreational venues, capacity, occupation rate, and seasonal characteristics provided in Chapter 2 of this RG. The analysis should include the following information:
Aesthetic changes (e.g., lighted heavy machinery, worksite lighting and visual impacts of tall structures or equipment, as discussed under physical impacts) that reduce the attractiveness and enjoyment of recreational venues.
Dust and other visible degradation that could reduce the attractiveness of recreational venues.
Timber harvesting, other resource-extraction or other activities that could reduce the quantity of or eliminate recreational areas.
Demographic changes caused by in-migrating construction workers that could increase competition for access to recreational venues and the impact such increased demand could produce.
Housing The applicant should describe the expected impacts on local housing resources attributable to the site workforce during building activities. The discussion should be accompanied by sufficient tables and/or figures to support the analysis. The housing assessment should include the following:
Expected number of in-migrating workforce members.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 78
The underlying assumptions, including:
- family size,
- in-migrating family residential geographical distribution, and
- assumptions related to housing choice (e.g., rental housing; temporary or mobile housing, such as campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks; and permanent single-family housing options),
- the property tax impacts from new construction of residential properties.
- The location of expected housing resources by type in the context of the total housing resource for each affected county in the economic region (from Chapter 2 of this RG).
Whether the housing demand from new residents creates adverse impacts on the rental market.
Public Services The applicant should describe the expected impacts to public services in the economic region attributable to the building-related in-migrating population. The discussion should be accompanied by sufficient tables and/or figures to support the analysis. The assessment of public services should include the impacts of increasing demand for public services by in-migrating workers and their families:
Estimate of the expected contribution to water and sewer use for each affected community, and the resulting impact to each service in the economic region.
Identification of the potential impact on police or fire services for each affected community in the economic region, including the expected increase in the number of employees (differentiated between duty officers and support staff), and the change in ratio of police or firefighters to the population in order to maintain the current level of service.
Identification of the expected number of new volunteer staff (as opposed to employee staff)
needed to maintain the same ratio of first responder staff to the population served.
Estimate of the expected impacts to medical facilities in the demographic region.
Estimate of the number of students that would be added to schools because of in-migrating families, including the expected change in student-teacher ratios, with a comparison to any mandated maximum ratio.
4.5 Environmental Justice This section should assess whether the pathways identified in the environmental justice (EJ)
section of Chapter 2 of this RG result in any disproportionately high and adverse environmental and human health effects to potentially affected minority or low-income populations (potentially affected EJ
populations) because of building the proposed project. Impacts to minority or low-income populations may arise from building activities at or near the site, in the local communities affected by the proposed project, including in offsite areas such as transmission-line corridors, and in the wider economic and demographic regions.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 79
4.5.1 Environmental Impacts An impact area that had been found to have a minor impact on the general public may still have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on a minority or low-income population. Consequently, the applicant should consider each impact area previously considered for socioeconomics, even if the area had a minor impact. The applicant should discuss in detail only those areas where a potential pathway could result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on potentially affected EJ populations. The discussion should conclude with a determination of whether or not impacts of building would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on potentially affected EJ populations. The ER should also address potential mitigation actions or other mitigating factors that would reduce negative impacts.
4.5.2 Human-Health Effects The applicant should include a qualitative (or quantitative, if more appropriate) discussion in the ER of the human-health pathways by which any environmental impact during building could result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on any potentially affected EJ population, including cultural and economic factors. The discussion should conclude with a determination of whether or not human health impacts of building may result in disproportionately high and adverse human-health effects on any potentially affected EJ population. The ER should also address potential mitigation actions or other mitigating factors that would reduce negative impacts.
4.5.3 Subsistence, Special Conditions, and Unique Characteristics The applicant should describe the effects of building activities on any established resource dependencies, cultural practices, or subsistence behaviors at or in the vicinity of the site, or at offsite areas. The discussion should conclude with a determination of whether or not disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects occur as a result of building the proposed project. The ER should address potential mitigation actions or other mitigating factors that would reduce negative impacts. Such information may include, but is not limited to:
subsistence behavior (i.e., home gardening, hunting, fishing, or other natural resource exploitation as an income supplement),
unique cultural practices (e.g., American Indian religious and ceremonial reliance on natural resources such as sweet grasses, fish, and wild rice),
special circumstances or unique characteristics, (e.g., minority communities identifiable in compact (smaller than a Census block group) locations, such as American Indian communities);
and
any disproportionately high socioeconomic characteristic (e.g., a high dependence on pedestrian transportation).
4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) (54 U.S.C.
300101 et seq.), requires that Federal agencies consider the effects of the agencys undertaking on historic properties included in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places and, before approval of an undertaking, give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The NHPA defines undertakings as any project or activity that is funded or under the direct jurisdiction of a Federal agency, or any project or activity that requires a Federal
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 80
permit, license, or approval. The ACHPs regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, set forth the procedures that define how Federal agencies meet Section 106 responsibilities.
If an applicant decides to commence building activities (e.g., site-preparation activities), the applicant should be cognizant of the anticipatory demolition statutory provision in Section 110(k) of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306113).14 For additional information, the applicant should refer to 36 CFR 800.9(c).
The applicant is encouraged to engage the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff as early as possible in the planning process, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40, Consultation with NRC staff, to avoid issues such as anticipatory demolition.
The applicant should provide the information and analysis needed for the NRC to comply with Section 106 requirements in a manner that minimizes the potential for delays in the environmental review.
The applicant should identify any activities and impacts associated with building that could affect historic and cultural resources within the APE (onsite or offsite, direct and indirect effects). Applicants should involve the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), local historic preservation officials, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and American Indian tribes in the assessment. The ER should include the following information (with appropriate reference to Chapter 2 of the ER to avoid duplication of information):
Description of ground-disturbing activities (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavating, road work, and building the facility), increases in traffic, and audio and visual intrusions that could affect onsite and offsite resources located within the direct and indirect APEs.
Description of historic properties found in the direct and indirect APEs that may be affected by the proposed project. Use the criteria specified in 36 CFR 800.5 to assess adverse effects on historic properties. Provide a basis and documentation for how a conclusion is reached.
Description of historic and cultural resources that are not determined to be historic properties, but may be considered important in the context of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (e.g., sacred sites, cemeteries, local gathering areas).
Discuss the direct and indirect effects (e.g., ground disturbance, physical, visual, auditory, atmospheric such as fugitive dust, light, and traffic), if any, from the proposed project, and from any associated transmission lines on nearby historic properties or important historic and cultural resources.
- For indirect effects, the assessment should include drawings or modified photographs indicating the station facilities and their surroundings, if visible from these nearby important vantage points.
The assessment should lead to one of three conclusions (see 36 CFR 800.4):
- No historic properties present.
- Historic properties present, but the undertaking will have no effect upon them.
14 The NRC is required to comply with the NHPA including the anticipatory demolition clause, Section 110(k) of the NHPA (54 USC 306113).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 81
- Adverse effect: The undertaking will harm one or more historic properties (see 36 CFR
800.5).
If a qualified professional has recommended a no historic properties present determination, then the applicant should provide supporting documentation in the ER.
If a qualified professional has recommended a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties, the applicant should develop a plan that outlines protective measures to minimize or avoid these effects.
The applicant should engage the SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes, and interested parties in the formalization of these protection plans and document this within the ER.
If a qualified professional determines that adverse effects to historic properties could occur, the applicant should engage with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian tribes, and interested parties and document this determination in the ER. The ER should describe any procedures and cultural resource management plans developed by the applicant to protect historic and cultural resources during building activities as well as any measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. These procedures should also include steps to take in the event of inadvertent discoveries, including the discovery of human remains.
The applicant should be aware that the NRC, as a Federal agency, is responsible for consulting with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian tribes, and interested parties as part of the Section 106 compliance process. If the NRC determines an adverse effect may occur, it will, in accordance with
36 CFR Part 800, develop proposed measures in consultation with identified consulting parties that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate such effects. Such measures, as appropriate, would be discussed in the NRC
staffs environmental impact statement. If the NRC staff determines that adverse effects would occur, it can develop a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement (See 36 CFR Part 800.6), as appropriate. See Appendix B for additional information on consultation.
4.7 Air Resources The applicant should describe meteorological and air-quality impacts associated with building activities. The description should include the following:
Identification of applicable local, State, and Federal air regulations and required air permits for construction.
Sources and types of air pollutant emissions, including mitigating measures and plans to minimize air emissions.
Estimates of building schedule and associated annual air emissions for criteria air pollutants identified in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards from sources such as on-road construction vehicles, commuter vehicles, fugitive emissions, non-road construction equipment, marine engines, and/or locomotive engines. If the proposed site is located in a nonattainment or maintenance area with respect to a criteria pollutant, the emission estimates can be used as a basis for assessing the applicability of a conformity analysis (see 40 CFR 93, Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans, Subpart B (Ref. 61), and NRC
Memorandum, Revision to Staff Guidance for Conducting General Conformity Determinations (Ref. 62)).
Estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (expressed in units of carbon dioxide (CO2)
equivalents), including GHG emissions from on-road construction vehicles, commuter vehicles,
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 82 non-road construction equipment, marine engines, and/or locomotive engines and comparison of these GHG emissions to State and national GHG emissions from Chapter 2. The applicant may provide either a site-specific analysis or refer to the generic GHG footprint for a 1000-MW(e)
reactor. The analysis should be adjusted according to the proposed action (number of units, electrical output). The assumptions, factors, and other information used in any site-specific analysis should be described in sufficient detail to allow an independent evaluation and assessment of the resulting GHG emissions estimate (Ref. 15).
The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data used, resulting output, and approaches used in the analyses for building impacts to inform NRC staffs evaluation in the EIS. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., FSAR, DCD or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
4.8 Nonradiological Health The applicant should describe the non-radiological health impacts associated with building activities, including impacts to public and occupational health, noise, and traffic.
4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health The applicant should describe the impacts from building activities on public and worker nonradiological health. The description should include the following:
public health risks from building activities (e.g., air pollution from dust and vehicle emissions)
occupational health risks to workers and onsite personnel from activities such as building, maintenance, testing, excavation and modifications
estimate of the total occupational injuries and illnesses for building activities anticipated for the project, including information on interpretation of the statistical results
description of safety standards, practices, and mitigation procedures that will be used to reduce public and occupational health risks
4.8.2 Noise The applicant should describe noise impacts associated with building activities, including the following:
applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and/or ordinances governing noise from building activities
background noise measurements and closest noise-sensitive receptors or sensitive areas (Chapter 2 of this RG)
types of sources of noise at the site or along transportation routes, such as graders, jackhammers, dump trucks, etc.
predicted peak noise level measurements for each identified source type, along with estimated noise levels at representative distances, with attenuation by distance alone (i.e., not taking
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 83 advantage of any intervening foliage, terrain changes, or permanent barriers between the source and the receptor), measured or calculated at the closest noise-sensitive human receptors identified in Section 2.8.2,
any BMPs and any other mitigation strategies required or planned for noise abatement.
If the measured or calculated noise level from any identified source type exceeds 65 dBA (see NUREG-1437, Initial and Revision 1, for additional information) at any noise-sensitive human receptor or at the site boundary when calculated with attenuation by distance alone, the applicant should determine the noise level that would result from taking advantage of natural attenuation, such as intervening foliage, natural barriers, and changes in terrain. The determination of natural attenuation may be accomplished by the applicant performing a series of leaf-on and leaf-off noise surveys or by using an industry standard modeling or calculation process. If the measured or calculated noise level from the source exceeding the
65 dBA threshold cannot be demonstrated to be reduced through natural attenuation to below the threshold, the applicant should describe specific mitigation measures to be used to reduce the noise level to below 65 dBA.
4.8.3 Transportation of Construction Materials and Personnel to and from the Proposed Site The applicant should provide estimates of the potential health impacts from nonradiological traffic-related accidents related to transporting construction materials and workers to and from the proposed site. Nonradiological impacts refer to the accidents, injuries, and fatalities estimated to occur from traffic accidents during movement of construction materials and personnel to and from the proposed site during building. Where possible, the impacts should be estimated using information specific to the proposed site (e.g., by using county-specific accident statistics). The following information should be provided:
Summary of provisions for site access during building, including during outages of co-located operating units.
Description of the method(s) used to estimate nonradiological traffic-related accident impacts, including traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Traffic-related accident impacts should be estimated using round-trip distances. The impacts should account for both construction workers and shipments of construction materials.
Specification of input parameters and sources used in the impact assessment. Parameters and source documents should be defensible and should be consistent with parameters used for socioeconomic analysis to determine physical impacts to road and traffic assessments for key roads. If assumptions are used to fill in missing or highly uncertain data (e.g., commute distances, persons per vehicle, and shipping distances for materials), the assumptions should be bounding and reasonable (i.e., the assumptions used in the analysis would be broad enough to overestimate the transportation impacts yet not so broad that they could mask the true environmental impacts of the reactor and lead to invalid conclusions). The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data, resulting output, and approaches to allow for NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation, indicate where in those documents this information can be found
Annual number of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 84
4.9 Radiological Health The applicant should evaluate the potential radiological impacts on the proposed projects construction workforce that includes the radiological sources located on the project site or adjacent to the site, such as an operating or shutdown nuclear plant or other nuclear fuel-cycle facility.
For multi-unit sites, the applicant should provide estimated annual doses to construction workers in a new unit construction area, as a result of radiation from onsite radiation sources from the existing operating unit(s). Examples of typical onsite radiation sources include the turbine systems (for boiling water reactors), stored radioactive wastes, the independent spent fuel storage installation, auxiliary and reactor buildings, and radioactive effluents (i.e., direct radiation from the gaseous radioactive effluent plume). The ER should be consistent with the applicable sections of the FSAR, especially for the location of the maximum exposure. Sections 12.3 and 12.4 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP), NUREG-0800
(Ref. 63), directs the staff to perform an assessment of dose to construction workers on a facility adjacent to an existing nuclear unit or units. The applicant should provide the annual person-rem (or person- Sievert) doses associated with such construction areas, providing detailed information as to the estimated number of construction workers and estimated annual doses (from direct, gaseous, and liquid sources) to these workers, including bases, models, assumptions, and input data. The applicant should also describe any additional dose-reducing measures taken as a result of the dose assessment process for specific functions or activities. The applicant should indicate whether it has followed the guidance in the most recent version of RG 8.19 (Ref. 64), Occupational Radiation Dose Assessment in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants - Design Stage Man-Rem Estimates and how the applicant has followed this guidance, if the applicant has done so. Conversely, if the applicant has not followed this guidance, then the specific acceptable alternative methods used should be described in sufficient detail.
The ER should use the same units of measure as used in the FSAR. The ER should include the following:
the physical layout of the site, including the location and orientation of onsite, adjacent existing operating nuclear units or permanently shutdown units
whether the construction worker would be considered a member of the public or a radiation worker and the basis for that assumption
4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures In the ER, the applicant should provide the following:
The sources of direct radiation exposures: These sources should include, but not be limited to, independent spent fuel storage facilities, radioactive waste handling facilities, low-level waste storage facilities, condensate storage tanks, skyshine, and operating or permanently shutdown nuclear facilities co-located at the site.
The estimated dose rate from direct radiation to construction workers from each source and the assumptions and methods used for estimating the dose.
The number and principal locations of construction workers who will be exposed to the radiation sources described below and the total amount of time per year that they will spend at those locations.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 85
4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents In the ER, the applicant should provide the following:
Radioactive gaseous release data from the operating units, co-located units, or permanently shutdown units. The applicant should provide the location of the major gaseous effluent release points. The applicant should address the assumptions for using this release data (the year or years of data used and why this data is used or other release data is used, such as from the design control document (DCD) for the reactor design).
An estimate of the annual total effective dose equivalent from the gaseous effluents to a construction worker, providing the assumptions and methods used to make the estimate.
4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents In the ER, the applicant should provide the following:
Radioactive liquid effluent release data from the operating units, co-located units, or permanently shutdown units. The applicant should provide the location of the major liquid effluent release points. The applicant should address the assumptions for using this release data (the year or years of data used and why this data is used or other release data is used, such as from the DCD for the reactor design).
An estimate of the annual total effective dose equivalent from the liquid effluents to a construction worker, providing the assumptions and methods used to make the estimate.
4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers In the ER, the applicant should provide the following:
Estimated annual dose to an individual construction worker, including the location of maximum exposure, all models, assumptions, and input data used in arriving at the dose.
Estimated annual collective dose to the construction work force, including all models, assumptions, and input data used in arriving at the dose.
If construction workers are classified as members of the public, a comparison of the estimated annual dose to an individual construction worker to the dose criteria for a member of the public
(10 CFR 20.1301, Dose limits for individual members of the public; 20.1302, Compliance with dose limits for individual members of the public). If construction workers are classified as radiation workers (which would require certain training), compare the individual construction worker dose to; 10 CFR 20.1201, Occupational dose limits for adults; 20.1203, Determination of external dose from airborne radioactive material; and 20.1204, Determination of internal exposure (Ref. 65).
4.10
Nonradioactive Waste Management The applicant should describe the environmental impacts that could result from the generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste during building activities. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this RG, the types of nonradioactive waste that would be generated, handled, and disposed of during building activities should be described. These would include cleared vegetation, building material debris,
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 86 municipal waste, spoils, stormwater runoff, sanitary waste, dust and other air emissions, used oils and lubricants from vehicle maintenance, and other hazardous chemicals.
4.10.1 Impacts to Land The applicant should describe the impacts to the land resulting from generation, handling and disposal of nonradioactive waste during building of the project. The description should include the following:
summary of pertinent portions of the discussion from the section related to land-use impacts from building activities;
plans for storing and disposing of cleared vegetation or soil, rock or other resulting debris;
general description of onsite waste expected to be generated, including types and approximate quantities, from building and equipment maintenance activities and the workforce; and
plans for disposal of waste, including plans to minimize or recycle generated waste.
4.10.2 Impacts to Water The applicant should describe the impacts from liquid waste generated during building activities.
The description should include the following:
Types of liquid waste generated during building and equipment maintenance activities.
Typically, liquid wastes are from sanitary wastewater-treatment systems and stormwater runoff or from vehicle maintenance activities.
Plans for onsite or offsite treatment of liquid waste.
Any State or local codes or regulations that require provisions for treatment.
Permits required for treatment and disposal of liquid waste.
4.10.3 Impacts to Air The applicant should describe the building activities that would generate impacts to air quality, including GHGs. The applicant should identify if these impacts have been addressed in the Air Resources section of this Chapter. The description should include the following:
Activities that would generate dust or emissions that might impact the air quality (e.g., burning vegetation and combustion of fuel in equipment). Include any temporary activities that might be necessary for building activities (e.g., an onsite concrete batch plant). Activities could be onsite or along transmission corridors.
Any State or local codes that govern air quality (e.g., bans on burning materials).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 87
4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction Activities Environmental measures and controls may be required by Federal, State, and local agencies during building activities to minimize effects to the environment. The applicant should identify in Table
4-1 the Federal, State or local requirement or best management practice (BMP) for the measure or control.
In addition to the discussion of the effects of building, the applicant should furnish details of the programs with which it plans to monitor activities affecting site-related environmental resources and quality, and describe the duration of these efforts. A description of the measures and monitoring required for compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental regulations and laws should also be provided for each resource area. The description should include plans for restoration, protection of resources or development of appropriate substitutes, and measures taken to control adverse impacts to resources. The applicant should describe measures designed to mitigate or reverse undesirable effects such as those described previously for each resource area. Table 4-1 is an example of the types of measures and controls to be documented.
Table 4-1. Summary of Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction Activities Impact Category Planned Measures and Controls During Construction Land-Use Impacts
Site and Vicinity Measures and controls that minimize impacts Transmission Corridors Measures and controls that minimize impacts Offsite Areas Measures and controls that minimize impacts Water-Related Impacts
Hydrologic Alterations Measures and controls that describe alterations to surface waters and flow and groundwater Water Use Measures and controls that describe availability of use of surface water and groundwater resources Water Quality Measures and controls that minimize impacts on surface water and groundwater resources Ecological Impacts
Terrestrial Ecosystems Measures and controls to minimize adverse impacts on terrestrial resources (including wetlands) onsite, offsite, and special permitting that may be required for managed species Aquatic Ecosystems Measures and controls to minimize adverse impacts on aquatic resources onsite, offsite, and special permitting that may be required for managed species Socioeconomic Impacts Physical, Economic (Economy and Taxes), and Socioeconomic (Traffic-,
Recreation-, Housing-, Public Services- and Education-related) measures and controls to mitigate impacts.
Environmental Justice Measures and controls that minimize impacts Historic and Cultural Resources Measures for identification, consultation, and preservation following discovery Air Resources Controls to minimize dust, emissions
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 88 Impact Category Planned Measures and Controls During Construction Nonradiological Health Measures and controls for worker safety Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers Controls and monitoring for minimization of dose to construction workers Nonradioactive Waste Disposal plan for solid, liquid, gaseous wastes, sanitary waste
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 89 Chapter 5
5.0
Environmental Impacts from Operation of the Proposed Plant The environmental report (ER) should adequately describe the impacts of operating the proposed plant as required in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.45(c), including offsite facilities that support operation of the plant (e.g., transmission lines, pipelines). For each impact category in Chapter 5, the ER should identify the measures and controls that would be used to mitigate and limit adverse operational environmental impacts. Specific information to include in the ER, as part of, or in addition to, the description of impacts, is covered in the following sections.
5.1 Land Use The greatest land-use impacts are typically associated with building activities. Land-use impacts associated with operations are expected to be minimal because activities are generally restricted to previously disturbed areas of the site or offsite areas (e.g., outage worker parking, temporary access routes, periodic vegetation clearing, landscaping, and sporadic access closures). The scope of the review is guided by the magnitude and nature of the expected impacts associated with proposed plant operations and site-specific characteristics. Impacts should be quantified to the extent possible using acreage, volumetric, or chronological measures.
5.1.1 Onsite Impacts The following information relating to the land-use impacts associated with operations should be included in the ER:
characterization of any land-disturbance activities expected during operations (e.g., maintenance and operations activities and construction of additional waste storage facilities, including an independent spent fuel storage installation [ISFSI])
discussion of any anticipated land-use classification conversions summarized by acreage
discussion of any changes in land uses on agricultural, forestry, or mineral extraction activities or on floodplains or wetlands (can cross-reference other sections of ER where possible)
description of impacts to the provisions of any affected local or regional land-use or economic- development plans associated with operations
description of any disruption to land- or water-resource access issues or concerns during operations
description of any disruption to existing land uses or private land access issues or concerns at the site or vicinity caused by operations
5.1.2 Offsite Impacts The following information relating to the land-use impacts associated with operations in offsite areas should be included in the ER:
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 90
discussion of expected transmission-line corridor maintenance activities during operations affecting land use
characterization of any land-disturbance activities in other offsite areas expected during operations
discussion of land-use classification conversions summarized by acreage
description of impacts to local or regional land-use or economic-development plans from operations in offsite areas
description of any disruption to land- or water-resource access required to facilitate operations
description of any disruption to existing land uses or private land access at the site or vicinity caused by operations
description of any possible disruption to hazardous waste cleanup activities
discussion of any changes in land uses on agricultural, forestry, or mineral extraction activities or on floodplains or wetlands (can cross-reference other sections of ER where possible)
5.2 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
The applicant should describe the hydrologic alterations associated with station operation and the resulting impacts on consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses and on water quality. In evaluating water-related impacts, the applicant should consider the effects of reasonably foreseeable changes in the hydrologic environment (e.g., climate, land use, and water use) over the duration of the license for the resource impact area.
5.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations The applicant should describe the operational activities expected to result in hydrologic alterations at the site, within transmission corridors, and offsite within the resource impact area. Examples of operational activities that might affect water use and water quality include withdrawal of water for station use, surface-water diversions, maintenance dredging, groundwater dewatering, and effluent discharge, etc. The description should include analyses of the resulting hydrologic alterations and the physical effects of these alterations on water uses and users (quantity and quality); practices proposed to minimize hydrologic alterations having adverse effects; and an assessment of compliance with the applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and American Indian Tribal standards and regulations.
Station water use and discharge of effluents during operation are requested in Chapter 3 of this RG. The applicant should identify those water supply and water quality conditions under which station operation would be affected (e.g., high-water levels, derating caused by insufficient supply of cooling water, etc.).
The ER should include a description of the following:
Anticipated hydrologic alterations resulting from station operation. For example, the applicant should discuss alterations in water levels and groundwater heads; alterations in flow rates and circulation patterns caused by diversion, intake, and discharge structures; and alterations in erosion, deposition, and sediment transport characteristics.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 91
The effects of these alterations on the quantity and availability of water within the resource impact area. For example, the applicant should assess, as applicable, how hydrologic alterations affect river discharge (including changes in the seasonal variation of flow) or groundwater discharge to wetlands.
The effects of effluent discharge on the water quality of the receiving waterbodies. Thermal, chemical, and radiological effects should be evaluated.
The proposed actions to minimize the effects of the hydrologic alterations.
List of required permits and certifications under the applicable Federal, state and local standards and regulations.
When a mathematical model is used to evaluate the effects of hydrologic alterations, the applicant should describe the conceptual basis for the model (including the rationale for eliminating plausible alternative conceptualizations), the assumptions used in developing the model, the range of applicability of the model, input data used, the resulting output, the basis for boundary conditions, parameter estimation and calibration procedures followed, and estimates of uncertainty in model forecasts. The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, data, and approaches to allow for NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), design control document (DCD) or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts The applicant should identify those water uses and water users discussed in Chapter 2 of this RG
that are potentially affected by the changes in the quantity and/or availability of water resulting from hydrologic alterations. The applicant should evaluate the water use impacts by quantifying the anticipated reduction in water supply reliability for each water use and provide a description of the analyses performed to determine the impacts during operations.
5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts The applicant should identify those water uses and water users discussed in Chapter 2 of this RG
that are potentially affected by the changes in water quality resulting from hydrologic alterations during operations. The applicant should evaluate the impacts by quantifying the anticipated reduction in each use resulting from the changes in water quality and provide a description of the analyses performed to determine the impacts.
5.2.4 Water Monitoring The overall plan for protection of waterbodies that may be affected by station operations should be discussed. A description of the proposed measures to ensure compliance with applicable water quality and water use standards and regulations should also be provided. When compliance involves monitoring, the operational monitoring program should be described in sufficient detail to establish the ability of the monitoring to provide timely and accurate information so that appropriate actions can be taken to limit the impacts of station operations.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 92
5.3 Ecological Resources This section addresses the information related to terrestrial, wetland and aquatic ecological impacts from operations at the proposed site. The applicant should provide adequate details in the ER to fully determine the impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species and habitats resulting from nuclear power plant operations.
5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Operation of a nuclear power plant, once built, does not normally involve further physical loss of terrestrial habitats or wetlands but can still affect habitat quality and wildlife. Supplementary guidance on some of the more common terrestrial ecology environmental impact analyses is available in the most recent revision of RG 4.11.
Terrestrial Habitats The ER should include a discussion of the following potential effects on terrestrial habitats from operating the proposed facilities:
Effects on terrestrial habitats from land-disturbance activities expected (e.g., construction of additional waste storage facilities, including an ISFSI installation if the applicant has current plans to build such a facility).
Effects on terrestrial habitats from facility and landscape maintenance activities (e.g., pesticide use, mowing, danger tree trimming and removal, and trampling by heavy equipment).
Effects of runoff and stormwater management on wetlands and other terrestrial habitats. Ensure compatibility with hydrology sections.
Salinity from cooling-tower drift, or drift from operating other facilities (e.g., evaporation ponds)
that potentially could affect terrestrial resources. If the maximum estimated ground-level salinity deposition exceeds 1 kg/ha/mo at any location at any time, also include deposition isopleths overlaid on terrestrial habitat maps and an estimate of the area of each habitat type included in each isopleth band.
Fogging and icing that could affect terrestrial species and habitats.
Operation of cooling ponds, evaporation ponds, and other operational water features that could affect adjoining wetlands and other terrestrial habitats.
Use of groundwater and surface water that could affect terrestrial habitats (e.g., wetlands, shorelines, and riparian habitats). An overlay of modeled groundwater withdrawal isopleths over terrestrial habitat maps may be helpful if withdrawals could be capable of causing substantial habitat modifications. Information should be consistent with similar information presented in the aquatic ecology and hydrology sections of the ER.
Wetlands Operating a nuclear power plant does not normally involve filling wetlands. However, wetlands are a habitat type that should be addressed together with upland (non-wetland) terrestrial habitat types.
Particular attention should be paid to the possibility that groundwater withdrawals could affect the
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 93 hydrology of nearby wetlands and that surface-water withdrawals could affect nearby shorelines and wetlands fringing water sources.
Wildlife The ER should include a discussion of the following potential effects on terrestrial wildlife during operations:
Effects of operational noise (e.g., mechanical noise, vehicular noise, and noise from cooling towers) on terrestrial wildlife. Estimated noise isopleth overlays may be helpful if noise levels exceeding 85 dBA are anticipated in areas of high-quality habitat.
Loss or injury of wildlife caused by traffic. Wildlife movement and migration patterns over the surrounding landscape should be considered. The discussion should remain consistent with traffic-related discussions presented elsewhere in the ER.
Effects on terrestrial wildlife from maintaining transmission-line rights-of-way and other exterior areas and corridors.
Injury to birds and bats colliding with tall structures (e.g., natural draft cooling towers, communication towers, and electric transmission lines).
Electrocution of birds and other wildlife by transmission lines and other electrical facilities.
Effects on terrestrial wildlife from electromagnetic radiation generated at switchyards and along electric transmission lines.
Important Species and Habitats Applicants should carefully consider which species and habitats that meet the criteria for importance in Table 2-1 could potentially be affected over the operational life of the proposed plant. The ER should include the following information with respect to potential effects of operations on important species and habitats:
A discussion of how operation could affect terrestrial species and habitats identified as important using the criteria in Table 2-1.
A discussion of any relevant correspondence that has been initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or State, local, or Tribal natural resource agencies about endangered, threatened or other special status species and habitats. The applicant should briefly summarize and provide copies of key correspondence (including requests and responses by letters, e-mail, or phone call summaries).
Cross-references to the aquatic ecology section below may be appropriate for important species using both terrestrial and aquatic habitats (e.g., crocodilians and some waterfowl).
5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Operation of a nuclear power plant would affect the aquatic environment. Supplementary guidance on aquatic ecology environmental impact analyses is available in RG 4.24.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 94 The ER should include the following information relating to operational aquatic impacts:
Description of the water withdrawal and consumptive water use from station operations and its effects on aquatic resources.
Discussion of the conformance of the proposed intake structure to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act Section 316(b) national technology-based performance and proportional-flow requirements (66 FR 65256) (Ref. 66) for Phase I for new facilities.
Information on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the proposed site and/or current NPDES permit for existing units sited in proximity to the proposed units.
Description of the susceptibility of important aquatic species at specific life stages to entrainment, and impingement in conjunction with operation of the plant cooling-system and entrainment or impingement rates from operation of the plant using data from studies as discussed in RG 4.24, including existing historical data from studies from co-located or nearby nuclear or fossil units.
Discussion of stock assessments, if available and appropriate, as a metric for impact to the species for those important species potentially affected by station operation.
Discussion of species and habitats that may be adversely affected by periodic operations (e.g., thermal backwashing).
Discussion of species that may be affected by potential adverse effects from recirculation of heated effluent from the plant-discharge system, and altered hydrodynamic characteristics including altered circulation or current patterns. Discussion of habitats affected by the cooling- water system including bottom scouring near the discharge.
Discussion of the temperature tolerance, duration of exposure, and avoidance behavior of susceptible important aquatic species in relation to thermal discharge, including heat shock and cold shock, at all affected life stages. This discussion should be based on a model, map and description of the thermal plume and should include variation seasonally and throughout the water column.
Description of any potential changes to vectors causing aquatic species disease as a result of thermal discharges.
Description of any potential changes to numbers of nuisance, invasive, and introduced species, including fish, aquatic vegetation and benthic invertebrates (e.g., Corbicula spp. or Mytilus spp.)
onsite or in the vicinity of the proposed plant as a result of thermal discharges.
Discussion of effects on important aquatic species resulting from chemical alterations (e.g., changes in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and biocides) to the receiving waterbody. Consider effects from both cooling-tower drift and cooling-system discharges.
Discussion of effects on important aquatic species resulting from physical alterations (e.g., maintenance dredging to the receiving waterbody) including its substrate and aquatic vegetation.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 95
Description of any transmission-line and pipeline corridor maintenance practices anticipated to adversely affect aquatic biota.
Summary of any relevant correspondence or discussions with FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service or State, local, or Tribal natural resource agencies on the endangered, threatened or other special status species and habitats, including federally designated critical habitat. Briefly summarize and provide copies of key correspondence (including requests and responses by letters, e-mail, or phone call summaries).
5.4 Socioeconomics The ER should describe the socioeconomic impacts from operations on the economic region identified in Chapter 2 of this RG. However, the analysis should consider the entire 50-mi radius of the demographic region surrounding the site when appropriate. The scope of the review is guided by the magnitude and nature of the expected impacts associated with operations and by the site-specific community characteristics.
5.4.1 Physical Impacts This section should address the physical impacts to the community, including people, buildings, roads, and the aesthetic quality of the local viewsheds directly attributable to operations. Physical impacts include the effects of noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusion. The geographic scope for this discussion may be smaller than the economic region, because physical impacts typically attenuate rapidly with distance. The applicant should provide the following information in the ER:
Potential noise impacts directly attributable to operational activities to nearby residents and nearby users of recreational facilities. The applicant should base its analysis on the impacts to the closest residences, recreation areas, and facilities to the proposed plant.
Potential impacts of odors from operational activities on nearby residents and nearby users of recreational facilities. The analysis should be based on the expected exposure of the closest residences, recreation areas, and facilities to the proposed plant.
Potential impacts of changes in air quality from operational activities (e.g., auxiliary generator exhaust) on nearby residences, recreation areas, and facilities.
Potential impacts to structures from operational activities (e.g. damage to structures from cooling tower drift (salt deposition)).
The extent of expected deterioration in the transportation infrastructure (roads, rails, waterways)
caused by heavy-haul activities, normal deliveries, and worker commuting, including any anticipated increases in necessary road repair and maintenance. Discussion of traffic-related impacts (e.g., additional congestion) should be deferred to the discussion of community infrastructure impacts.
Description of degradation in the aesthetic quality of the viewshed visible to the general public (discussion of aesthetics impacts to recreation should be addressed as community infrastructure impacts), including:
- day and night visibility of new structures or the cooling tower plumes at the proposed site in conflict with the existing viewshed (e.g., tall structures blocking views), and
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 96
- nighttime light nuisances (e.g., light pollution from the security lighting, warning lights for aircraft and lights from night delivery vehicles)
Description of all mitigating actions to be taken by the applicant and any Federal, State, local, and Tribal, regulations, ordinances, and practices for mitigating the direct physical impacts of operational activities.
5.4.2 Demographic Impacts The ER should contain a high-level discussion of expected population changes from operation with emphasis on demographic subcategories. The discussion of population changes should cover the entire demographic region with a focus on the economic region where the majority of impacts are expected to occur. The applicant should provide the following information in the ER:
Total expected in-migrating operations workforce by county and, if appropriate, community, including:
- family size and age of children disaggregated into age group as discussed in Chapter 4,
- discussion and rationale for the expected residency
- summary tabular presentation of expected operations and outage workforce impacts by geographic area (i.e., by county and, if useful, major urban area)
Discussion of the expected geographic location of operations workers already within the economic and demographic regions.
5.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community Economic impacts from operation activities include the stimulation of local economies toward new employment and new businesses. By definition, the area where these impacts are expected to occur is the economic region. Information from this section will inform the benefit-cost conclusions in Chapter 10
of the ER. The applicant should use an industry-standard economic input-output model to derive the impacts to the economic region from operation activities. The discussion should include monetized estimates, to the extent practicable.
Economy The applicant should include in the ER the following information relating to local economic impacts during operations over the licensed life of the proposed plant:
Identification and description of the input-output model, input parameters used, and results generated. The output from most regional input-output models includes:
- expected direct and indirect employment attributable to operations
- expected direct and indirect income effects attributable to purchases and wages in support of operations
Description of all assumptions affecting the conclusions drawn from this section, including the number of workers that drive the model, who will receive the benefits, and where in the economic
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 97 region those benefits would most likely be found. The discussion should describe how the models conclusions are affected by changes in the assumed number of workers.
Taxes To the extent possible the applicant should quantify direct tax-revenue impacts attributable to operation of the proposed project, based on the tax rate data from Chapter 2. Typical tax revenue discussions include the following:
Income - Federal, state, and county income taxes during operations. The applicant should include in this discussion all assumptions about the number of workers, their wages, and their work schedule to fully inform the calculation of taxes.
Sales and use - If present, state, county, and local sales and use taxes should be reported based on the contributions from new residents (i.e., in-migrating workers and their families) and from the applicants estimated local purchases of operations-related services, materials, and supplies. The discussion should include an explanation of the tax rate, the assumptions behind the calculation of revenues, and a monetized estimate for each tax entity.
Property - Local property taxes during operations will most likely be the largest beneficial impact from the proposed project and may be subject to special government incentives, fee-in-lieu-of-tax agreements, or other assessment processes that differ from those for the general public. The discussion should refer to the baseline in Chapter 2 and include quantifying (in monetary terms)
property tax payments over the 40-year life of the project.
5.4.4 Community Infrastructure Impacts Community impacts include all changes to the communities and governments of the economic region attributable to operations. Beginning with the baseline assessments found in Chapter 2, the applicant should assess the change in each of the following categories and provide a detailed discussion of process and assumptions, tables and/or figures that support the applicants conclusions:
Traffic The infrastructure impact to traffic differs from the physical impact to roads in that this assessment should discuss operations-related changes to the welfare and behavior of local residents primarily through traffic congestion during commuting times. The discussion should be accompanied by sufficient tables and/or figures to support the analysis. The applicant should include traffic assessments discussing the magnitude and schedule of each shift relative to the baseline traffic for the key affected roads for all operations workers, as well as congestion and accident-related consequences from outage workers.
Recreation Recreation impacts are the changes in recreational experience caused by operations-related changes to the viewshed, local environment, or quality/quantity of access to recreation venues. The applicant should base its recreation impact determinations on the local recreational venues, capacity, occupancy rate, and seasonal characteristics provided in Chapter 2 of this RG. The analysis should include, but not be limited to, the following information:
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 98
Aesthetic changes (e.g., impaired views and visible emissions) as discussed under physical impacts that reduce the attractiveness of and enjoyment of recreational venues.
Dust, plumes or any other degradations to visibility that could reduce the attractiveness of recreational venues.
Potential noise impacts directly attributable to operational activities to nearby recreational venues.
Demographic changes resulting from the in-migrating operations workforce that could cause additional competition for access to recreational venues and the impact that such increased demand could produce.
Housing The applicant should describe the expected impacts on local housing resources attributable to the operations workforce over the 40-year life of the proposed project. Sufficient tables and/or figures to support the analysis should accompany all discussion. The housing assessment should include the following:
The expected number of in-migrating workforce members.
The underlying assumptions, including:
- family size
- operations worker residential distribution
- assumptions related to housing choice (e.g., rental housing, purchase of existing homes versus new construction)
- the property tax impacts from new construction of residential properties.
The location of expected housing resources by type in the context of the total housing resource for each affected county in the economic region (from Chapter 2).
Whether the housing demand for new residents creates adverse impacts on the rental market.
Public Services The applicant should describe the expected impacts to public services in the economic region attributable to the operations-related in-migrating population. The discussion should be accompanied by sufficient tables and/or figures to support the analysis. The assessment of public services should include the impacts of increasing demand for public services by workers and their families:
Estimate of the expected contribution to water and sewer use for each affected community, and the resulting impact to each service in the economic region.
Identification of the potential impact on police or fire services for each affected community in the economic region, including the expected increase in the number of employees (differentiated between duty officers and support staff), and the change in ratio of police or firefighters to population in order to maintain the current level of service.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 99
Identification of the expected number of new volunteer staff (as opposed to employee staff)
needed to maintain the same ratio of first responder staff to population served.
Estimate of the expected impacts to medical facilities in the demographic region.
Estimate of the number of students that would be added because of in-migrating families, including the expected change in student-teacher ratios, with a comparison to any mandated maximum ratio.
5.5 Environmental Justice This section should assess whether the pathways identified in the environmental justice (EJ)
section for the affected environment (Chapter 2 of this RG) result in any disproportionately high and adverse environmental and human health effects to minority or low-income populations (potentially affected EJ populations) during operation. Impacts to the minority and low-income populations could arise from operational activities at or near the site, in the local communities affected by the proposed project (including in offsite areas such as transmission-line corridors), and in the wider economic and demographic regions.
The applicant should consider the potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts for each socioeconomic impact area even if that area was determined to have a minor impact for the general population. The applicant should assess each of the pathways identified in Section 2.5.2 of this RG
against each socioeconomic impact area with regard to the potential for operation-related EJ impacts. The applicant will need to consult across the resource areas covered in the ER to determine whether impacts from operations could create a pathway leading to disproportionately high and adverse impact on potentially affected EJ populations.
5.5.1 Environmental Impacts The applicant should consider each impact area previously identified in the socioeconomics section for operation, even if the area had a minor impact, and discuss those impact areas where a potential pathway could result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on potentially affected EJ
populations. The discussion should conclude with a determination of whether or not impacts of operations would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on potentially affected EJ populations. The ER should also address potential mitigation actions or other mitigating factors that could reduce negative impacts.
5.5.2 Human-Health Effects The applicant should include a qualitative (or quantitative, if more appropriate) discussion in the ER of the human-health pathways by which any environmental impact during operation could result in disproportionate impacts on any minority or low-income population (including radiological, cultural and economic factors). The discussion should conclude with a determination of whether or not human health impacts of operation could result in disproportionately high and adverse human-health effects during operations. The ER should address potential mitigation actions or other mitigating factors that would reduce negative impacts.
5.5.3 Subsistence, Special Conditions, and Unique Characteristics The applicant should describe the effects of operational activities on any established resource dependencies, cultural practices, or subsistence behaviors at or in the vicinity of the site, or at offsite
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 100
areas. The discussion should conclude with a determination of whether or not disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects could occur as a result of operations. The ER should address potential mitigation actions or other mitigating factors that would reduce negative impacts. Such information may include, but is not limited to:
subsistence behavior (i.e., hunting, fishing, or other natural resource exploitation as an income supplement)
unique cultural practices (e.g., American Indian Tribal religious and ceremonial reliance on natural resources such as sweet grasses, fish, and wild rice)
special circumstances or unique characteristics, (e.g., minority communities identifiable in compact (smaller than a census block) locations, such as American Indian communities)
any disproportionately high socioeconomic characteristic (e.g., a high dependence on pedestrian transportation.)
5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA)
(54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.), requires that Federal agencies consider the effects of the agencys undertaking on historic properties included in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places and, before approval of an undertaking, give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The NHPA defines undertakings as any project or activity that is funded or under the direct jurisdiction of a Federal agency, or any project or activity that requires a Federal permit, license, or approval. The ACHPs regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, set forth the procedures that define how Federal agencies meet Section 106 responsibilities.
Although the NRC retains the responsibility to formally initiate the Section 106 review, the applicant should provide information and analysis for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to comply with Section 106 requirements in a manner that minimizes the potential for delays in the environmental review. The applicant should identify any activities and impacts associated with the period of plant operations, including maintenance-related and reasonably foreseeable future construction activities (e.g., warehouse, ISFSI), that could affect historic and cultural resources within the area of potential effects (APE) (onsite or offsite, direct and indirect effects). The applicant should provide a site utilization plan that includes the location of reasonably foreseeable future construction activities.
Applicants should involve the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), local historic preservation officials, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and American Indian Tribes in the assessment.
The ER should include the following information (with appropriate reference to Chapter 2 of the ER to avoid duplication of information):
Description of any operational activities, including maintenance activities that could affect onsite or offsite resources (e.g., ground-disturbing activity not discussed in Chapter 4, increases in traffic, and noise and visual intrusions (i.e., cooling towers and other plant structures)).
Description of historic properties found in the direct and indirect APEs that may be affected by operational activities. The criteria specified in 36 CFR 800.5 should be used to assess adverse effects to historic properties. The assessment should provide a basis and documentation for how a conclusion is reached.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 101
Description of the effects associated with operation, including maintenance activities on historic and cultural resources that are not determined to be historic properties, but may be considered by SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes, or members of the public to have cultural significance/importance in the context of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (e.g., sacred sites, cemeteries, local gathering areas).
Discuss the direct and indirect effects (e.g., ground disturbance, physical, visual, auditory, atmospheric such as fugitive dust, light, and traffic), if any, from the period of plant operations, including maintenance-related and reasonably foreseeable future construction activities (e.g.,
warehouse, ISFSI), on nearby historic properties or important historic and cultural resources.
For indirect effects, the assessment should include drawings or modified photographs indicating the station facilities and their surroundings, if visible from these nearby important vantage points.
The assessment should lead to one of three conclusions (see 36 CFR 800.4):
- No historic properties present.
- Historic properties present but the undertaking will have no effect upon them.
- Adverse effect: The undertaking will harm one or more historic properties (see 36 CFR
800.5).
If a qualified professional (see Section 2.6.2) has recommended a no historic properties present determination, then the applicant should provide supporting documentation in the ER.
If a qualified professional has recommended a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties, the applicant should develop a plan that outlines protective measures to minimize or avoid these effects.
The applicant should engage the SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes, and interested parties in the formalization of these protection plans and document this within the ER.
If a qualified professional determines that adverse effects to historic properties occur, the applicant should engage with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian Tribes and interested parties and document this determination in the ER. The ER should describe any procedures and cultural resource management plans developed by the applicant to protect historic and cultural resources during operations, as well as any measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. These procedures should also include steps to take in the event of inadvertent discoveries, including the discovery of human remains.
The applicant should be aware that the NRC, as a Federal agency, is responsible for consulting with the SHPO, THPO, American Indian tribes and interested parties as part of the Section 106 compliance process. If the NRC determines an adverse effect will occur, it will, in accordance with Part
800, develop proposed measures in consultation with identified consulting parties that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate such effects. Such measures, as appropriate, would be discussed in the NRC staffs environmental impact statement (EIS). If the NRC staff determines that adverse effects would occur, it can develop a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement (See 36 CFR Part 800.6), as appropriate. See Appendix B for additional information on consultation.
5.7 Air Resources The ER should adequately describe the impacts to the atmosphere from cooling-system operations, as well as the impacts to air quality from operation of the proposed plant and associated
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 102 transmission lines. The scope of the review is based on the magnitude and nature of the expected impacts associated with the operations and the characteristics of the site and vicinity. The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data used, resulting output, and approaches used in the analyses for operation impacts to allow for NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., FSAR, DCD or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
5.7.1 Cooling-System Impacts The applicant should describe atmospheric impacts from cooling-system operations. The description should include the following:
type of cooling system
cooling-system characteristics (e.g., the number of towers and fans, location, elevation above sea- level, tower physical dimensions, and release height)
performance characteristics (e.g., air and water mass flow rates, water temperature entering and leaving the tower, air temperature leaving the tower, and amount of heat released)
drift characteristics (e.g., drift rate, drift droplet size distributions, and concentration of dissolved and suspended solids).
analytical technique(s) for estimating cooling-system impacts (e.g., model and meteorological data used)
estimates of cooling-system impacts at the site and vicinity, including the following:
- monthly and/or seasonal and annual plume lengths
- monthly and/or seasonal and annual additional hours of fogging and icing
- monthly and/or seasonal and annual amounts and locations of salt deposition
- monthly and/or seasonal and annual increases in humidity and precipitation, including snowfall
- potential local weather modification from cloud formation/shadowing
- interactions of plume with other pollutant sources
5.7.2 Air-Quality Impacts The applicant should describe air-quality impacts associated with operations. The description should include the following:
Identification of applicable Federal, State, and local air regulations and required air permits for operation.
Sources and types of air pollutant emissions, including mitigating measures, and plans to minimize air emissions.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 103
Estimates of annual air emissions for criteria air pollutants identified in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards from sources such as diesel generators, engines, boilers, cooling towers, and commuter vehicles. If the proposed site is located in a nonattainment or maintenance area with respect to a criteria pollutant, the emission estimates can be used as a basis for assessing the applicability of a conformity analysis (see 40 CFR 93, Subpart B and NRC Memorandum Revision to Staff Guidance for Conducting General Conformity Determinations).
Estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (expressed in units of CO2 equivalents) resulting from station operation, including GHG emissions from standby diesel generators and workforce transportation. The applicant should compare these GHG emissions to State and national GHG
emissions and, if available, State or Public Utility Commission GHG emission reduction goals (from Chapter 2). The applicant may provide either site-specific estimates or refer to the generic GHG footprint for a 1000-MW(e) reactor. The analysis should be adjusted according to the proposed action (number of units, electrical output). The assumptions, factors, and other information used in any site-specific analysis should be described in sufficient detail to allow an independent evaluation and assessment of the resulting GHG emissions estimate (Ref. 15).
5.7.3 Transmission-Line Impacts The applicant should describe air-quality impacts associated with transmission lines, including a description and quantification of ozone (O3) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) production associated with power transmission.
5.8 Nonradiological Health The applicant should address nonradiological human health impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant. This includes a discussion of health impacts on the public and workers from operation of the cooling system, noise generated by operations, electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and transportation. In addition, the applicant should address any other sources of potential nonradiological health impacts (e.g., chemical).
5.8.1 Etiological Agents and Emerging Contaminants The applicant should describe the operation of systems that might increase the presence and distribution of etiological agents and emerging contaminants that affect human health. These include the operation of cooling systems (e.g., release of thermal discharges into reservoirs or rivers, and cooling towers). The discussion should include the following:
Type of cooling system, the source and discharge waterbody.
Types of etiological agents that may be present.
Temperature increase expected for the aquatic environment from the plants thermal discharge. If discharge of blowdown water is to a river, the contribution of discharge to total flow and the change in water temperature should be described. Seasonal differences in temperature should also be described.
The pathways for public and worker exposure from cooling system discharge (e.g., use of reservoir for recreational activities, collection of shellfish in thermal discharge, or workers performing cooling tower maintenance).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 104
Suspected contributing factors related to the incidence of disease should be discussed. Potential linkage between operation and these agents should be provided. Historical records of disease incidence should be presented.
The potential pathways for the transfer of contaminants and materials in the reclaimed water or impaired surface waters to both the public and station workforce should be addressed. Transfer of these chemicals and compounds to members of the public and the workforce could occur as a result of maintenance and operation of the station cooling systems as well as from the disposal of sanitary wastes. Releases from the proposed facility in the form of drift or blowdown should be evaluated.
The effect of cycles of concentration associated with the use of closed-cycle cooling on the release of chemicals and materials in the reclaimed water or impaired water sources to the public, the workforce and the environment from cooling tower drift or station blowdown.
The effect of discharges to the environment from the sanitary waste system and its potential impact on humans should be discussed.
A discussion of State and local restrictions or requirements on the use of reclaimed or polluted water by the proposed facility.
Any BMPs and any other mitigation strategies required or planned to address the impacts of etiological agents or emerging contaminants.
5.8.2 Noise Impacts The applicant should describe noise impacts associated with operations. The description should include the following:
applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and/or ordinances governing noise from building activities
background noise measurements and closest noise-sensitive human receptors or sensitive areas (Chapter 2 of this RG)
sources of noise from the proposed plant (e.g., operation of mechanical draft cooling towers and intake pumps)
peak noise level measurements for each identified source type, along with estimated noise levels at representative distances, with attenuation by distance alone (i.e., not taking advantage of any intervening foliage, terrain changes, or permanent barriers between the source and the receptor)
measurement or calculation of the levels of noise from each of the identified sources at the closest noise-sensitive human receptors identified in Section 2.8.2, including a description of any noise- abatement models
any BMPs and any other mitigation strategies required or planned for noise abatement for operation of the proposed plant
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 105 If the measured or calculated noise level from any identified source type exceeds 65 dBA (see NUREG-1437, Initial and Revision 1, for additional information) at any noise-sensitive human receptor or at the site boundary when calculated with attenuation by distance alone, the applicant should determine the noise level that would result from taking advantage of natural attenuation, such as intervening foliage, natural barriers, and changes in terrain. The determination of natural attenuation may be accomplished by the applicant performing a series of leaf-on and leaf-off noise surveys or by using an industry standard modeling or calculation process. If the measured or calculated noise level from the source exceeding the
65 dBA threshold cannot be demonstrated to be reduced through natural attenuation to below the threshold, the applicant should describe specific mitigation measures to be used to reduce the noise level to below 65 dBA.
5.8.3 Electric Shock Impacts The applicant should describe electric shock effects of EMFs associated with transmission lines.
The description should include the following:
types of transmission lines (Chapter 3 of this RG)
types of potential exposures to transmission lines (e.g., electric shock from direct contact or induced charge to metal structures)
impact to human health compared to national standards (e.g., National Electric Safety Code) and State and local codes and regulations
5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Operating power transmission lines in the United States produce EMFs of non-ionizing radiation at 60 Hz, which is considered to be an extremely low frequency (ELF)-EMF. NRC has reviewed the available scientific literature on chronic effects on human health from ELF-EMF and concurs with the conclusions of the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation as stated in Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Melatonin and the Risk of Breast Cancer (Ref. 67); by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) as stated in NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (Ref. 68); and the World Health Organization as stated in Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Ref. 69). The NIEHS report contains the following conclusion:
The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.
See also the discussion of this issue in NUREG-1437 (Initial and Revision 1) and Table B-1 in 10
CFR Part 51. The applicant should review and report whether there is any new information regarding whether a consensus has been reached by the appropriate Federal health agencies pertaining to the effects of long-term or chronic exposure to EMFs.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 106
5.8.5 Occupational Health The applicant should describe human-health risks for operations personnel engaged in activities such as maintenance, testing, and plant modifications for the proposed project. The description should include the following:
The incidence of occupational health risks described in Chapter 2 of this RG.
Occupational health risks compared to the incidence rate for workers in similar occupations (e.g., electric power generation, transmission, and distribution). Include State and Federal labor references in the discussion.
Standards, practices, and procedures to reduce the potential for occupational injury and fatality risk.
5.8.6 Human Health Impacts from Transportation The applicant should provide estimates of the potential human-health impacts related to nonradiological traffic-related accidents from commuting operations and outage workers and transportation of supplies, equipment, and nonradiological waste to and from the proposed site.
Nonradiological traffic-related impacts refer to the accidents, injuries, and fatalities estimated to occur from traffic accidents during movement of operations workers to and from the proposed site during operations. Where possible, the impacts should be estimated using information specific to the proposed site (e.g., by using county-specific accident statistics). The following information should be provided:
Summary of provisions for site access during operations, including during outages.
Description of the method(s) used to estimate nonradiological traffic-related accident impacts, including nonradiological traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Nonradiological traffic-related accident impacts should be estimated using round-trip distances.
Specification of input parameters and sources used in the impact assessment. Where assumptions are used to fill in missing or highly uncertain data (e.g., commute distances, persons per vehicle, and number of deliveries), the assumptions should be bounding and reasonable (i.e., the assumptions tend to overstate transportation impacts yet are not so conservative that they could mask the true environmental impacts of the reactor and lead to invalid conclusions). The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data, resulting output, and approaches to inform NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation, indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
Annual number of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities.
5.9 Radiological Health during Normal Operation and Radioactive Waste Management The applicant should evaluate the potential radiological impacts to the public, workers and nonhuman biota that includes the radiological sources from operation of the proposed facility. This includes a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to members of the public, workers, and to the nonhuman biota inhabiting the area around the proposed site. The applicant should also evaluate the environmental impacts from low-level solid waste management (LLW) and onsite storage of spent fuel.
The ER should use the same units of measure as used in the FSAR.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 107
5.9.1 Exposure Pathways The applicant should provide the following in the ER:
The environmental pathways by which radiation from radioactive effluents can be transmitted from the proposed plant to living organisms. Figure 5-1 identifies the exposure pathways to humans and Figure 5-2 addresses the exposure pathways to nonhuman biota.
The sources of direct radiation exposures. These sources should include, but not be limited to, independent spent-fuel storage installations, radioactive waste handling facilities, low-level waste storage facilities, condensate storage tanks, fuel buildings, turbine buildings, and skyshine.
The pathways for gaseous effluents considering immersion in the gaseous plume, inhalation of iodines and particulates, ingestion of iodines and particulates through the milk cow, milk goat, meat animal and vegetation pathways, radiation from iodines and particulates deposited on the ground.
The pathways for liquid effluents considering drinking water, ingestion of fish and invertebrates and shoreline activities for water containing radioactive effluents.
Site-specific unusual pathways uniquely associated with the proposed facilities.
5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public In the ER, the applicant should provide an estimate of the maximum annual individual dose and the annual total collective doses to the population within 50-mi (80-km) from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents released from the plant during operation. The ER should provide the inputs for these calculations as well as the source of the data used. The information in the ER should be consistent with the information in the FSAR.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 108
Figure 5-1. Example Exposure Pathways to Humans (adapted from Ref. 70)
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 109
Figure 5-2. Example Exposure Pathways to Nonhuman Biota (adapted from Ref. 70)
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 110
Liquid Effluent Pathway The ER should contain the following:
- Liquid pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) calculated using the current NRC-approved computer code (e.g., LADTAP II) (Ref. 71), that comply with RG 1.109, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purposes of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (Ref. 72). The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data, resulting output, and approaches to inform NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., FSAR, DCD or other references),
indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
The activities considered in the dose calculations: (1) consumption of drinking water affected by liquid effluents; (2) consumption of fish and invertebrates from water sources affected by liquid effluents; (3) direct radiation from swimming, boating, and shoreline activities on waterbodies affected by liquid effluents; and (4) ingestion of irrigated foods.
Other parameters used as inputs to the current approved computer code including effluent discharge rate, dilution factor for discharge, transit time to receptor, and liquid pathway consumption and usage factors (i.e., shoreline usage, fish consumption, and drinking water consumption).
The location of the MEI, the age of the MEI (i.e., infant, child, teen, or adult), and source of the majority of the dose. In addition, the ER should provide the maximally exposed organ, and source of that dose.
The calculated annual collective population doses in units of person-rem for this pathway based on an estimated population distribution late in the timeframe of the proposed license.
In the ER, the applicant should provide the doses to the MEI in a table similar to Table 5-1.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 111 Table 5-1. Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases from the Proposed Facility
Pathway
Age Group
Total Body (mrem/yr)
Maximum Organ (mrem/yr)
Thyroid (mrem/yr)
Drinking Water
Adult
Teen
Child
Infant
Fish and Invertebrate
Adult
Teen
Child
Direct Radiation
All
Source: [Provide all sources of data.]
Gaseous Effluent Pathway The ER should contain the following:
Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI using the currently NRC-approved computer code (e.g., GASPAR II) (Ref. 73), at the nearest residence, garden, and meat animal and the exclusion area boundary (EAB) that comply with RG 1.109. The applicant should provide in the ER sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data, resulting output, and approaches to inform NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., FSAR, DCD or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
The calculated annual collective population doses in units of person-rem for this pathway based on an estimated population distribution late in the timeframe of the proposed license.
- The following activities should be considered in the dose calculations: (1) direct radiation from immersion in the gaseous effluent cloud and from particulates deposited on the ground; (2) inhalation of gases and particulates; (3) ingestion of meat and milk from animals eating grass affected by gases and particulates deposited on the ground; and
(4) ingestion of garden vegetables affected by gases and particulates deposited on the ground.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 112
The gaseous effluent releases used in the estimate of dose to the MEI and population and other parameters used as inputs to the computer program should be provided (e.g., population data, atmospheric dispersion factors, ground deposition factors, receptor locations, and consumption factors).
The doses to the MEI should be presented in a table similar Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous Effluent Pathway Pathway Age Group Total Body Dose (mrem/yr)
Max Organ (Specify)
(mrem/yr)
Skin Dose (mrem/yr)
Thyroid Dose (mrem/yr)
Plume (distance and direction)
Ground (distance and direction)
Inhalation Nearest residence (distance and direction)
Vegetable (distance and direction)
Meat animals (distance and direction)
Milk animals (distance and direction)
5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public This section describes the applicants evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological releases and direct radiation from the proposed facility. The evaluation should address dose from operations to the MEI located at the proposed site boundary and the population dose (collective dose to the population within 50 mi) around the proposed site.
Maximally Exposed Individual The applicant should provide the total body and organ dose estimates to the MEI from liquid and gaseous effluents for the proposed facility and compare it to the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix I. A comparison of the dose estimates for the proposed facility should be presented in a table similar to Table 5-3.
For multiple units, or building of a new unit adjacent to an operating unit, the applicant should compare the combined dose estimates from direct radiation and gaseous and liquid effluents from the operating facility and the proposed facility. The data should be provided in a table similar to Table 5-4 and compared to the dose standards in 40 CFR Part 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, (Ref. 74).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 113 Table 5-3.
Comparison of MEI Annual Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix I Design Objectives Radionuclide Releases/Dose Applicant Assessment Appendix I
Design Objectives Gaseous effluents (noble gases only)
Beta air dose (mrad/yr)
20
Gamma air dose (mrad/yr)
10
Total body dose (mrem/yr)
5 Skin dose (mrem/yr)
15 Gaseous effluents (radioiodines and particulates)
Organ dose (mrem/yr)
15 Liquid effluents Total body dose (mrem/yr)
3 Maximum organ dose (mrem/yr)
10
Table 5-4. Comparison of Doses to 40 CFR Part 190
Radionuclide Dose Operating Facility Proposed Facility Site Total dose (mrem/yr)
40 CFR Part 190
Dose Standards (mrem/yr)
Combined liquid, direct and gaseous dose (mrem/yr)
Combined liquid, direct and gaseous dose (mrem/yr)
Whole body dose
25 Thyroid
75 Any other organ
25 Source: [Provide all sources of data.]
Population Dose The applicant should estimate the annual collective population total body dose in units of person- rem within a 50-mi radius of the proposed site. The estimated collective dose to the same population from natural background radiation should also be estimated and the two values compared. The dose from natural background radiation should be calculated by multiplying the 50-mi population estimate for the year operation is expected to cease (for the 40-year license including through one license renewal) by the average annual background dose rate of 311 mrem/yr from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (Ref.
75), or the currently accepted natural background dose rate at the location being considered for the proposed site.
5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers The applicant should provide an estimate for the annual occupation dose to workers, including outage activities, in units of person-rem. This value can either be estimated from the DCD for the reactor
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 114 design, from the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, FSAR or from reports on doses to workers at operational units at the site.
5.9.5 Doses to Nonhuman Biota The applicant should determine if there is any potential for significant radiological impacts to biota other than members of the public and, if so, estimate the nature and magnitude of the impact. The scope of the review should include an analysis of radiation-exposure pathways to biota.
In the ER, the applicant should include the following:
Pathways identified in Section 5.9.1 of this RG.
Biota to be evaluated. The biota to be considered are those species of local flora and local and migratory fauna defined as important (Table 2-1) and whose terrestrial and/or aquatic habitats provide the highest potential for radiation exposure. Or, the applicant should specify surrogates for aquatic species (e.g., fish, invertebrates, and algae) and for terrestrial species (e.g., muskrats, raccoons, herons, and ducks).
An estimation, considering exposure pathways and the distribution of facility-derived radioactivity in the environs, of the following: (1) the maximum radionuclide concentrations that may be present in important local flora and local and migratory fauna and (2) the internal dose rates (millirad/year) that may result from those concentrations. Values of bioaccumulation factors, concentration ratios, and transfer factors used in preparing the estimates should be based on site-specific data, if available; otherwise, values from the literature may be used. The applicant should tabulate and reference the values of bioaccumulation factors used in the calculations. Dose rates to important local flora and local and migratory fauna that receive the highest external exposures should be provided along with a description of the calculational models. The bioaccumulation factor for aquatic organisms is the value of the ratio: (concentration in organism)/(concentration in water). The soil-to-plant concentration ratio is the ratio of plant concentration (dry weight)/(the concentration in dry soil). The feed-to-organism transfer factor is the ratio of (concentration in fresh tissue)/(daily intake of the radionuclide by the organism).
Values of bioaccumulation factors, concentration ratios, and transfer factors can be obtained from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documents Sediment Distribution Coefficients and Concentration Factors for biota in the Marine Environment (Ref. 76) and Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments (Ref. 77).
The applicant should provide the doses from the liquid and gaseous pathways and the total body nonhuman biota dose from all pathways.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 115 Table 5-5 is an example of how to present the data.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 116 Table 5-5. Nonhuman Biota Doses for Proposed Reactor(s)
Biota Liquid Pathway Dose (mrad/yr)
Gaseous Pathway Dose (mrad/yr)
Total Body Biota Dose All Pathways (mrad/yr)
Fish
Invertebrate
Algae
Muskrat
Raccoon
Heron
Duck
Source: [Provide all sources of data]
The applicant should then compare the estimated total body dose rates to surrogate biota species that would be produced by releases from the proposed facility to the IAEA guidelines in Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards (Ref. 78) and the NCRP biota dose guidelines in Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms (Ref. 79). The results of the analysis should be provided in a table similar to Table 5-6.
Table 5-6. Comparison of Biota Doses from the Proposed Reactor(s) to Relevant Guidelines for Biota Protection Biota Total Body Dose (mrad/d)
IAEA/NCRP Dose Guidelines for Protection of Biota Populations (mrad/d)
Fish
1000
Invertebrate
1000
Algae
1000
Muskrat
100
Raccoon
100
Heron
100
Duck
100
5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring Regarding the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP), located in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, for the site, the applicant should provide the following:
The dates when the preoperational REMP began and when the operational REMP began. If the site does not have an operational reactor or does not have a permanently shutdown reactor, the applicant should provide the date when the preoperational REMP is expected to start.
A brief summary of the REMP.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 117
If there is an operational REMP at the site, the applicant should address whether the current REMP will be used or if there will be changes to the REMP from the addition of the proposed plant.
5.9.7 Solid Waste Management and Onsite Spent Fuel Storage Based on the information provided in Section 3.4.2, Radioactive Waste Management, the applicant should provide the following:
A summary of plans for minimizing the production and processing of Class A, B, and C LLW
onsite.
An estimate of the amount of Class A, B, and C LLW that can be stored onsite and an estimate for how long it would take for storage to meet maximum capacity.
A discussion about whether there are plans for constructing temporary storage facilities onsite.
An estimate of the quantity of spent fuel that will be able to be stored onsite in both the spent fuel pool and in an ISFSI and provide an estimate of when the spent fuel storage would meet maximum capacity.
Information on whether there are plans for building an ISFSI, being cognizant of the analysis in NUREG-2157.
5.10
Nonradioactive Waste Management Liquid and gaseous radioactive releases from the reactor are considered effluent releases and are evaluated in Section 5.9. The applicant should describe the environmental impacts that could result from the generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste during operation. The types of nonradioactive waste that would be generated, handled, and disposed of during operation include municipal solid waste, industrial solid wastes, stormwater runoff, sanitary waste, liquid effluents containing chemicals or biocides, industrial liquid wastes, used oils and lubricants from vehicle maintenance, and combustion emissions. In addition, small quantities of hazardous waste, including mixed waste, may be generated during operations. Mixed waste is waste that is a combination of hazardous and low-level radioactive waste.
5.10.1 Impacts to Land The applicant should describe the expected nonradioactive waste streams destined for land-based treatment or disposal during operation. The description should include the following:
Type of waste streams. Typical solid waste generation comes from water-treatment wastes, laboratory wastes, trash, sanitary waste, cooling-water intake screen debris, and small quantities of hazardous and mixed waste.
Actions to address waste streams, including waste minimization, recycling, transportation, storage, and disposal.
Federal, State, and local codes and regulations that address solid waste, including any permits necessary for solid waste at the site.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 118 The applicant should then describe the expected impacts to land use associated with the disposal of nonradioactive waste.
5.10.2 Impacts to Water The applicant should describe nonradioactive liquid-waste streams associated with operations.
The description should include the following:
Type of waste streams. Typical liquid-waste generation comes from cooling-water blowdown, auxiliary-boiler blowdown, water-treatment wastes, discharge from floor and equipment drains, stormwater runoff, effluents from the sanitary sewage-treatment system, and facility and vehicle maintenance activities.
Actions to address waste streams, including waste minimization and treatment, recycling, storage, and disposal.
Federal, State, and local codes and regulations that address liquid waste, including any permits necessary for liquid-waste disposal at the site.
The applicant should then describe the expected impacts to water resources associated with the releases of nonradioactive waste.
5.10.3 Impacts to Air The applicant should describe nonradioactive gaseous waste streams associated with operations.
Identify if these impacts have been addressed under Air Resources Impacts. The description should include the following:
Type of waste streams. Typical gaseous waste generation comes from emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, volatile emissions from those fuels, and other volatile organic compounds from the use of materials such as paints, oils, and solvents.
Actions to address waste streams, including any emission-control systems and waste minimization.
Federal, State, and local codes and regulations that address gaseous emissions. Include any permits necessary for liquid-waste disposal at the site.
The applicant should then describe the expected impacts to air quality associated with the emissions of nonradioactive waste.
5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents The applicant should evaluate the radiological consequences to the environment from potential accidents at the proposed site. The term accident refers to any off-normal event due to equipment failure or malfunction that results in the release of radioactive materials into the environment. The evaluation should be site-specific and focus on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits for normal operations (i.e., design-basis accident (DBAs) and severe accidents). Severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) should be evaluated to determine if there are any procedures, training activities, or plant-design alternatives (i.e., severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs)) that could significantly reduce environmental risks at the site. As discussed below, the
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 119 applicants evaluation should be performed in accordance with the current version of NRC guidance documents.
5.11.1 Design-Basis Accidents DBAs are evaluated in the FSAR, and include a spectrum of events that the plant should be designed specifically to accommodate. DBA analyses have a direct impact on the design of safety-related systems, structures, and components that are designed to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety. These safety analyses are intentionally performed in a very conservative manner to compensate for uncertainties in accident progression. The radiological consequences of DBAs are assessed as part of the safety review to demonstrate that the plant can be sited and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Due to the conservatisms used in modeling of accident progression and atmospheric transport in the safety evaluation of DBAs in the FSAR, these analyses do not provide a realistic picture of the environmental consequences of accidents that the plant is designed to accommodate. The environmental impacts evaluation of DBAs using realistic assumptions on accident progression and atmospheric transport would be expected to result in estimated dose consequences lower than those documented in the FSAR. Therefore, for the environmental report it is appropriate to evaluate the DBAs using the FSAR
accident release assumptions in conjunction with realistic atmospheric transport assumptions.
Within the ER, the applicant should evaluate DBAs using site-specific data and realistic meteorology (i.e., 50th percentile atmospheric dispersion) to estimate doses at offsite locations. The radiological consequences of the DBAs are assessed, and the resulting doses compared to relevant dose criteria used in the NRC staffs safety review of DBAs (see NUREG-0800, Chapter 15). The applicant should provide the following information to support the NRC staffs environmental review of DBAs:
list and description of each DBA being considered as having a potential for releases to the environment; the DBAs should be consistent with the DBAs listed in applicable guidance (e.g., those described in RG 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants [Ref. 80]), and analyzed in the FSAR
time-dependent isotopic activities (i.e., the source term) released to the environment for each DBA
estimated doses for each DBA using realistic (i.e., 50th percentile) atmospheric dispersion factors
(/Q values) for the site (see Chapter 2 of this RG), taking into account the following:
- for the EAB, the dose should be calculated for a 2-hour period
- for the low-population zone (LPZ), the dose should be calculated for the course of the accident (i.e., 30 days, including 0-8 hr, 8-24 hr, 1-4 days, 4-30 days).
- comparison of the DBA doses with review dose criteria given in regulations related to the application (e.g., 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1), and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)
standard review plans (i.e., SRP criteria, Table 1 in SRP Section 15.0.3 of NUREG-0800)
and regulatory guides, (e.g., RG 1.183), as applicable.
conclusion on the degree of environmental impact caused by postulated DBAs at this site
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 120
5.11.2 Severe Accidents The applicant should evaluate the mean environmental (i.e., individual, population, economic, and contaminated land area) probability-weighted consequences, or risks, of severe accidents involving radioactive material within a 50 mi radius of the site. Severe accidents involve multiple failures of equipment or function and, therefore, the likelihood of occurrence is lower for severe accidents than for DBAs; however the consequences of such accidents may be higher. The risks for specific severe accident types are defined as the product of the probability of that type of accident occurring multiplied by the estimated consequences for that type of accident. Severe accident types (or major release categories),
source terms, and associated probabilities (i.e., core damage frequencies) are reactor-specific and determined from the design (i.e., Level 1 and Level 2) probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).
The Level 1 and Level 2 PRAs should be consistent with NRC staffs safety review guidance for PRAs (see SRP Chapter 19 of NUREG-0800). The site-specific environmental risks of severe accidents (i.e., Level 3 PRA) should consider all severe accident types from the Level 1 PRA, and apply all source terms from the Level 2 PRA. The Level 2 PRA information for the transition from radioactive material release to Level 3 PRA needs to have clear traceability of the release category quantifications back to the radioactive material release analysis. This would ensure that the necessary event information (e.g. event frequencies, source term release fractions and plume segments) from internally initiated events, fire events, flooding events, low power and shutdown events, and externally initiated events that could affect the Level 3 PRA analysis is provided in a suitable form for the NRC staff environmental review.
The ER should estimate the risks applying an acceptable methodology that uses onsite and regional meteorology, population, and land-use data (see Chapter 2 of this RG for relevant site-specific meteorological, population and land-use guidance.) Relevant environmental pathways that lead to radiation dose should be considered in the consequence assessment, including the air, ground, food, surface water, and groundwater. The applicant should provide the following information to support the NRC staffs environmental review of severe accidents:
reference for the reactor design and the associated PRA (through Level 2) used in the severe accident risk analysis;
list of severe accident release sequences and their associated core damage frequencies (CDFs)
from the Level 1 PRA and source terms for internally initiated events, fire events, flooding events, low power and shutdown events, and externally initiated events as are appropriate for the application (e.g., high winds and other external hazards) as determined from the Level 2 PRA;
description of the methodology used to estimate site-specific severe accident risks (i.e., Level 3 PRA), including the computer code(s) to be used in the analyses, such as MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS) code package (see NUREG/CR-6613, Code Manual for MACCS2: Users Guide, Volume 1, (Ref. 81)).
sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data, resulting output, and approaches to allow for NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., FSAR, DCD or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
description of the meteorological data and years used in the analysis and an estimate of severe accident population dose risks from the air pathway
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 121
description of any emergency response scenarios, including evacuation, sheltering, and dose- dependent relocation assumptions used in the analysis;
description of the demographic and population data used in the analysis based on the 50-mi population estimate for the year operation is expected to cease;
description of the land-use characterization (e.g., farmland) and land fractions used in the analysis and an estimate of the contaminated land area risks from severe accidents;
description of the food pathway model information for the nuclides to be considered, crop categories to be used, transfer factors, and possible mitigative actions;
description of the economic input data (e.g., land values, relocation costs, and cleanup costs) used in the analysis and an estimate of the economic cost risks from severe accidents;
description of surface-water users and watershed data used in the analysis and an estimate of severe accident population dose risks from the surface-water pathway;
description of aquifers used in the analysis and an estimate of severe accident population dose risks from the groundwater pathway;
description of the comparison of the core damage frequencies estimated for the reactor to those for current-generation reactors and the comparison of the population dose risks to the mean and median values for current-generation reactors undergoing license renewal;
description of individual (i.e., early fatality and latent cancer) risks and population dose risks from severe accidents; these risks should be compared to the Commissions Safety Goals
(51 FR 30028 (Ref. 82)) and with dose risks from routine and anticipated operational releases,
description of the methodology used to estimate site-specific accident risks (i.e., Level 3 PRA)
including the computer code applied, such as MACCS code package, and
description of the parameter information applied in the Level 3 PRA. Note that NUREG/CR-
4551, Evaluation of Severe Accident Risks: Quantification of Major Input Parameters (Ref.
83), demonstrates the development of the parameter information for the offsite environmental risk analysis of severe accidents (i.e., Level 3 PRA) that supported NUREG-1150, Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (Ref. 84).
5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives The applicant should evaluate SAMAs, including procedures, training activities, and plant-design alternatives (i.e., SAMDAs), that could significantly reduce the environmental risks from a severe accident. SAMAs can reduce risk by preventing substantial core damage or by limiting radiological releases from containment in the event of substantial core damage. The current regulations and staff guidance discussed in this section and developed after the Limerick decision (Limerick Ecology Action vs.
NRC, 1989, 869 F.2d 719, 3d Cir. 1989 (Ref. 85)) directs the NRC staff to consider SAMAs for new reactor licensing actions. Therefore, a SAMA evaluation is required in ERs for combined licenses.
In preparing SAMA analyses, the applicant should apply the latest regulatory guidance as it relates to the determination and estimation of values and impacts, including a sensitivity analysis (e.g., see NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 122 Commission (Ref. 86); and NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (Ref. 87)). Values are the potential benefits of implementing the SAMA and are usually calculated for public health, occupational health, offsite property, and onsite property (see the prior discussion on severe accident analyses). The applicant should apply both a best estimate, or baseline, 7 percent and a sensitivity 3 percent real discount rate as specified by Office of Management Budget in Regulatory Analysis (Ref. 88), in NUREG/BR-0058, and in NUREG/BR-0184 as part of the value determination.
Impacts are the costs of implementing the SAMA. In addition, the applicant could consider methods and processes used in past applications as well as relevant industry guidance on SAMA analysis (e.g., the selection of SAMAs based on NEI 05-01, Revision A, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)
Analysis, Guidance Document, (Ref. 89)). 15 For those situations that are relevant to the quality of the Level 2 PRA being considered in the application, include design-specific PRA information for consideration of potential design improvements, as provided by 10 CFR 50.34(f).
The applicant should provide the following information to support the NRC staffs environmental review of SAMAs:
reference for the reactor design and the associated PRA used in the SAMA analysis;
list of leading contributors to the reactor design core damage frequency (e.g., from dominant severe accident sequences or initiating events) and site-specific risks (e.g. population dose) for each release class and associated source term for both internal and external events;
methodology, process, and rationale used to identify, screen, and select SAMAs that can reduce severe accident dose consequence risk, considering internal events, fire, flooding, low power and shutdown, and external events;
methodology, process, and rationale used to further analyze any selected SAMAs to determine the amount of risk reduction that the SAMA could reasonably achieve;
estimated cost and risk reduction for the selected SAMAs and the assumptions used to make these estimates; and
description and list of any SAMAs that have been or will be implemented to prevent or mitigate severe accidents or reduce the risk of a severe accident.
5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts during Operation Environmental measures and controls may be required by Federal, State, and local agencies during operation to minimize effects to the environment (10 CFR 51.50(a)). The applicant should furnish details of the programs and compliance activities with which it plans to monitor operation activities affecting site-related environmental resources and quality. The applicant should also describe the frequency of these efforts. The applicant should state the specific nature of its control programs and the control procedures it intends to follow as a means of implementing adherence to environmental quality control limits, as applicable. A description of the measures and monitoring required for conformity to Federal, State, and local environmental regulations and laws should also be provided for each resource
15 NEI 05-01, Revision A, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document, provides a template for completing SAMA analysis in support of reactor license renewal. If applied as a guidance document for new reactor applications, the applicant should justify its use in the ER.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 123 area. Table 5-7 on the following page is an example of the measures and controls for environmental impact categories.
Table 5-7. Summary of Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation Impact Category Planned Measures and Controls During Operation Land-Use Impacts
Site and Vicinity Measures and controls that minimize impacts Transmission Corridors Measures and controls that minimize impacts Offsite Areas Measures and controls that minimize impacts Water-Related Impacts
Hydrologic Alterations Measures and controls that monitor surface waters and flow and groundwater Water Use Measures and controls that monitor use of surface water and groundwater resources Water Quality Measures and controls that monitor and minimize impacts on surface water and groundwater Ecological Impacts
Terrestrial Ecosystems Measures and controls to monitor and minimize impacts on terrestrial resources (including wetlands) onsite, offsite, and special permitting that may be required for managed species Aquatic Ecosystems Measures and controls to monitor and minimize impacts on aquatic resources onsite, offsite, and special permitting that may be required for managed species Socioeconomic Impacts Community traffic and access to public services measures Environmental Justice Measures or controls to minimize impacts Historic and Cultural Resources Measures for identification, consultation, and preservation following discovery Air Resources Controls to monitor and minimize dust, emissions Nonradiological Health Measures and controls for worker safety during operation and maintenance activities Radiation Exposure Controls and monitoring for minimization of dose to workers, the public, and biota Nonradioactive Waste Disposal plan for solid, liquid, gaseous wastes, and sanitary waste generated Accidents Controls and measures for minimization of impacts
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 125 Chapter 6
6.0
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning Impacts The environmental report (ER) should address the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management, the transportation of radioactive material, and the decommissioning of the proposed nuclear plant.
The applicant should summarize information provided in Chapter 3 of this RG on the vendor and type of reactors that are proposed in the application, and the power rating in MW(t). The applicant should also provide the assumed capacity factor.
6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Waste Management The applicant should discuss the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management for the appropriate light water reactor (LWR) design. The environmental impacts of this design are evaluated against specific criteria for LWR designs in 10 CFR 51.51, Uranium fuel cycle environmental dataTable S-3.
The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state that:
Under §51.50, every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage or early site permit stage or combined license stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low-level wastes and high- level wastes related to uranium fuel-cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor. Table S-3 shall be included in the environmental report and may be supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data set forth in the table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility.
The applicant should provide the following information in the ER:
The type of fuel and the enrichment that will be used in the proposed reactor and whether the type of fuel is appropriate for analysis of environmental impacts against Table S-3 in 10 CFR
51.51(b).
Using the Table S-3 values that are normalized for a reference 1,000-MW(e) LWR at an 80
percent capacity factor, the applicant should provide the power rating for the each of the proposed units according to the vendor power rating and the assumed capacity factor.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 126 In its ER, the applicant should provide an assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the operation of the proposed project based on the values given in the current Table S-3 as well as the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99 as described in the NUREG-1437 (Initial), Addendum 1 (Ref. 90), and NUREG-1437, Revision 1.16
6.1.1 Land Use For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating, and the capacity factor, the ER should provide the following:
total annual land requirement;
approximate number of acres that are permanently committed land; and
approximate number of acres that are temporarily committed and the number of those acres undisturbed and disturbed.
6.1.2 Water Use For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating, and the capacity factor, the ER should provide the following:
the total annual water use (in gal or m3) required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the enrichment step of this cycle; and
other water uses that involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling) (in gal/yr or m3/yr) and water discharged to the ground (e.g., mine drainage, deep well injection) (in gal/yr or m3/yr).
6.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating, and the capacity factor, the ER should provide the following:
a comparison of direct and indirect consumption of electric energy for fuel-cycle operations; and
a discussion of the largest use of electricity in the fuel cycle.
estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (expressed in units of CO2 equivalents) resulting from the fuel cycle, including uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes. The applicant should compare these GHG emissions to State and national GHG emissions. The applicant may provide either site-specific estimates or refer to the generic GHG footprint for a
1000-MW(e) reactor. The analysis should be adjusted according to the proposed action (number of units, electrical output). The assumptions, factors, and other information used in any site-
16 The License Renewal GEIS (NUREG-1437) was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 was issued in 1999.
NUREG-1437, Revision 1, was issued in June 2013. The version of NUREG-1437 cited, whether 1996 or 2013, or Addendum 1 in 1999, is the version in which the relevant technical information is discussed. NUREG-1437, Revision 1 is cited in cases in which the relevant technical information is discussed in both documents.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 127 specific analysis should be described in sufficient detail to allow an independent evaluation and assessment of the resulting GHG emissions estimate (Ref. 15).
6.1.4 Chemical Effluents For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating, and the capacity factor, the ER should provide the following:
A comparison of the principal effluents (i.e., sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates) for the estimated MWh of electricity for the proposed plant against the most current estimate of MWh of electricity generated in the United States. This value should be a percentage. For example, if the proposed 1000-MW(e) plant required 969,000 MWh of electricity a year and the United States produced 4.1 billion MWh of electricity in a year, then the proposed plant would produce 0.024 percent of the generated MWh in the United States and therefore the chemical effluents from the fuel-cycle processes to support the proposed plant would be 0.024 percent of the national gaseous and particulate chemical effluents for a year of electricity generation.
An assessment of the liquid chemical effluents produced in the fuel-cycle processes.
An assessment of the tailings solutions and solids generated during the milling processes.
6.1.5 Radiological Effluents For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating, and the capacity factor, the ER should provide the following:
The estimated total overall whole body gaseous dose commitment and the whole body liquid dose commitment (in person-rem or person-sieverts) from the fuel cycle, excluding reactor releases and dose commitments because of the exposure to radon-222 and technetium-99.
An estimate of the 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population (in person-rem or person-sieverts) for both the gaseous and liquid pathway from the fuel cycle.
The estimated releases of radon-222 (in curies or becquerels) based on the 1996 version of NUREG-1437. This includes the percent that would be from mining and milling operations, and inactive tails before stabilization, as well as the radon releases (in curies or becquerels) from stabilized tailings.
An estimate of the 100-year dose commitment from radon-222 to the whole body (in rem or sieverts) using the organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
An estimate of the 100-year dose commitment from mining, milling, and tailings before stabilization for each site year and an estimate of the 100-year environmental dose commitment from stabilized tailings piles (in rem or sieverts).
Following the methodology in the 1996 version of NUREG-1437 , Section 6.2.2 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Impact, an estimate of the releases of technetium-99 (in curies or becquerels) from the chemical processing of recycled UF6 before it enters the isotope enrichment cascade and the release to the groundwater (in curies or becquerels) from a repository.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 128
The total body 100-year dose commitment from technetium-99 to the whole body (in rem or sieverts) determined by applying the organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR 20.1003 to the gastrointestinal tract and kidney.
6.1.6 Radiological Wastes For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating, and the capacity factor, the ER should describe the following:
The annual total number of curies from low level reactor solid wastes and if it is within the bounds of the estimated total of curies of solid waste identified in Section 3.4.2 Radioactive Waste Management.
Being cognizant of the analysis in NUREG-2157 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Final Report, describe the plans for offsite storage of spent fuel.
6.1.7 Occupational Dose For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating, and the capacity factor, the ER should provide the annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled mode
l. This is based on a
600-person-rem occupational dose estimate attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model
1,000-MW(e) LWR (see 1996 version of NUREG-1437, Section 6.2.2.3 Occupational Dose).
6.1.8 Transportation Dose The annual transportation dose to workers and the general public for the uranium fuel cycle for the reference 1,000-MW(e) LWR is 2.5 person rem per Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51. For the fuel cycle supporting the 1,000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model, considering the number of units, the power rating and the capacity factor, the ER should provide the following:
The corresponding transportation dose for the proposed reactor(s) (in rem or sieverts).
The collective transportation dose for the population within 50 mi of the site for the year operation is expected to start. Using 311 mrem/yr as the average dose to a U.S. resident from natural background radiation (NCRP Report No. 160), determine the collective dose to the same population and compare the two collective doses (in person-rem or person-sieverts).
6.2 Transportation of Fuel and Wastes The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) performed a generic analysis of the environmental effects of the transportation of fuel and waste to and from LWRs in the Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238 (Ref. 91), and in Supplement 1 to WASH-1238, NUREG-75/038 (Ref. 92), and found the impact to be small. These documents provided the basis for Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52, Environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste, which summarizes the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one 3,000 to 5,000 MW(t) [1,000 to 1,500 MW(e)] LWR. Impacts are provided for normal conditions of transport and accidents in transport for a reference 1,100-MW(e) LWR. Dose to transportation workers during normal transportation operations was estimated to result in a collective dose of 4 person-rem per reference reactor-year. The combined dose to the public along the route and the dose
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 129 to onlookers were estimated to result in a collective dose of 3 person-rem per reference reactor-year. The environmental risk of radiological effects from accidents in transport, as stated in Table S-4, is small. The environmental risk of common (nonradiological) causes from accidents in transport was one fatal injury in 100 reference reactor-years and one nonfatal injury in 10 reference reactor-years.
The NRC has generically considered the environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel with uranium-235 enrichment levels up to 5 percent and irradiation levels up to 62,000 MWd/MTU and found that the environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel transport are bounded by the impacts listed in
10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, provided that more than 5 years has elapsed between removal of the fuel from the reactor and shipment of the fuel offsite (see NUREG-1437, Revision 1). However, these analyses apply to license renewal and cannot serve as the initial licensing basis for new reactors.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), the ER shall contain a statement concerning transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from the reactor. A full description and detailed analysis of transportation impacts are not required when licensing a LWR, if the reactor meets the following criteria:
The reactor has a core power level that does not exceed 3,800 MW(t).
Fuel is in the form of sintered uranium oxide pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding 4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zirconium alloy-clad fuel rods.17
The average level of irradiation of fuel from the reactor does not exceed 33,000 MWd/MTU and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it is discharged from the reactor.
With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is packaged and in solid form.
Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated (spent) fuel is shipped from the reactor by truck, railcar, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped from the reactor by truck or railcar.
If the transportation of fuel and waste to and from nuclear power reactors meets the criteria listed in 10 CFR 51.52(a), the ER need only contain a statement that the environmental impacts are as set forth in Table S-4 of 10 CFR Part 51. No further discussion of such environmental effects is required in the ER.
If the transportation of fuel and waste to and from nuclear power reactors does not meet the criteria listed in 10 CFR 51.52(a), 51.52(b) requires a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and wastes to and from the reactor, including values for the environmental impact under normal conditions of transport and for the environmental risk from accidents in transport, is required.
6.2.1 Components of a Full Description and a Detailed Analysis of Transportation Impacts A full description and detailed analysis of transportation impacts should include the following:
17 Regulations in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2) specify the use of zircaloy as the fuel rod cladding material. The NRC has also specified in 10 CFR 50.46 that ZIRLO' is an acceptable fuel rod cladding material, and that with regard to the potential environmental impacts associated with the transportation of the M5 clad fuel assemblies, the M5 cladding has no impact on previous assessments determined in accordance with 10 CFR 51.52 (65 FR 794) (Ref. 93).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 130
Transportation of unirradiated fuel. The analysis should include the radiological impacts associated with the normal conditions of transport and the nonradiological impacts associated with transportation accidents.
Transportation of irradiated fuel. The analysis should include the radiological impacts associated with the normal conditions of transport and the radiological and nonradiological impacts associated with transportation accidents.
Transportation of radioactive waste. The analysis should include the radiological impacts associated with the normal conditions of transport and the nonradiological impacts associated with transportation accidents.
The transportation impacts analysis should use the latest versions of transportation computer codes. For example, SAND2013-8095, RADTRAN 6/RadCat 6 User Guide (Ref. 94), and ORNL/NTRC-006, Revision 0, Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System (TRAGIS) Users Manual (Ref. 95). The following data should be provided in the ER:
reactor type and rated core thermal power
fuel assembly description
average irradiation level of irradiated fuel
the capacity of the onsite storage facilities to store irradiated fuel and the minimum fuel storage time between removal from the reactor and transportation offsite
treatment and packaging procedures for radioactive wastes other than irradiated fuel
general description of transportation packaging systems to be used for fresh fuel, spent fuel, and other radioactive wastes (e.g., packaging system capacity, approximate dimensions, and weight)
radiation dose rates for loaded packages
shipping route information based on the locations of fuel-fabrication facilities and potential destinations for shipments of spent fuel and radioactive waste
transport mode for new fuel shipment to the plant
transport mode for irradiated fuel shipments offsite
transport mode for other radioactive waste shipments offsite
shipping route data (e.g., distances and population densities in urban, suburban, and rural population density zones by State) from the fuel-fabrication plant to the reactor and from the reactor to the facilities to which irradiated fuel and radioactive waste will most likely be sent, if applicable
average heat load for irradiated fuel casks in transit
maximum gross vehicle weight for truck and rail shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 131 The methods and data used to estimate transportation impacts should be described and the following should be provided:
Descriptions of the method(s) used to estimate routine (incident-free) radiological impacts, including impacts to populations and maximally exposed individuals.
Descriptions of the method(s) used to estimate accident nonradiological and radiological impacts, including nonradiological traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities, and radiological accident risks.
Nonradiological impacts should be estimated using round-trip distances.
Specification of input parameters and sources used in the impact assessment. Parameters and source documents should be defensible, and where assumptions are used to fill in missing or highly uncertain data, the assumptions should be conservative and reasonable (i.e., the assumptions tend to overstate transportation impacts yet are not so conservative that they could mask the true environmental impacts of the reactor and lead to invalid conclusions).
Presentation of results, including population doses, maximally exposed individual doses, and health effects for transportation crews and the general public for the following:
- Workers and the public under normal transport conditions. Results should be presented for workers, onlookers, and persons along the route.
- Maximally exposed individuals under normal transport conditions. Results should be presented for truck crew members, inspectors, residents along the transport routes, and persons at a truck service station.
- Annual radiological and nonradiological transportation impacts. Results should be presented for the proposed site and the alternative sites.
sufficient descriptions of key models, assumptions, parameters, conditions, input data, resulting output, and approaches used to estimate transportation impacts to allow for NRC staffs evaluation. If there is relevant information in other supporting documentation (i.e., Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), design control document (DCD) or other references), indicate where in those documents this information can be found.
6.2.2 Estimating the Number of Shipments and Normalization of Shipments The impacts presented in Table S-4 are based on WASH-1238 (Ref. 91), and in Supplement 1 to WASH-1238, NUREG 75/038 (Ref. 92) for a 1,100-MW(e) LWR with an 80 percent capacity factor. To facilitate comparison of transportation impacts with the impacts presented in Table S-4, the number of shipments should be normalized to a 1,100-MW(e) LWR with an 80 percent capacity factor or a net electrical output of 880 MW(e):
=
() ()
In addition to normalizing the number of shipments to the 880-MW(e) reference reactor, for shipments of irradiated fuel, a transportation cask capacity of 0.5 MTU per shipment should be used to estimate the number of shipments. For shipments of radioactive waste, the number of shipments should be normalized to the 880-MW(e) reference reactor and a shipment capacity of 2.34 m3 per shipment should be used to estimate the number of shipments.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 132 For shipments of unirradiated fuel, the ER should first estimate the total number of shipments over a 40-year plant license, accounting for the initial core load plus average annual reloads for a period of 39 years.
Total Shipments = Initial Core Shipments + 39 x Average Annual Reload Shipments The number of shipments should then be normalized to the 880-MW(e) reference reactor and the annual number of shipments estimated assuming a 40-year plant license.
6.3 Decommissioning At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, NRC regulations require that the facility undergo decommissioning. In 10 CFR 50.2 Definitions and 10 CFR 52.1 Definitions, decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or (2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. The regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.75, Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning, 10 CFR 50.82 Termination of license and 10 CFR 52.110, Termination of license. The radiological criteria for termination of the NRC license are in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E.
Requirements relating to the minimization of contamination and generation of radioactive waste in facility design and procedures for operation are addressed in 10 CFR 20.1406, Minimization of contamination. Requirements for applicants for a COL to provide reasonable assurance that funds will be available for the decommissioning process are given in 10 CFR 50.75(b).
The NRC has developed NUREG-0586, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, (Decommissioning GEIS) (Ref. 96). At the time of decommissioning, if the predicted environmental impacts from decommissioning activities fall within the bounds of the GEIS or of another EIS related to the facility then no site-specific analysis will be required. For any decommissioning activity that does not meet these conditions, the regulations at 10 CFR 50.82 (a)(6)(ii) Termination of license and 10 CFR 52.110 (f)(2) state that licensees shall not perform any decommissioning activitiesthat (2)
result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed and therefore prohibits the licensee from undertaking the activity until it performs a site-specific analysis of the activity.
In the ER, an applicant should address the following:
Whether the proposed reactor designs fall within the bounds of the current Decommissioning GEIS. If the proposed design is outside the design envelope evaluated in the current version of the Decommissioning GEIS, then the applicant should address how the design could affect the impact conclusions presented in the Decommissioning GEIS.
Air-quality impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with plant decommissioning. The description should include the following:
- Estimates of GHG emissions (expressed in units of CO2 equivalents) over the decommissioning period, including GHG emissions associated with decommissioning equipment and workforce commuting. The applicant may provide either site-specific estimates or refer to the generic GHG footprint for a 1,000-MW(e) reactor (Ref. 15).
SAFSTOR emissions may be added if the applicant plans on using this decommissioning option. Assumptions, factors, and other information sufficient to allow an independent evaluation and assessment of the GHG emission estimate.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 133
Reference the section in the application that certifies that sufficient funds will be available to provide for radiological decommissioning in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(b)(1) and required by 10 CFR 50.33(k)(1).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 135 Chapter 7
7.0
Cumulative Impacts In this chapter, the applicant should describe any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic area of interest surrounding the site that would affect the same resources that would be affected by building and operation of the proposed project, regardless of what agency or person would be responsible for such other actions. The basis for the guidance includes the following:
10 CFR 51.10(a) with respect to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy to voluntarily take account, subject to certain conditions, of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The CEQ regulations specify that an EIS discuss cumulative impacts
(40 CFR 1508.25(c)(3)).
10 CFR 51.45 with respect to the need to discuss cumulative impacts in an environmental report (ER).
40 CFR 1508.25) with respect to the scope of an EIS and consideration of the cumulative impacts of connected, cumulative, and similar actions.
CEQ defines cumulative impact (also known as cumulative effect) in 40 CFR 1508.7 as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. The goal of the analysis is to introduce environmental considerations into the planning process as early as needed to improve decision-making.
The NRCs cumulative impact assessment approach is depicted in Figure 7-1. This figure depicts the resource impact area and geographic area of interest conceptually using simple polygons. However, the actual resource impact areas and geographic area of interests for each environmental resource must be suited both to the resource and the individual action under consideration. The geographic area of interest is defined as the area where other actions occur that could potentially have impacts within the resource impact area. The geographic area of interest may be different for each resource.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 136
Figure 7-1. NRC Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment The ER should address the following information and analysis:
Complete the list in Table 7-2 of other projects in the geographic area of interest that could contribute to cumulative impacts in the resource impact area.
A description of those activities within the geographic area of interest that could contribute to cumulative impacts within the resource impact area for each specific resource area.
CEQ guidance, Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (Ref. 97), recommends applying natural ecological or socio-cultural boundaries to the resource impact area. Possible boundaries that could be used to determine the appropriate geographic area for a cumulative impact analysis are in Table 2-2 of the CEQ Guidance. The EPA guidance in EPA Publication
315-R-99-002, Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (Ref. 98),
recommends that the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis include geographical areas that sustain the resources of concern, but not be extended to the point of becoming unwieldy. Geographical proximity to the proposed action should be considered but should not be used to exclude consideration of other actions.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 137 Jurisdictional borders are sometimes useful in defining the geographic area of interest for resource areas such as land use and some socioeconomic areas; however, this approach may not be appropriate for defining the geographical area for ecological resources for which jurisdictional borders may not correspond to a reliable definition of a resource, such as aquatic ecology. Table 7-1 provides general guidance for each resource on what the appropriate resource impact areas may be. However, professional judgment is needed in selecting resource impact area for a particular resource at a specific site.
Table 7-1. Resource Impact Area by Specific Resource Resource Resource Impact Area Land Use The resource impact area should encompass the site, the vicinity, and the extent of offsite areas and transmission-line corridors, pipelines, and other elements of the proposed project.
Water Use and Quality The resource impact area should reflect the use of surface water and groundwater sources by the project and by other projects in the vicinity of the site.
Terrestrial Ecology At a minimum, the resource impact area should encompass the site, any offsite parcels or corridors, and related segments of the surrounding landscape. The resource impact area should also encompass any parcels recognized early in the project design process as likely to be used for mitigation activities. A radial distance from the site, such as 6 mi (i.e., the distance used by the NRC to define the projects vicinity) may be used for terrestrial impacts, if appropriate. If one or more corridors extend farther than the selected radial distance, then the resource impact area should include the extended linear corridors such as transmission lines or pipelines.
Aquatic Ecology The resource impact area should be defined using criteria appropriate to the particular characteristics of the resource, such as salinity regimes, watersheds, substrate, or other environmental characteristics that define suitable habitat ranges and preferences of aquatic resources in the area affected by the project. The resource impact area also includes those areas (such as impoundments or facilities affecting water quality) that have or will add to the incremental effects of the project on aquatic habitats.
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice The resource impact area should encompass the areas of effect and the distances at which impacts of building and operating over the expected license term may occur. The scope will depend on the extent of project activities but normally would include the site, the local community, the economic region, and demographic region identified in Chapter 2.
Historic and Cultural Resources The resource impact area for the cumulative analysis would be the same APE(s)
described in Chapter 2.
Air Quality The resource impact area for criteria pollutants is generally the county where the licensing activity is taking place.
Nonradiological Health The resource impact area changes based on the type of health effect. For example, electric shocks or chronic EMF exposure is possible at the site and along the transmission corridor, whereas etiological agents are a threat in the vicinity of the thermal discharges.
Radiological Health The resource impact area is considered to be the area that has the potential to increase radiological exposure at any location within a 50-mi radius of the proposed site.
Postulated Accidents The resource impact area is considered to be the area that has the potential to increase risks at any location within a 50-mi radius of the proposed site.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation and Decommissioning The resource impact area is a 50-mi radius around the site.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 138 The timeframe for the analysis incorporates the sum of the effects of the proposed project in combination with past, present, and future actions because impacts may accumulate or develop over time.
Past timeframe is prior to the receipt of the application. In many cases, discussion of the past actions may entail a brief paragraph telling the story of how the resource has changed to its current condition by describing past actions and, as necessary, referring to the baseline discussion in Chapter 2 of the ER.
Present timeframe is from the time of the receipt of the application until issuance of the final EIS.
The present time frame is the shortest among the three timeframes and should capture any ongoing actions. Many of the resource areas measure the environment as it currently exists. These measurements capture the cumulative impact to the resource from the past and present projects and should be part of the baseline for the resource in Chapter 2 of the ER.
Future timeframe is from issuance of the final EIS through building and operation of the proposed new unit(s) as well as decommissioning. Future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable; that is, they are ongoing (and will continue into the future); are funded for future implementation; are included in firm near-term plans; or generally have a high probability of being implemented.
In general, the baseline assessment presented in the affected environment for each resource area (Chapter 2) accounts for past and present actions. The direct and indirect impact analyses (Chapters 4 and
5) address the incremental impacts of building and operation. This chapter references these analyses, and does not need to be repeated in the cumulative impact analysis.
Both the proposed project and other actions may contribute to cumulative impacts. Because cumulative impacts are additive, the analysis of cumulative impacts should concentrate only on resources that are potentially affected by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as well as by building and operations activities at the proposed nuclear plant during the expected timeframe of the project. Note that cumulative effects may result from the accumulation of similar effects or the synergistic interaction of different effects.
7.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects The ER should provide a table listing past and present projects, facilities, or actions in the geographic area of interest that contribute to the current baseline and future status of the resource. The table should also include the reasonably foreseeable future projects that could contribute to cumulative impacts to the resource during building, operation, and decommissioning of the unit(s). This table should include the following:
project/facility/action name;
summary description;
location in relation to the proposed unit(s);
status (e.g., operational, proposed, ongoing, or existing); and
environmental resources affected.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 139 Examples of other present or proposed actions include other electric power generation projects, chemical or paper processing facilities, bridges, roads, conservation or restoration areas, reservoirs for water storage, quarries or mines, and transmission lines. For operational projects, the applicant should indicate whether any changes in the project are anticipated that would result in changes to the projects environmental interface (i.e. a power uprate of a power facility).
Database tools such as NEPAssist (Ref. 99), may facilitate the environmental review process and project planning in relation to environmental considerations. The web-based application draws environmental data dynamically from EPA Geographic Information System databases and web services and provides immediate screening of environmental assessment indicators for a user-defined area of interest. These features contribute to a streamlined review process that potentially raises important environmental issues at the earliest stages of project development.
The applicant should discuss the resources used to identify and develop the listings of other projects and associated references, including any consultations with Federal, State, regional, and local regulators, and American Indian Tribes.
Table 7-2 is an example table for listing the projects within the geographic area of interest. This is only an example. Not all applications will have projects listed in all categories.
Table 7-2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Considered in the Cumulative Analysis
Project Name Summary of Project Location Status
[identify projects other than the proposed project]
[provide short summary of project]
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[provide status, including citation]
Nuclear Projects XXX Unit 1 XXX Unit 1 consists of one XXX-MW(e) nuclear power generating plant.
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[provide status, including citation]
Other Energy Projects Hydroelectric Station [provide short summary of project]
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[provide status, including citation]
XXX Natural Gas Plant
[provide short summary of project]
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[provide status, including citation]
XXX Coal Plant
[provide short summary of project]
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[provide status, including citation]
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 140
Project Name Summary of Project Location Status Transmission Lines
[provide short summary of transmission system]
[can reference a figure for location]
[provide status, including citation for operational as well as proposed transmission lines]
Mining Projects XXX Quarry
[provide short summary of project]
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[provide status, including citation]
Transportation Projects Strategic Corridor System Plan Strategic system of traffic corridors.
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
Planning document with no explicit schedules for projects, however, many strategic corridors coincide with routes that would/could be used for development at the proposed site.
Parks and Aquaculture Facilities XXXX Park
XX-ac park
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
Managed by [Federal, State or local agency]
(citation).
Other Actions/Projects City of XXXX
Municipal water withdrawals from the XX
River
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[provide status, including citation]
Various Hospitals and Industrial Facilities that Use Radioactive Materials Medical isotopes
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
Operational (citation)
XXX Chemical Plant [provide short summary of project]
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
Various Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTF)
Sewage treatment
[describe location in relation to proposed project]
Operational (citation)
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 141 The ER should contain:
a list of EISs concerning projects in the same geographic area of interest as the proposed project;
a description of anticipated regional changes not associated with an individual project (e.g., future urbanization) that could result in cumulative impacts during building, operation, and decommissioning of the unit(s); and
a description of how the baseline environment used in Chapters 2, 4 and 5 might change as a result of climate change and a discussion of how impacts discussed in chapters 4 and 5 would either increase, decrease or remain the same in this new baseline environment. This information could be contained in this chapter or as its own separate appendix to the ER and should be based on assessments conducted by Federal agencies with a mandate to evaluate the effects of climate change (e.g., latest U.S. Global Change Research Program Report), but applicable regional and local studies conducted by other entities may be included.
7.2 Impact Assessment The applicant should assess the level of cumulative impacts (adverse and/or beneficial). The impacts analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the ER are brought forward into the ER Chapter 7 cumulative analysis. Typically, one or two sentences describing the impact to the resource from building and operation and referring back to the appropriate chapter is sufficient. The analysis in Chapters 4 and 5 of the ER will have included the past and present impacts to the resource along with the impacts from the project. The cumulative analysis should focus on the reasonably foreseeable future actions that could have a cumulative impact. The applicant should summarize the principal contributor(s) to cumulative impacts for each resource area and describe the interaction between the cumulative outside stresses and those caused by building or operating the proposed project. The ER should also include a discussion of the incremental contribution of the NRC authorized activities related to the proposed action (e.g.,
constructing or operating the proposed plant) in relation to the cumulative impacts.
The ER should also include:
any plans for mitigation of adverse cumulative impacts, or modification of alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate cumulative impacts
mitigation that may be required by Federal, State, and local authorities, including information about restoration actions by separate entities, required mitigation of other projects, or voluntary mitigation and enhancement by the entity taking an action
at the end of the chapter a table summarizing the impact to each resource and mitigation, if any, to reduce the cumulative impact
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 143 Chapter 8
8.0
Need for Power The Commission reaffirmed the importance of the agencys need for power analysis in a
2003 response to a petition for rulemaking (see 68 FR 55905 (Ref. 100)). The goal of the need for power analysis is to provide confidence that the power generated by the proposed project will be produced and consumed in a manner consistent with the stated purpose and need of the project. The analysis also provides the basis for the consideration of baseload alternative generating technologies for the proposed project. The need for power analysis should be limited to the discussion of the supply and demand for electricity. Discussion of ancillary benefits (e.g., reduced greenhouse gas emissions, fuel diversity, or grid stability) should be addressed in the benefit-cost section of the environmental report (ER).
The need for power analysis should fully describe and characterize the physical, geographic, regulatory, and administrative provisions and constraints which affect the current and forecast supply of and demand for power. The analysis should be in sufficient detail to fully demonstrate how the proposed project would supply some or all of the service areas future need for power. However, while a discussion of need for power is required, the Commission is not looking for burdensome attempts by the applicant to precisely identify future market conditions and energy demand, or to develop detailed analyses of system generating assets, costs of production, capital replacement ratios, and the like in order to establish with certainty that the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant is the most economical alternative for generation of power (see 68 FR 55905). The applicant should specify whether it intends to operate the proposed plant as a baseload generator, and, if so, include a discussion of the need for new baseload capacity.
The applicant should explicitly state a feasible future date for commencement of full commercial operation of the proposed project. The need for power analysis in the ER should include a table and/or graph characterizing the service areas most recent annual hourly peak (summer or winter, whichever is greater) electricity demand. The analysis should provide information over sufficient historical and projected periods to permit the staff to complete an independent assessment of the need for the power to be provided by the proposed project. The historical data should include sufficient years to identify any trends or anomalous factors that could affect the future demand for electricity. The projected period should include information out to three years beyond the planned commencement of full commercial operation of the project (referred to herein as the analytical year).
The following sections describe the need for power analysis process in greater detail, including information needed to adequately describe the power system, power demand, power supply, and the process for assessing the need for power of the proposed project.
The applicant should identify all sources of data used in the need for power analysis in the ER
and demonstrate how the data upon which the analysis relies was used. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to rely on the analysis in the ER, the analysis should meet the following four acceptance criteria, as discussed in NUREG-1555:
Systematic. An analysis that has been performed according to an objective, thorough, methodical, deliberate, and organized manner and that has been presented in a step-wise fashion leading to a logical conclusion supported by the data and reasoning provided.
Comprehensive. An analysis that is detailed, broad in scope, and includes a sufficient number of relevant factors so that the reviewer can reasonably conclude that the analysis may be considered
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 144 complete. The depth of analysis and discussion for each factor is commensurate with its relative importance.
Subject to confirmation. An analysis that is independently reviewed or confirmed by another entity (e.g., Federal or State reviews of integrated resource plans, State certificate of necessity proceedings, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews, or independent system operator (ISO) or regional transmission organization (RTO) reports).
Responsive to forecasting uncertainty. A stable and robust methodology that is not unduly affected by the presence of outliers or other small departures from the modeled assumptions yet remains capable of characterizing the relative importance of uncertainty among input variables during sensitivity analyses.
The applicant may use any data and supporting information it chooses, but the data and information chosen should support an analysis that meets the NRCs four acceptance criteria. Typical sources include:
recent demand for power reports or analyses such as annual integrated resource plans, ISO or RTO power market analyses
State utility regulatory filings
other regional reports or resource assessments completed by an entity other than the applicant If analyses from external sources are not available that meet the staffs acceptance criteria, then the applicants analyses should fully characterize the electricity market and explain how the proposed project would be used in that market. In all cases, the analyses relied upon by the applicant should meet the NRCs four acceptance criteria.
8.1 Description of the Applicants Power Market In developing the need for power analysis, applicants should clearly describe the specific market structure (or hybrid thereof) under which the proposed nuclear power plant would operate. Commonly recognized markets that affect a need for power analysis include:
Rate-based utility: A rate-based utility provides generation and distribution of electricity under a regulatory obligation to provide electrical service to customers in a non-competitive market with a defined service area. The rate-based utility generally has to seek permission for expanding its generating fleet, typically in the form of a certification from a utility oversight organization. If certification is required, the applicant should provide a detailed discussion of the status of the certification in the power market discussion.
Merchant generator: A merchant generator produces and sells electricity into a competitive wholesale or retail power market where that electricity is administrated and delivered to the marketplace via an ISO or RTO. Development of new capacity may or may not require approval by a regulatory body. However, even if a new generating unit were to require a certification similar to that of a rate-based utility, the merchant generators energy is not necessarily committed to a specific geographic area, does not have a captive rate base, and customers or retailers are not obligated to purchase it.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 145 The description and details provided in this section should be consistent with the projects stated purpose and need statement from Chapter 1 of the ER. The applicant should provide the following information in the ER:
Description of the manner in which the applicant and owners operate to supply power to the service area. This information should be consistent with information provided in the application in response to 10 CFR 50.33(d) and (i). The discussion should include any State, regional, or market-based regulatory requirements that would affect the production, distribution, and consumption of electricity. Examples include, but are not limited to, resource portfolio standards, impacts from known or potential changes to energy-efficiency standards, and potential impacts from changes to Federal and State environmental policies.
Detailed explanation for the selection of the intended service area for the project, including any relevant aspects of the service area which would be supported by the proposed project (e.g., proximity to load centers, shortage of available baseload capacity, portfolio diversity, etc.).
The service area should be defined in terms of some readily accessible analytical area defined by the applicants ISO, RTO, or North American Electric Reliability Corporation subregion.
Recognized and anticipated service obligations such as power purchase agreements or any power market-based agreements deployed for stability and reliability (e.g., reserve, sharing agreements, or must-run).
Any unique service area or market factors that may affect the accuracy or availability of current and forecast generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. For example, grid constraints (e.g., congestion and capacity) that limit the proposed projects ability to fully service its geographic market should be identified and discussed.
8.2 Power Demand The purpose of the power demand section is to fully disclose current and forecast demand for baseload and peak power. The level of detail provided should establish a comprehensive assessment of the existing market, and how the capacity and energy of the proposed project will be used (demanded) in that market once commissioned and operated.
This section of the need for power analysis should discuss factors which affect, or are likely to affect, the current and forecast demand for power. This commonly includes econometric, weather, and demographic data, but could also include explanations of policies and programs implemented or likely to be implemented that may influence the demand for power. Examples include, but are not limited to, discussion of energy-efficiency and conservation programs, demand-side management programs, and potential impacts from changes to energy standards and codes. The applicant should discuss any factors that could affect demand uncertainty.
Based on the description, conditions, and constraints of the relevant service area or power market provided in Section 8.1 of this RG, the applicant should provide the following information in the ER:
historical levels of electricity demand, including:
- annual peak hourly demand and annual baseload demand; and
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 146
- a disaggregation of electricity demand by market sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial), extending back for a period sufficient to illustrate any current trends or anomalies that affect future projections of electricity demand;
current (as close to the application year as practicable) peak total demand and baseload demand for all sectors; and
future projections of peak total demand and baseload demand, extending to the analytical year.
Demand Side Management (DSM) and Energy Efficiency (EE) programs affect demand primarily through reductions of peak and intermediate load. Any future DSM or EE should be discussed in the applicants demand forecast as a reduction from annual hourly peak demand, but any calculation of future demand based upon an extrapolation of past demand should not include a calculation of DSM/EE
reductions from that extrapolation. By construction, the forecasted demand already includes consideration of future DSM/EE and any reduction of demand for DSM/EE would result in double counting. For the purposes of a need for power analysis, the NRC staff considers reserve requirements to be a component of electricity demand; therefore, these should be included and quantified by the applicant as part of demand.
Table 8-1 provides a representative format for displaying the changes in baseload and annual peak hourly electricity demand components over the temporal scope of the analysis, noting that the analysis is not necessarily bound or limited to only these data points.
Table 8-1. Demand Forecast Summary (MW(e))
20WW(a)
20WW
20XX(b) 20YY(c)
20YY
20ZZ(d)
Total Baseload Demand
Peak Hourly System Demand
MINUS: DSM(e) and EE(f)
Total Peak Demand
PLUS: Reserve Margin
Total System Demand
(a) 20WW denotes data years before submittal of the application (b) 20XX denotes the year of submittal of the application (c) 20YY represents the intervening years in some useful increment (d) 20ZZ indicates the year three years after commencement of full commercial operations (e) DSM is Demand Side Management (f) EE is Energy Efficiency
8.3 Power Supply The intent of the power-supply section is to fully disclose the current and forecast supply of electricity (i.e., capacity), including an analysis of installed capacity, planned capacity, and known or forecast retirements. The applicant should describe and explain the factors that affect, or are likely to affect, the current and forecast supply of electricity in the service area.
The power supply section should include a description of the regulatory, statutory, and/or business drivers that may influence current fleet and future supply decisions. The applicant should provide any known or forecast factors that could affect uncertainty, with an emphasis on their likelihood.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 147 Examples include effects from current Federal emissions regulations; pending Federal regulations on new source review and greenhouse gas emissions; and any potential transition to alternative technologies. To the extent the proposed project addresses any of these factors they should be discussed, quantified, and aligned with the stated purpose and need.
The applicant should include the following information in the ER:
A comprehensive assessment of the existing supply of generating capacity in the service area or power market predicated on the description, conditions, and constraints provided in Section 8.1.
The existing supply of generating capacity should be disaggregated by fuel type and by dispatch (baseload, intermediate, peaking).
All known or anticipated power purchases or sales which would serve to affect the net supply of power within the area of interest.
All potential capacity additions, retirements, uprates, and fuel switches for the entire service area.
Recognizing not all planned capacity additions will be built and become operational, the applicant should only include projects currently under construction and/or having an issued certification of need from a utility oversight organization (e.g., a State utility commission) for the projected growth in capacity.
Table 8-2 provides a representative format for displaying the supply of power in a service area or power market over the temporal scope of the analysis, noting that the analysis is not necessarily bound or limited to only these data points.
Table 8-2. Supply Resources Summary (MW(e))
20WW(a)
20WW
20XX(b)
20YY(c)
20YY
20ZZ(d)
Baseload Resources
MINUS: Retirements
PLUS: Additions
Total Baseload Capacity
Installed System Capacity
MINUS: Retirements
PLUS: Additions
Total Installed Capacity
Net Transactions (exported and imported power)
Total System Supply (a) 20WW indicates data years before the submittal of the application (b) 20XX denotes the year of submittal of the application (c) 20YY represents the intervening years in some useful increment (d) 20ZZ indicates the year three years after commencement of full commercial operations
8.4 Summary of the Need for Power Analysis and Conclusions This section of the ER should provide a summary of the need for power analysis for the proposed project and disclose the applicants conclusions in accordance with the purpose and need definition in
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 148 Chapter 1 of the ER. The findings summarized in this section should be fully substantiated by data and discussion presented in the preceding sections. This section should result in a final determination of whether or not there is a need for the power from the proposed project in the relevant service area in the analytical year, as defined in Section 8.0.
To provide further insight into the preparation of the need for power assessment in the ER, the following descriptions delineate the types of acceptable analyses that applicants may use to make a positive determination of need. Any one of the approaches listed below is sufficient to demonstrate need for power, but the applicant should show the basis for a positive determination of need as well as the results of the analyses outlined in Sections 8.2 and 8.3.
Certification of Need. Demonstrating that the proposed action has obtained formal certification from a utility authority stating the public need for the proposed project is the most direct method for determining the need for power. Because such a certification is made by the State agency authorized to make such a determination, it is presumed to meet the four acceptability criteria described in this Chapter. Therefore, where such regulations are in place and a certificate has been issued, further justification is not necessary. However, the applicant should include descriptions of the power market, power demand forecast, and power supply forecast, as discussed in the preceding sections. The applicant should cite the certification in the conclusions section as the basis for a positive determination of need.
Peak Demand Assessment. For the relevant market area, future total system demand for electricity (including reserve requirements) should be compared to future total system supply, based on items provided in Tables 8-1 and 8-2. A positive determination of peak demand can be demonstrated when the projected peak hourly demand for electricity is greater than the projected capacity in the market area by an amount that is greater than (or reasonably close to) the planned capacity of the proposed project in the analytical year. If the entire capacity of the proposed project cannot be accounted for in the relevant service area, the remainder may be accounted for by demonstrating the remaining capacity of the proposed project can be sold to areas outside the applicants relevant service area.
Baseload Demonstration. A positive determination of baseload need can be demonstrated when the projected baseload demand for electricity is greater than the projected baseload capacity by an amount that is greater than (or reasonably close to) the planned capacity of the proposed project.
The applicant should include a table similar to Table 8-3 that demonstrates the need for baseload capacity greater than (or reasonably close to) the capacity of the proposed project in the analytical year.
Market-Based Evaluation. A positive need for power determination need not depend on a deficit in the supply of electricity in the analytical year. Rather an applicant can demonstrate a need for power even in a market place that has a surplus of electricity. The applicant can either:
1. Perform a market-based or auction analysis describing how the applicant will price and bid their electricity to ensure the proposed project will participate in the market at levels consistent with baseload capacity factors. This approach should:
- describe the auction or other mechanism by which the ISO/RTO selects generators to supply power into the market, and
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 149
- provide an analysis illustrating how the project can feasibly compete in the hourly market at a lower price than competitors, ensuring the proposed projects continuous access to the electricity market.
Table 8-3. Demand and Supply Forecast Summary (MW(e))
20WW(a)
20WW
20XX(b)
20YY(c)
20YY
20ZZ(d)
DEMAND
Peak System Demand
MINUS: DSM and EE
Total Peak Demand
Plus Reserve Margin
Total System Demand
SUPPLY
Installed System Capacity
MINUS: Retirements
PLUS: Additions
Total Installed Capacity
Net Transactions
Total System Supply
Surplus (Deficit) Without the Proposed Project Project Capacity
Surplus (Deficit) With the Proposed Project (a) 20WW denotes data years before submittal of the application (b) 20XX denotes the year of submittal of the application (c) 20YY represents the intervening years in some useful increment (d) 20ZZ indicates the year three years after commencement of full commercial operations.
2. Provide evidence that the proposed unit(s) intend to enter into an agreement with the ISO/RTO that in exchange for the guarantee of always being able to sell their electricity, the applicant will agree to take whatever price the ISO/RTO establishes as the hourly market price. This approach should include:
- a description of the existing market area;
- a detailed description of the auction or mechanism by which generators are selected to supply power into the market; and
- documentary evidence of the agreement between the applicant and the ISO/RTO.
In all cases, the applicant is free to employ a need for power analysis that is not explicitly identified by the above list, provided such deviation is accompanied by a detailed explanation as to
(1) why the applicant employed a different approach and (2) how the applicants preferred methodology meets the NRCs four acceptance criteria for a need for power analysis described in this Chapter.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 151 Chapter 9
9.0
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives The environmental report (ER) should include a discussion of alternatives to the proposed action that is sufficiently complete to aid the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in (1) discussing alternatives to the proposed action in the environmental impact statement (EIS) [National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Section 102(2)(C)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 4321, 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3))], and (2) developing and describing appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA Section 102(2)(E)
(42 U.S.C. 4321)). To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be presented in comparative form (10 CFR 51.45(b)(3)).
A key aspect of the alternatives analysis is that the alternatives presented in the ER should be capable of meeting the purpose and need of the proposed project. Assume, as an example, that the purpose and need for the project includes generating approximately 1,500 megawatt(s) electric (MW(e))
of baseload power by the year 2030 in the region of interest (ROI). An alternative that cannot generate approximately 1,500 MW(e) of baseload power, or cannot be in service by year 2030, or cannot effectively deliver power to the ROI, cannot meet the purpose and need and should not be retained as an alternative. A given project will have its own unique purpose and need statement. Some projects may have very different statements of the purpose and need; however, any alternative that will be evaluated must meet the purpose and need.
Another key aspect of this analysis is that the alternatives presented in the ER should be reasonable18 as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (46 FR 18026) (Ref. 30). In other words, there should be a reasonable expectation that the alternative could be implemented. For example, if a proposed plant requires 60 million gallons per day (Mgd) of cooling water, then an alternative site for which no such source exists or is likely to be developed is not a reasonable alternative.
As another example, it is theoretically possible to generate electricity using a fusion reactor. However, as of the date of this publication, commercial power generation with a fusion reactor remains an elusive goal. Therefore, fusion power is not a reasonable alternative. While these are extreme examples, they illustrate the point that, to be considered an alternative, there must be a reasonable expectation that it could actually be implemented.
Except as described in Appendix A, the ER should include information on four categories of alternatives: the no-action alternative, energy alternatives, site alternatives, and system alternatives.
Specific information to include in the ER is covered in the following subsections.
9.1 No-Action Alternative The discussion of alternatives in the ER should include the no-action alternative under which the requested license or permit is not granted by the NRC. The ER should describe under the no-action alternative the impacts of not implementing the proposed action. Guidance from the CEQ states, Where a choice of no action by the agency would result in predictable actions by others, this consequence of the no-action alternative should be included in the analysis (46 FR 18026). For example, if the
18 Identification and evaluation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action is the intent of NEPA:
Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant (From the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (46 FR 18026)).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 152 proposed nuclear plant would be used to meet a demonstrated need for power, then not building the plant would lead to a failure to meet that need for power. The staff expects that regulatory authorities (typically a State public service commission, or equivalent, in conjunction with any regional transmission operator and electrical reliability council) would take action to meet the need for power before the grid became unreliable. Because of this, the ER should discuss what other steps might be taken to address the need for power, and the associated environmental impacts. For example, if the likely result of the no-action alternative would be that one of the other energy alternatives would be built and operated to meet the need for power, then the ER should include that information and may refer to the discussion of that energy alternative for the associated environmental impacts.
9.2 Energy Alternatives The first step in the discussion of energy alternatives should be to evaluate and identify the energy sources other than nuclear energy that have the potential to meet the purpose and need for the project and eliminate from detailed discussion energy sources that cannot meet the purpose and need. The second step should be to evaluate in more detail the impacts of the energy sources that can meet the purpose and need for the project. Finally, the ER should compare the impacts of the energy sources that can meet the purpose and need to the impacts of the proposed project and determine if any of the alternative sources are environmentally preferable to the proposed project.
The discussion of alternatives in the ER should include all energy alternatives that could be used to meet the need for power.19 Energy alternatives can be divided into two categories; those that do not require new generating capacity (e.g., energy conservation), and those that do require new generating capacity (e.g., a natural gas-fired plant).
For alternatives that do not require new generating capacity, the ER should discuss options that go beyond any already considered in the need-for-power analysis presented in ER Chapter 8. For example, the need-for-power analysis typically has already considered energy savings associated with energy efficiency and conservation programs that the power company plans to implement. Because these programs have already been considered in the need-for-power analysis, they do not represent an alternative to the proposed action. However, for the alternatives analysis the ER should discuss the possibility of implementing additional measures (beyond those already planned) that could obviate the need for the proposed nuclear power plant. These measures may include importing more power from beyond the ROI, additional energy-efficiency, conservation, and demand-side management programs (Ref. 101),20 re-activating plants that have been retired, or extending the lives of plants that are currently assumed to retire in the need-for-power analysis. The analysis of these alternatives should consider if these alternatives are reasonable (i.e., can they meet the purpose and need of the project after considering technical and regulatory challenges). If the alternative cannot meet the purpose and need for the project then it should be eliminated from further consideration. If the alternative can meet the purpose and need then it should be retained for comparison to the proposed project.
The discussion of alternatives that would require new generation facilities should include renewable and nonrenewable sources and at least one combination of sources. Examples of renewable
19 As discussed in Appendix A, an applicant for an early site permit is not required to address energy alternatives
(10 CFR 51.50(b)(2)). However, the applicant can choose to address energy alternatives in such an application.
20
Energy efficiency, conservation, and demand-side management programs need not be considered by the applicant if the application is for a merchant plant - a plant with no specific service territory. However, if one or more other companies are implementing such programs in the ROI, the ER should include consideration of the effect of those programs on the amount of power needed.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 153 sources are wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, hydrokinetic (e.g., wave and tidal), biomass (e.g., wood residues), municipal solid waste, energy crops, and solar. Examples of nonrenewable sources are coal, natural gas, and petroleum fuels. A combination of alternatives is one that includes a mix of sources that are available in that region. The decision regarding the mix of sources in the combination should be based on consideration of maximizing the renewable portion of the combination and minimizing the environmental impacts to create a competitive alternative. However, the combination must still be capable of meeting the purpose and need for the project. The analysis of alternative energy sources should consider the availability of the source in the ROI, the extent to which the source is already used in the region, and projections in the growth of the source in the region. Projections may be available from organizations such as power companies, public service commissions, Federal agencies, and universities.
Reasonable energy alternatives are those that can meet the purpose and need of the project. So, for example, if the purpose and need includes providing baseload generating capacity, then any reasonable alternative must also be capable of providing baseload generating capacity.21 If a potential alternative has a capacity factor significantly lower than that of the proposed project (e.g., wind and solar), consider whether the alternative could be feasible if a form of energy storage or backup power is included. However, the feasibility and environmental impacts of energy storage or backup power would have to be included in the evaluation of the alternative.
Once reasonable alternatives have been identified, the ER should evaluate the environmental impacts of those alternatives for comparison to the impacts of the proposed action. In general, applicants should assume siting of alternative energy facilities at the proposed plant site unless the proposed site would not be suitable for the particular alternative. For alternatives that require a cooling system, the ER
should assume a cooling system similar to that evaluated for the proposed project.
The environmental impacts of each reasonable alternative should be compared to the impacts of the proposed action. Based on that comparison, the ER should indicate whether any of the alternatives is environmentally preferable to the proposed action. If none of the alternatives are environmentally preferable, then no further action is needed. If any of the alternatives are found to be environmentally preferable, then the ER should determine whether such alternatives are obviously superior to the proposed action by considering other factors (e.g., cost [capital and operating costs], fuel availability, and regulatory issues). As part of the comparison of reasonable energy alternatives, the ER should compare greenhouse gas emissions associated with each alternative to the emissions from the proposed project.
9.3 Site-Selection Process The ER should describe the process used by the applicant to identify possible sites for the new nuclear plant and to select the proposed site. The basic steps that should be described in the site-selection process are shown in Figure 9-1.
21 A baseload power plant is designed to operate continuously to supply all or part of the systems minimum load (DOE/EIAs Electric Power Industry Terms and Definitions, (Ref. 102)). Baseload power plants typically have annual load capacity factors that exceed 75 percent, but usually operate 90 to 98 percent of the time (How to Compare Power Generation Choices in Renewable Energy World North America (Ref. 103)).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 154
Figure 9-1. Site-Selection Process The ER should include the following information:
A description of the ROI, candidate areas, potential sites, and candidate sites. If any potential or candidate sites have been designated by a governmental agency as an acceptable site for a new nuclear power plant, this information should be included in the ER.
Selection procedures for the ROI, candidate areas, potential sites, candidate sites, and the proposed site.
The basis for establishing the geographical scope of the ROI.
Factors considered at each level of the selection process, parameters by which these factors were measured and weighted, and criteria used to define levels of acceptability (e.g., numerical limits or decision standards).
Methodologies used in the potential and candidate site screening process, including (when used)
factors such as (1) importance factors, (2) preference functions, (3) utility functions,
(4) weighting factors, (5) ranking scales, (6) scoring schemes, (7) rating systems, and
(8) sensitivity analyses.
For each alternative site, reconnaissance-level information should be included in the ER for the same impact categories used for the proposed site (see Chapters 4 and 5).
While the ER summarizes the process used to select the proposed site, the NRC staff will need to know the details of the process, which is typically described in a more detailed site-selection report prepared by or for the applicant. If such a report was prepared, it should be provided to the NRC staff at the time the application is submitted to inform the staffs review.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 155 The site-selection process should follow a logical path from the definition of the ROI to the identification of candidate areas, potential sites, and candidate sites, to the selection of the proposed site.
The ROI is the geographic area considered in searching for potential and candidate sites. The geographic area of the ROI need not be contiguous, but if it is not, a logical basis for nonadjacent areas should be provided. Candidate Areas are one or more areas within the ROI that remain after unsuitable areas (e.g., unsuitable because of high population, lack of water, fault lines, or distance to transmission lines)
have been removed. Potential Sites are those sites within the candidate areas that have been identified for preliminary assessment in establishing candidate sites. Candidate sites are those potential sites within the ROI and that are considered in the comparative evaluation of sites to be among the best that can reasonably be found for the siting of a nuclear power plant. The candidate sites include the proposed site and the alternative sites. The proposed site is the candidate site submitted to the NRC by the applicant as the proposed location for a nuclear power plant. Alternative sites are those candidate sites that are compared to the proposed site to determine if there is an obviously superior alternative site. In general, the identification of three to five alternative sites in addition to the proposed site could be viewed as adequate. Each of the steps in the process is discussed in more detail below.
9.3.1 The Region of Interest The ROI is typically selected based on geographic boundaries (e.g., the State in which the proposed site is located), or the relevant service area for the proposed plant. In cases where the proposed plant would not have a service area, the applicant should define a reasonable ROI and provide a justification. The ROI should be more extensive if the diversity of environmental conditions captured by the ROI would be substantially improved or if candidate sites do not meet initial threshold criteria (including the site criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria (Ref. 104)), and added geographic areas likely would not increase project costs substantially. The ER should describe how the ROI was selected, the extent of and basis for restrictions to the ROI because of siting constraints, and the extent to which the ROI is constrained based on the major load centers to be supplied by the proposed plant.
9.3.2 Candidate Areas The ER should describe the process used to identify the candidate areas within the ROI. Reasons that areas may be unsuitable include the following:
does not meet criteria in 10 CFR Part 100 (e.g., seismic unsuitability, proximity to major centers of population density)
lack of existing infrastructure (e.g., roads and railroads)
lack of a suitable cooling-water source
distance to transmission lines, substations, or load centers
unsuitable topographic features
potential to impact valuable agricultural, residential, or industrial areas
potential to impact dedicated land-use areas (e.g., parks, historic sites, and wilderness areas)
conflicts with land-use planning programs or other restrictions established by State, county, or local governments
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 156 The applicants process to identify candidate areas should consider these and other reasonable attributes to identify areas potentially unsuitable for siting a new nuclear power plant. The ER should present the determining characteristics of the identified areas and need not present other characteristics.
For example, if an area has no suitable cooling-water source, then the area would be considered unsuitable and the other factors listed above need not be considered. The areas in the ROI that remain after unsuitable areas are eliminated are the candidate areas.
9.3.3 Potential Sites Once the candidate areas have been identified, the ER should describe how potential sites within those areas were identified. In selecting potential sites, applicants should use a logical process that treats all sites in the same way, and would reasonably be expected to produce sites that are among the best potential sites in the candidate areas. Applicants should not use a potential site-selection process that focuses on one group or class of sites to the exclusion of other groups of sites without a defensible technical basis. The process used to identify potential sites should typically consider attributes similar to those used in the process of identifying candidate areas. However, in general this step in the process involves a somewhat more detailed look at those criteria. In addition, in many cases, the applicant can use the inverse of the attributes listed above, looking for positive rather than negative attributes. So, for example, the applicant may identify locations in the candidate areas that have ample water, are close to transmission facilities and load centers, have infrastructure in place, etc. However, negative attributes at a specific location (e.g., seismicity or threatened and endangered species), may also be used to de-select some sites.
An applicant is not expected to conduct detailed environmental studies for potential sites, only preliminary investigations using reconnaissance-level information.22 A reconnaissance-level investigation should take account of information that is readily available over the Internet and from other sources (e.g., existing studies and State and Federal agencies). The applicant does not have to own the land at potential sites; however, no obvious obstruction should prevent the applicant from obtaining the land (e.g., land that is part of a National Park).
The goal of this step in the process is not to identify every potential site in the candidate areas.
Depending on the size of the candidate areas, trying to identify all possible sites would yield an unworkable number of possible locations. Instead, the ER should demonstrate that the applicant used a logical process that would reasonably be expected to produce a list of the best potential sites in the candidate areas.
9.3.4 Candidate Sites Candidate sites are those potential sites that are within the ROI and are considered in the comparative evaluation of sites to be among the best that can reasonably be found for the siting of a new nuclear power plant. The applicants review of candidate sites should be directed toward the identification of sites suitable for the size and type of nuclear power plant being proposed. The candidate sites include
22 Reconnaissance-level information is defined in RG 4.7 as information that is obtainable from published reports, public records, public and private agencies, and individuals knowledgeable about the locality of a potential site.
Although in some cases the applicants may have conducted on-the-spot investigations, it is assumed here that these investigations would be limited to reconnaissance-type surveys at this stage in the site selection process.
Reconnaissance should include more than just a literature search for issues that are critical to the evaluation of sites. So, for example, reconnaissance should include contact with the water-management agency about water availability in most cases, as discussed in RG 4.7. The amount and quality of information must be sufficient based on the expert judgment of the reviewer to make the required determination for which the information is needed.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 157 the proposed site and the alternative sites. The ER should demonstrate that the applicants site-selection methodology resulted in the identification of candidate sites that are potentially licensable by the NRC,
and among the best that can reasonably be found in the ROI. At least four candidate sites should be identified in the ER.
To be a candidate site, the following minimum criteria should be satisfied:
Consumptive use of water should not cause significant adverse effects on other users.
The proposed action should not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of Federal, State, or American Indian Tribal listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
There should not be any potential significant impacts to essential fish habitat or other federally protected aquatic habitats or to known spawning grounds or nursery areas of populations of important aquatic species on Federal, State, or American Indian Tribal lists.
Discharges of effluents into waterways should be in accordance with Federal, State, regional, local, and American Indian Tribal regulations and should not adversely impact efforts to meet water-quality objectives.
There should be no preemption of, or adverse impacts on, land specially designated for environmental, recreational, or other special purposes.
There should not be destabilizing impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including wetlands that are unique to the resource area.
There should not be other significant issues (e.g., environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, cemeteries, burials) that preclude the use of the site.
9.3.5 Proposed and Alternative Sites The proposed site is the candidate site identified by the applicant as the proposed location for a new nuclear power plant. Alternative sites are those candidate sites that are compared to the proposed site to determine if there is an environmentally preferable site.
The ER should provide a sufficient description of the alternative sites to allow for an evaluation of the environmental impacts of building and operating the proposed project at each site. A figure showing the proposed plant on each alternative site with the footprint and the environmental interfaces such as cooling-water intakes and discharges should be included.
The evaluation and comparison of the proposed and alternative sites should be performed for each resource area for which an assessment was performed for the proposed site, should consider cumulative impacts and be presented in tabular form. The potential impacts of climate change should be considered under cumulative impacts for alternative sites.
The evaluation of the cumulative impacts at the alternative sites should be similar to that for the proposed site, except that reconnaissance-level information is used for the alternative sites. If, however, the initial review appears to indicate that an alternative site is environmentally preferable to, or even obviously superior to, the proposed site, then additional reconnaissance-level information can be gathered to further assess whether the alternative site is obviously superior.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 158 An applicant can propose to build a new nuclear power plant at a site that was not selected on the basis of a systematic site-selection process (e.g., at the site of an existing nuclear power plant or a site identified by the State). In such a case, the applicant can simply choose the site it is proposing. However, the applicant should still follow the process shown in Figure 9-1 for the selection of alternative sites. The site comparison should be performed in such a case by comparing each of the alternative sites to the proposed site.23 In general, the applicant should consider the same plant design (e.g., cooling-system design and transmission-line voltage) at all of the alternative sites. However, changes to the design may be considered on a site-specific basis if the proposed design could not be used at the alternative site. The applicants review should also take account of the reactor site criteria in 10 CFR Part 100 and RG 4.7.
The applicant should state in the ER whether any of the alternative sites would be environmentally preferable to the proposed site, and provide an explanation for the determination.
An environmentally preferred site is a site for which the environmental impacts are sufficiently less than for the proposed site, so that environmental preference for the alternative site can be established. For any environmentally preferable site, the applicant should indicate whether it is obviously superior to the proposed site. See, for example, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, (1st Cir. 1978) (Ref. 105). Whereas the evaluation for an environmentally preferable site considers only environmental impacts, the determination whether a site is obviously superior also considers costs and institutional constraints.
Costs should include any additional costs associated with building and operating the proposed unit(s) at the environmentally preferable site. These costs could include items such as the cost of
(1) modifying the plant design, (2) additional grading and fill, (3) ecological and cultural resource surveys, (4) the ongoing cost of establishing and operating a new emergency plan (if the proposed site already has such a plan in place), (5) the cost of obtaining the alternative site, and (6) the cost of any delay associated with changing sites. Institutional constraints could include items such as (1) known objections of regulatory agencies, (2) grid stability issues at the alternative site, (3) lack of franchise privileges and eminent domain powers, (4) the need to restructure existing financial and business arrangements, and (5) the feasibility of obtaining the alternative site. The Commission discussed the standards for conducting a cost-benefit analysis related to alternatives in the following cases: Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155 (1978) (Ref. 106), Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al. (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-471, 7 NRC 477 (1978)
(Ref. 107).
If the applicant were to determine that an alternative site was obviously superior to the proposed site, then the NRC staff expects that the applicant would modify its choice of the site. If the applicant determines that an environmentally preferable site is not obviously superior to the proposed site, then the ER should explain in detail the bases for that conclusion.
If the proposed action requires an individual permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), then USACE will perform its own analysis to determine whether the proposed site is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) using criteria in 40 CFR, Part 230, Section
404(b)(1), Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (Ref. 108). While the USACE evaluation of the LEDPA site and the NRC staffs evaluation as to whether there is an
23 This approach still involves the applicant identifying alternative sites that are among the best that can be identified in the ROI, and comparing those alternative sites to the proposed site to determine if any is obviously superior. As such, the final result of this approach is the same as the determination between the proposed and alternative sites.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 159 obviously superior alternative site considers similar factors, there are some differences in the focuses of the two evaluations. Regardless, experience has shown that early coordination with the USACE on issues related to siting and LEDPA will reduce the likelihood of significant problems and delays during the review. In addition, because the NRC staff and USACE staff will both review the information in the applications to the NRC (the ER) and the USACE, the applicant should ensure that the information provided in these documents is consistent.
The impacts described in Chapter 6 of the ER (e.g., nuclear fuel cycle, decommissioning), would not vary significantly from one site to another. Typically, all of the alternative sites and the proposed site are in low-population areas, and the review team assumes the same reactor plant design is applicable for each of the sites. Therefore, the same fuel cycle technology, transportation methods, and decommissioning methods would be used. Because of this, these impacts would not differentiate between the sites and would not be useful in the determination of whether an alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. For this reason, these impacts are not discussed in the evaluation of the alternative sites.
Similarly, the nonradiological waste impacts described in Chapters 4, and 5, and the radioactive waste impacts in Chapter 5, would not vary significantly from one site to another. The types and quantities of nonradiological and radioactive waste would be about the same at any of the alternative sites. For each alternative site, all wastes destined for land-based treatment or disposal would be transported offsite by licensed contractors to existing, licensed disposal facilities operating in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. All nonradioactive liquid discharges would be discharged in compliance with the provisions of an applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Also, the amount of nonradioactive, nonhazardous municipal solid waste to be generated annually by the plant would be a relatively small percentage of the total solid waste generated within the geographic area of interest of any of the alternative sites.
The following sections describe the specific resource area information that should be provided for each alternative site.
Cumulative Impacts The applicant should provide a description of any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the general area surrounding the alternative sites that would affect the same resources impacted by the proposed units as was prepared for the preferred site (Section 7.0 of this RG). The applicant should use the same approach to establish the resource impact area for each resource area as described in Table 7-1.
Land Use The characterization and discussion of possible land-use impacts should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information.
Hydrology A reconnaissance-level discussion of surface-water and groundwater features, and availability should be made using available water-management-agency information, aerial photographs, maps, and geographic information system (GIS) layers, if available. The characterization and discussion of possible effects to surface-water and groundwater should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 160
Terrestrial Ecology A reconnaissance-level baseline characterization of terrestrial resources on alternative sites can be expected to rely heavily on aerial photographs, maps, and GIS layers published by Federal and State natural resource management agencies. The characterization and discussion of possible impacts should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information. Adequate information on the possible occurrence of important species and habitats can be obtained from discussions with, or online databases maintained by, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
and State natural heritage programs.
Aquatic Ecology A reconnaissance-level baseline characterization of aquatic resources on alternative sites can be expected to rely heavily on aerial photographs, maps, and GIS layers published by Federal and State natural resource management agencies. The characterization and discussion of possible impacts should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information. Adequate information on the possible occurrence of important species and habitats can be obtained from discussions with, or online databases maintained by, the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and State natural heritage programs. Guidance on sources and use of aquatic reconnaissance level information for alternative sites is found in RG 4.24.
Socioeconomics For the alternative sites, an applicant should address the same socioeconomic issues that were addressed for the proposed site. Demographic data for each alternative site should be provided by the applicant at the same level of detail as that presented for Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, including any maps and summary tables. The characterization and discussion of other impact areas should be performed using reconnaissance-level information.
Environmental Justice For the alternative sites, an applicant should address the same environmental justice issues that were addressed for the proposed site, but also look for environmental justice pathways and impacts that are not present at the proposed site. The Census block group assessment of demographic data for each alternative site should be provided by the applicant at the same level of detail as that presented for Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, including any maps and summary tables. The characterization and discussion of other impact areas should be performed using reconnaissance-level information.
Historic and Cultural Resources Applicants should provide reconnaissance-level information on historic and cultural resources for each of the alternative sites being considered. There is a difference between reconnaissance-level information and reconnaissance activities. The applicant should gather information on known historic and cultural resources at the alternative sites, and within the vicinity through a comprehensive literature review. Survey and site information (e.g., historic and cultural resources that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) should be obtained through the State Historic Preservation Office, as well as local historical societies within the vicinity of the alternative site locations, and GIS
tools (e.g., NEPAssist).
Because detailed cultural resource field investigations are not generally performed on alternative sites, there is uncertainty about the direct or indirect effects on historic and cultural resources that may or
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 161 may not be located at or in the vicinity of the alternative site. The applicant should, when determining impacts, base them on known resources and the probability of the area containing resources. For example, if an adjacent area has been surveyed and resources have been found or in the opinion of the qualified professional there are likely to be resources located on the site, then that information should be considered in determining the impact level. The characterization and discussion of possible impacts should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information with the understanding that the NRC does not perform National Historic Preservation Act consultation for alternative sites.
Air Quality Applicants should provide reconnaissance-level information related to air quality for the region around each alternative site. For criteria pollutants, this is the local/regional area and is generally the county in which the alternative site is located. The characterization and discussion of possible impacts should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information.
Nonradiological Health Applicants should provide reconnaissance-level information for the region around each alternative site. The characterization and discussion of possible impacts should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information.
Radiological Health Applicants should provide reconnaissance-level information for the region around each alternative site. The characterization and discussion of possible impacts should follow the same guidance used in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 7 of this RG, using reconnaissance-level information.
Postulated Accidents The applicant should evaluate the impacts of postulated accidents at alternative sites using a qualitative analysis to characterize and discuss possible impacts as in Chapters 5 and 7 of this RG.
9.4 System Alternatives The ER should include information on system design alternatives for the heat-dissipation and circulating-water systems. Specific information to include in the ER is covered in the following subsections.
9.4.1 Heat Dissipation The applicant should discuss alternatives to the proposed heat-dissipation system at the proposed site. Alternatives that should be considered include once-through cooling, mechanical draft wet cooling towers, natural draft cooling towers (including fan assisted towers), wet/dry cooling towers, dry cooling towers, cooling ponds, and spray ponds. The applicant should assess, and document in the ER, whether each alternative (1) is feasible and practical given conditions at the proposed site, and (2) could meet the requirements of Section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and associated Federal and State implementing regulations. For alternatives which satisfy those two criteria, information should be included in the ER that compares the environmental impacts of the proposed heat-dissipation system with the alternative system(s). If an alternative system is found to be environmentally preferable to the
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 162 proposed system, comparative information on the estimated capital and operating cost of the proposed system vs. the estimated capital and operating cost of the environmentally preferable system should be included in the ER. The applicant should state the basis for choosing the proposed system over the environmentally preferable system.
9.4.2 Circulating-Water System Alternatives The applicant should discuss alternatives to the proposed circulating-water system at the proposed site. The evaluation should address alternatives for the intake, discharge, and water-supply portions of the system. Applicants should assess and document in the ER whether each alternative (1) is feasible and practical given conditions at the proposed site, and (2) could meet the requirements of Section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and associated Federal and State implementing regulations. For alternatives which satisfy those two criteria, information should be included in the ER that compares the environmental impacts of the proposed system with the alternative system(s). If an alternative system is found to be environmentally preferable to the proposed system, comparative information on the estimated capital and operating cost of the proposed system vs. the estimated capital and operating cost of the environmentally preferable system should be included in the ER. The applicant should state the basis for choosing the proposed system over the environmentally preferable system.
9.4.3 Other System Alternatives In unusual circumstances, an applicant may find that consideration of alternative designs for other systems (e.g., the cooling system specific to the service water system) may be warranted. This situation could arise if a system other than the cooling water system for the main condensers (already addressed above) (1) would have unavoidable environmental impacts from construction (as defined in 10 CFR 51.4)
or operations that are greater than SMALL; and (2) the use of an alternative system design would possibly reduce those impacts to a lower significance level. In such cases, the applicant should develop and compare appropriate alternatives to determine if any is environmentally preferable to the proposed system. This portion of the guidance should not be used if the significant environmental impacts are caused by the project as a whole, as opposed to a discrete system.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 163 Chapter 10
10.0
Conclusions
10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Actions The applicant should summarize and reference the impacts of the proposed action from Chapters
4, 5, and 7.
10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects As required by 10 CFR 51.45(b)(2), an environmental report (ER) shall discuss Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are those impacts of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
action and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) action (if it is a cooperating agency), that cannot be avoided in the use of the site and associated offsite facilities. The applicant should provide two tables listing the resource area, impacts, mitigation measures, and the unavoidable adverse impacts left after mitigation. One table should list the unavoidable adverse impacts from building, and the other should list the unavoidable adverse impacts from operation.
10.3 Relationship between Local Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity As required by 10 CFR 51.45(b)(4), an ER shall discuss The relationship between local and short-term uses of mans environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
The short-term uses of the human environment by the proposed project can be summarized in terms of the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of building and operation and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The applicant should describe the principle short-term benefit of the project (typically, the production of electricity) against the long-term uses of the site (agriculture or other productive uses of the site).
10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources As specified by 10 CFR 51.45(b)(5), an ER shall discuss Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
The term irreversible commitments of resources refers to environmental resources that would be irreparably changed by the building and/or operation activities authorized by the NRC or USACE (if a cooperating agency) permit and licensing decisions, where the environmental resources could not be restored at some later time to the resources state before the relevant activities. The term irretrievable commitments of resources refers to materials that would be used for or consumed by the new units in such a way that they could not, by practical means, be recycled or restored for other uses. The applicant should discuss the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources for each resource area in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. The applicant should indicate if there is no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources for a particular resource area.
10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action As specified by 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), an ER shall discuss Alternatives to the proposed action.
The applicant should summarize and reference the Chapter 9 analysis of the alternatives to the proposed action.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 164
10.6 Benefits and Costs As required in 10 CFR 51.45(c), the ER should include information on the estimated benefits and costs associated with the applicants proposed project. The NRC staff will review this information and use it, as deemed appropriate, in the NRC staffs balancing of the costs (including environmental costs)
against the anticipated benefits of the proposed action. To the extent possible, the estimated benefits and costs should be quantified. For all qualified and quantified benefit and cost categories, the applicant should provide a discussion commensurate with the importance of the category to the application process.
The applicant should provide separate tabular summarization of the benefits and the costs of the proposed action. This information will be gleaned from building and operations impacts (i.e., Chapters 4,
5, and 7), the analysis of need for power (i.e., Chapter 8), and the alternatives analysis (i.e., Chapter 9).
Benefits and costs should be quantified to the extent practicable and presented using standard units for the domain of the resource being quantified (e.g., dollars, acres, and kilowatt hour (kWh)).
10.6.1 Benefits The ER should include information on the estimated benefits of the proposed project in accordance with the projects stated purpose and need (i.e., Chapter 1). Benefits can include, but are not limited to the following:
net electrical generating benefits of the proposed plant
fuel diversity in the generation fleet
State or public utility commission greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals and how the project contributes to the goal
energy independence and national security
price stabilization and reduction
demonstration of technological capabilities
compliance with environmental regulations and the reduction of air pollution (e.g., criteria, hazardous, and GHG emissions)
by-production of other commercial products (e.g., steam)
expected annual tax payments to local and State governments for the building period and during operation of the proposed plant
any estimated incremental increase in regional productivity during building and operating period
any nonmonetary benefits (e.g., new recreational facilities and improved road conditions)
10.6.2 Costs The ER should include information on the estimated internal and external costs of building- and operations-related activities. The negative environmental impacts described in the ER may be expressed
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 165 as external or societal costs and should be quantified in the units appropriate to the resource domain estimating the impact.
Financial costs help the public evaluate the financial benefits of the proposed project in light of its costs. The applicant should provide the same level of cost information to the NRC as would typically be provided to other regulators (e.g., utility commissions). At a minimum, the following internal financial cost information should be provided:
Overnight capital cost of the proposed action, including the following:
- all building activities at the site and offsite areas
- acquisition and placement of all plant structures and components
- installation of transmission lines, pipelines, access routes, rail spurs, and other utility corridors
- Financing and other costs, including the following:
- expected financing costs including provisions for the allowance for funds used during building
- other costs the applicant will be required to disclose to other regulators to provide a complete picture of the financial cost of the project
- Operations costs, including the following:
- fuel costs
- plant operations and maintenance costs including maintenance and outage costs
- waste disposal and plant decommissioning costs
- additional regulatory compliance costs, taxes, fees, and environmental costs
- other costs the applicant will be required to disclose to other regulators to provide a complete picture of the financial cost of the project
10.6.3 Benefit-Cost Balance A key component of the applicants ER will be comparison of benefits and costs for the proposed action. The applicant should clearly enumerate and explain how the benefits of the proposed action outweigh the expected internal and external costs.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 167 Chapter 11
11.0
Reference Guidance The applicant should provide a bibliography of sources used in preparation of the environmental report (ER). References should be cited and listed at the end of the chapter to which they refer. The applicant should have all reference material used in the ER available for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs review.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 169
D. IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose of this section is to provide information on how applicants and licensees24 may use this guide and information regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) plans for using this regulatory guide (RG). In addition, it describes how the NRC staff complies with 10 CFR 50.109, Backfitting, and any applicable finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.
Use by Applicants and Licensees Applicants and licensees may voluntarily25 use the guidance in this document to demonstrate compliance with the underlying NRC regulations. Methods or solutions that differ from those described in this RG may be deemed acceptable if they provide sufficient basis and information for the NRC staff to verify that the proposed alternative demonstrates compliance with the appropriate NRC regulations.
Current licensees may continue to use guidance the NRC found acceptable for complying with the identified regulations as long as their current licensing basis remains unchanged.
Licensees may use the information in this RG for actions which do not require NRC review and approval such as changes to a facility design under 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests, and experiments.
Licensees may use the information in this RG or applicable parts to resolve regulatory or inspection issues.
Use by NRC Staff The NRC staff does not intend or approve any imposition or backfitting of the guidance in this RG. The NRC staff does not expect any existing licensee to use or commit to using the guidance in this RG, unless the licensee makes a change to its licensing basis. The NRC staff does not expect or plan to request licensees to voluntarily adopt this RG to resolve a generic regulatory issue. The NRC staff does not expect or plan to initiate NRC regulatory action which would require the use of this RG. Examples of such unplanned NRC regulatory actions include issuance of an order requiring the use of the RG, requests for information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) as to whether a licensee intends to commit to use of this RG,
generic communication, or promulgation of a rule requiring the use of this RG without further backfit consideration.
During regulatory discussions on plant specific operational issues, the staff may discuss with licensees various actions consistent with staff positions in this RG, as one acceptable means of meeting the underlying NRC regulatory requirement. Such discussions would not ordinarily be considered backfitting even if prior versions of this RG are part of the licensing basis of the facility. However, unless this RG is part of the licensing basis for a facility, the staff may not represent to the licensee that the licensees failure to comply with the positions in this RG constitutes a violation.
If an existing licensee voluntarily seeks a license amendment or change and (1) the NRC staffs consideration of the request involves a regulatory issue directly relevant to this new or revised RG and (2)
24 In this section, licensees refers to licensees of nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52; and the term applicants, refers to applicants for licenses and permits for (or relating to) nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Parts
50 and 52, and applicants for standard design approvals and standard design certifications under 10 CFR Part 52.
25 In this section, voluntary and voluntarily means that the licensee is seeking the action of its own accord, without the force of a legally binding requirement or an NRC representation of further licensing or enforcement action.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 170
the specific subject matter of this RG is an essential consideration in the staffs determination of the acceptability of the licensees request, then the staff may request that the licensee either follow the guidance in this RG or provide an equivalent alternative process that demonstrates compliance with the underlying NRC regulatory requirements. This is not considered backfitting as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1) or a violation of any of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52.
Additionally, an existing applicant may be required to comply to new rules, orders, or guidance if
10 CFR 50.109(a)(3) applies.
If a licensee believes that the NRC is either using this RG or requesting or requiring the licensee to implement the methods or processes in this RG in a manner inconsistent with the discussion in this Implementation section, then the licensee may file a backfit appeal with the NRC in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1409, Backfitting Guidelines, (Ref. 109) and the NRC Management Directive 8.4, Management of Facility-Specific Backfitting and Information Collection (Ref. 110).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 171 REFERENCES26
1. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Part 50, Title 10, Energy. 27
2. CFR, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, Part 52, Title 10,
Energy.
3. CFR, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, Part 51, Title 10, Energy.
4. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.)
4321 et seq. 28
5. Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality. Federal Register,
35 FR 4247. March 5, 1970, Office of the President, Washington, DC.29
6. Executive Order 11991, Environmental Impact Statements, Federal Register, 42 FR 2696
7. May
25, 1977, Office of the President, Washington, DC.
7. CFR Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality - Parts 1500 Through 1508, Parts 1500 -
1508, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
8. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.
9. Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.
10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.206, Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition), Washington, DC.
11. NRC, RG 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, Washington, DC.
12. NRC, RG 4.11, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations, Washington, DC.
13. NRC, RG 4.24, Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations, Washington, DC.
26 Publicly available NRC published documents are available electronically through the NRC Library on the NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ and through the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The documents can also be viewed online or printed for a fee in the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. For problems with ADAMS, contact the PDR staff at 301-415-4737 or (800) 397-4209; fax (301) 415-3548; or e- mail pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
27 The Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained electronically from the U.S. Government Printing Office at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
28 The United States Code (USC) can be obtained electronically from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives at http://uscode.house.gov/.
29 Publicly available executive orders and similar documents may be obtained through the National Archives and Records Administration at their Web site (http://www.archives.gov/), by telephone (1-866-272-6272), fax (301-837-0483), or U.S. Mail at The National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 172
14. NRC, NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC.
15. NRC, COL/ESP-ISG-026, Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors Interim Staff Guidance, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML14092A402).
16. NRC, COL/ESP-ISG-027, Specific Environmental Guidance for Light Water Small Modular Reactor Reviews, Washington DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A648).
17. NRC, RG 4.2, Supplement 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, Washington, DC.
18. CFR, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, Part 54, Title
10, Energy.
19. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2013. Managing Environmental Impact Assessment for Construction and Operation in New Nuclear Power Programmes, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-3.11.30
20. IAEA, 2016, Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations, Safety Standards Series NS-R-3, Vienna, Austria.
21. Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
22. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
23. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.
24. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661-667 et seq.
25. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
26. Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
27. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.
28. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2013. Industry Guideline for Effective Pre-Application Interactions with Agencies Other Than NRC during the Early Site Permit Process, NEI 10-07, Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13028A392).
30
Copies of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documents may be obtained through their Web site:
WWW.IAEA.Org/ or by writing the International Atomic Energy Agency P.O. Box 100 Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400
Vienna, Austria. Telephone (+431) 2600-0, Fax (+431) 2600-7, or E-Mail at Official.Mail@IAEA.Org.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 173
29. Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act (FAST), Title 41, 42 U.S.C. § 4370m et seq.
30. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQs National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, Federal Register, 46 FR 18026. March 23, 1981, Washington, DC.31
31. NRC, Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants. Federal Register, 72 FR 57416.
October 9, 2007, Washington, DC.
32. CFR, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials, Part 73, Title 10, Energy.
33. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NRC. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants.
Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML082540354).
34. NRC, NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Final Report, 2014, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14196A105 and ML14196A107).
35. CFR, Prime and Unique Farmlands, Part 657, Title 7, Agriculture.
36. CFR, Definitions of Waters of the United States, Part 328, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.
37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 2014, National Wetlands Inventory, Falls Church, VA.32
38. American National Standard Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS), 2018, ANSI/ANS-
2.6-2018, Standard Guidelines for Estimating Present & Forecasting Future Population Distributions Surrounding Power Reactor Sites, La Grange Park, IL. 33
39. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Federal Register, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994, Office of the President, Washington, DC.
31 Printed copies of Federal Register notices are available for a fee from the U.S. Government Printing Office, 732 N
Capitol Street, NM Washington, DC 20401, telephone (866) 521-1800, or they may be downloaded for free from the Government Printing Office Web site: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
32 Accessible from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Web site: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
33 Copies of American National Standard Institute/American Nuclear Society documents may be obtained through their Web site: http://www.ans.org/store/.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 174
40. CEQ, 1997, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, Washington, DC. 34
41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016, The Promising Practices Report for EJ
Methodologies in NEPA Reviews, Report of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice & NEPA Committee, Washington, DC. 35
42. EPA, 2018, EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, Washington, DC. 36
43. NRC, 1998, In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Service Claiborne Enrichment Center, Docket 70-
3070-ML020560604, CLI-98-3, Washington, DC, April 3, 1998.
44. NRC, NUREG-1939, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11098A044 and ML11098A057).
45. CFR, National Register of Historic Places, Part 60, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property.
46. CFR, Protection of Historic Properties, Part 800, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property.
47. CFR, Professional Qualification Standards, Part 61, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property.
48. NRC, RG 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC.
49. CFR, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Part 81, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
50. CFR, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, Part 50, Title 40,
Protection of Environment.
51. NRC, RG 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC.
52. NRC, RG 1.111, Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, Washington, DC.
53. NRC, NUREG-1437, 1996, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738).
54. NRC, NUREG-1437, 2013, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Washington, DC.
34 Copies of CEQ documents are available at http://ceq.doe.gov/.
35 Copies of EPA publications can be obtained from the EPA Library Services through their web site:
http://www.epa.gov/libraries/library_services.html.
36 Copies of EPA publications can be obtained from the EPA Library Services through their web site:
http://www.epa.gov/libraries/library_services.html.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 175
55. NRC, RG 4.1, Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC.
56. NRC, RG 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operations to License Termination)Effluent Streams and the Environment, Washington, DC.
57. NEI, 2007, Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative - Final Guidance Document, NEI 07-07, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML091170588).
58. NRC, RG 1.112, Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Washington, DC.
59. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, Federal Register, 42 FR 26951, May 24, 1977, Office of the President, Washington DC.
60. CFR, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Part 332, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.
61. CFR Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans, Part
93, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
62. NRC, Memorandum from Ryan Whited to Scott Flanders, Revision to Staff Guidance for Conducting General Conformity Determinations, April 25, 2013, Washington, DC (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12313A190).
63. NRC, NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, Washington, DC.
64. NRC, RG 8.19, Occupational Radiation Dose Assessment in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants --
Design Stage Man-Rem Estimates, Washington, DC.
65. CFR, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, Part 20, Title 10, Energy.
66. EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. Federal Register, 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2011, Washington, DC.
67. Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR), 2006, Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Melatonin and the Risk of Breast Cancer, RCE-1, Health Protection Agency, Oxford, UK.
(ADAMS Accession No. ML093210326).
68. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999, NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, NIH Publication No
99-4493, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC (ADAMS Accession No.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 176
69. World Health Organization (WHO), 2007, Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Environmental Health Criteria 238, Geneva, Switzerland.37
70. Soldat, J.K., N.M. Robinson, and D.A. Baker, 1974, Models and Computer Codes for Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses, BNWL-1754, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington (ADAMS Accession No. ML12223A187).
71. NRC, NUREG/CR-4013, Strenge, D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan, 1986, LADTAP II
Technical Reference and User Guide, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14098A069).
72. NRC, RG 1.109, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Washington, DC.
73. NRC, NUREG/CR-4653, Strenge, D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat, 1987, GASPAR II
Technical Reference and User Guide, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14098A066).
74. CFR, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, Part 190, Title
40, Protection of Environment.
75. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 2009, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, MD.38
76. IAEA, 2004, Sediment Distribution Coefficients and Concentration Factors for Biota in the Marine Environment, Technical Report Series 422, Vienna, Austria.
77. IAEA, 2010, Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments, Technical Report Series 472, Vienna, Austria.
78. IAEA, 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards, Technical Report Series 332, Vienna, Austria.
79. NCRP, 1991, Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms, NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.
80. NRC, RG 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC.
81. NRC, NUREG/CR-6613, Chanin, D. and M.L. Young, Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, Users Guide, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML110600923).
82. NRC, Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy Statement; Correction and Republication. Federal Register, 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986, Washington, DC.
37 Copies of World Health Organization (WHO) documents are available from http://www.who.int/peh- emf/research/health_risk_assess/en/index2.html.
38 Copies of The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) may be obtained through their Web site: http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/Publications.html or by writing to the NCRP at 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 400, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3095, Ph: 301-657-2652, fax: 301-907-8768.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 177
83. NRC, NUREG/CR-4551, Sprung, J.L., J.A. Rollstin, J.C. Helton, H-N Jow. 1990. Evaluation of Severe Accident Risks: Quantification of Major Input Parameters, Vol. 2, Rev. 1, Part 7, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML12334A759).
84. NRC, NUREG-1150, Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,
1990, Washington, DC.
85. Limerick Ecology Action vs. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989).
86. NRC, NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
87. NRC, NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook, Washington, DC
(ADAMS Accession No. ML050190193).
88. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Regulatory Analysis, Circular No. A-4, September 17, 2003.39
89. NEI, 2005, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document, NEI
05-01, Revision A. Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML060530203).
90. NRC, NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Addendum to Main Report, 1999, Washington, DC.
91. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 1972, Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, Washington, DC (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14092A626).
92. NRC, NUREG-75/038, Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1, 1975, Washington, DC.
93. NRC, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. Federal Register, 56 FR 794.
December 30, 1999, Washington, DC.
94. Weiner, R.F., D. Hinojosa, T.J. Heames, C. Ottinger Farnum, and E.A. Kalinina, 2013, RADTRAN
6/RadCat 6 User Guide, SAND2013-8095, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14286A092).
95. Johnson, P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh, 2003, Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System (TRAGIS) Users Manual, ORNL/NTRC-006, Revision 0, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN (ADAMS Accession No. ML113260107).
39 Office of Management and Budget documents are available electronically at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Page 178
96. NRC, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, 2002, Washington, DC.
97. CEQ, 1997, Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act.40
98. EPA, 1999, Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents, EPA
Publication 315-R-99-002.41
99. EPA, 2012, NEPAssist Tool.42
100. NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking. Federal Register, 68 FR
55905. September 29, 2003, Washington, DC.
101. NRC, 2005, Memorandum and Order dated December 12, 2005, regarding In the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site, Commission Order CLI-05-29, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML053460102).
102. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA), 2011, Electric Power Industry Terms and Definitions, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML11294A614).
103. Hynes, John. 2009. How to Compare Power Generation Choices. Renewable Energy World North America (ADAMS Accession No. ML11294A595).
104. CFR "Reactor Site Criteria," Part 100, Title 10, "Energy."
105. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NECNP v.
NRC). 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978). U.S. Court of Appeals First Circuit Decision, August 22,
1978.
106. NRC, 1978, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Order In the Matter of Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2). 7 NRC 155, ALAB-458, Washington, DC.
107. NRC, 1978, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Order In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al. (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2). 7 NRC 477, ALAB-471, Washington, DC.
108. CFR Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, Part 230, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
109. NRC. NUREG-1409, Backfitting Guidelines, July 1990, Washington, DC.
110. NRC, Management Directive (MD) 8.4, Management of Facility-Specific Backfitting and Information Collection, Washington, DC.
40
Copies of CEQ documents are available at http://ceq.doe.gov/.
41 Copies of EPA publications can be obtained from the EPA Library Services through their web site:
http://www.epa.gov/libraries/library_services.html.
42 Accessible from EPAs website at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/nepa/nepassist-mapping.html.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix A, Page A-1 APPENDIX A
-
Part 50 and Part 52 Licenses and Authorizations The information provided in Part C of this regulatory guide (RG) is for environmental reports (ERs) for combined license (COL) applications that do not reference an early site permit (ESP).
This appendix provides information for the development of ERs for other authorizations and licenses that can be granted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 (Ref. A1), and Part 52 (Ref. A2).
Early Site Permits Before the ESP process was promulgated in 1989, the licensing process required large expenditures of time and money by applicants well before key site-specific environmental, safety and emergency planning issues could be resolved. The ESP process is meant to resolve these issues well in advance of any decision to build a nuclear power plant. The requirements for the information to be included in ERs for an ESP application are set forth in 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50(b) (Ref. A3).
An ESP application requires a determination by the NRC as to the suitability of a site for the construction and operation of one or more nuclear reactors. It is not an authorization to construct and / or operate the nuclear reactor referenced in the ESP application or, in the case of a plant parameter envelope (PPE) design, a reactor that fits inside the bounding characteristics of the PPE. A PPE is a set of plant- design parameter values that an ESP applicant expects will bound the design characteristics of a reactor or reactors that might be constructed at a given site. Therefore, the PPE serves as a surrogate for reactor design information that is not available or for a reactor design that is not final. Use of this approach allows an ESP applicant to defer the decision on what reactor design to build to the COL stage. An applicant may use a PPE to support demonstration of compliance with 10 CFR 52.17. The combination of site characteristics and PPE values will comprise the ESP bases that will be the focus for comparison in the event a COL application is submitted for the site. At the COL stage, the applicant would determine if the design-specific vendor information for the selected reactor design fits within the PPE values and, if not, would appropriately address these environmental impacts in the COL application.
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) publication NEI 10-01, Revision 1, Industry Guideline for Developing a Plant Parameter Envelope in Support of an Early Site Permit (Ref. A4), describes the development and use of an ESP application from the industrys perspective, including the development of a PPE to bound multiple reactor designs. The PPE in NEI 10-01 is an example of the parameters needed for a PPE. However, not all parameters apply to all designs and additional parameters may be needed depending on the reactor designs that the PPE is bounding.
An applicant for an ESP should review previous applications along with associated requests for additional information (RAIs) to gain an understanding of the level of detail needed to receive an ESP.
However, an applicant should only include in its ER information that is needed to analyze the environmental impacts for its project. The applicant should also review NUREG-1555 (Ref. A5) and this RG for guidance regarding the level of detail expected in the application. In addition, the applicant can discuss with the NRC any questions regarding level of detail during pre-application interactions. For example, if a PPE is used for an ESP review, the applicant should address the assumptions for the reactor designs being evaluated and whether the designs are within the bounds of Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51(b).
Finally, an applicant can refer to review standard (RS)-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits, Attachment 3, Scope and Associated Review Criteria for Environmental Report, for additional information (Ref. A6).
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix A, Page A-2 All the information described in Part C of this RG will be required for an ESP application with the following exceptions based on 10 CFR 51.50(b)(2):
the ER need not include an assessment of the economic, technical, or other benefits (e.g., need for power) and costs of the proposed action
the ER need not include an evaluation of alternative energy sources
the ER need not include an evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) because this is a benefit-cost evaluation However, the applicant can, at its discretion, provide in the ESP ER the economic, technical, or other benefits (e.g., need for power) and costs of the proposed action, an evaluation of SAMDAs and an analysis of alternative energy. An applicant might choose to address any or all of these issues in its ESP
application in order to gain early resolution of the issues.
Combined License Referencing an Early Site Permit A COL referencing an ESP is a combined construction permit (CP) and operating license (OL)
with conditions for a nuclear power plant issued under 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart C at the site that was found suitable in the ESP and referencing either a 10 CFR Part 52 certified design or providing all the required design information for a non-certified design. ER information requirements for a COL
referencing an ESP application are set forth in 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50(c)(1).
As stated in 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), if the COL application references an ESP, then the Applicants Environmental ReportCombined License Stage need not contain information or analyses submitted to the Commission in Applicants Environmental ReportEarly Site Permit Stage, or resolved in the Commissions ESP environmental impact statement (EIS), but must contain, in addition to the environmental information and analyses otherwise required:
information to demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the site characteristics and design parameters (i.e., the PPE) specified in the ESP;
information to resolve any significant environmental issue that was not resolved in the ESP
proceeding;
any new and significant information for issues related to the impacts of construction and operation of the facility that were resolved in the ESP proceeding;
a description of the process used to identify new and significant information on the NRCs conclusions in the ESP EIS. The process must use a reasonable methodology for identifying such new and significant information; and
a demonstration that all environmental terms and conditions that have been included in the ESP
will be satisfied by the date of issuance of the combined license. Any terms or conditions of the ESP that could not be met by the time of issuance of the combined license must be set forth as terms or conditions of the combined license.
All the information described in Part C of this RG, with the exception of alternative sites, should be reviewed by the COL applicant to determine if any new and significant information has become available since the issuance of the ESP EIS. If new and significant information has become available, the
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix A, Page A-3 applicant must include it in the ER for the COL referencing the ESP. The applicants process for identifying new and significant information must be described in the ER. If SAMDAs, alternative energy sources and the economic benefits and costs were not evaluated in the ESP, then that information should be submitted in the COL application referencing the ESP. Any unresolved issues in the ESP must be addressed in the COL application.
Construction Permits and Operating Licenses Construction Permit. A CP is an authorization from the Commission for the analysis, design, manufacture, fabrication, quality assurance, placement, erection, installation, modification, inspection or testing of a facility or activity. It is not an authorization to operate the plant. The requirements for the information to be included in the ER or ERs for a CP application are set forth in 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50(a). All the information described in Part C of this RG should be considered for a CP
application. While a complete reactor design may not be developed at the CP stage, an applicant should consult with the NRC staff in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40, Consultation with NRC staff to discuss the appropriate level of information which is required for severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), including available probabilistic risk assessment information, procedures, training activities, and plant-design alternatives (i.e., SAMDAs), that could significantly reduce the environmental risks from a severe accident.
Enclosure 1 of SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules, and Guidance for Future Reactor Applications, discusses unique challenges to assessing risks and SAMAs/SAMDAs (Ref. A7). The 10 CFR Part 52 requirements to provide a description of a design-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) do not apply to new reactor license applications submitted under 10 CFR 50, such as a CP, as of the time of this revision. However, the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-15-
0002 (Ref. A8) sets an expectation that licensing under 10 CFR Part 50 be performed consistently with 10
CFR Part 52, including how risk and severe accidents are addressed. Therefore, a CP application should provide information derived from the preliminary design to address these topics. A CP application should provide the best available information to assess SAMAs/SAMDAs. The applicant of an OL referencing the CP is required in the OL application to provide new and significant information, including any such information related to SAMAs/SAMDAs. Therefore, the staff recommends that any prospective applicant for a CP engage with the staff during pre-application activities in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40
regarding the extent to which it plans to address SAMAs/SAMDAs at the CP and OL stages.
During pre-application interactions, CP applicants should inform the staff if they plan to use Title
41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (42 U.S.C. § 4370m) (Ref. A9).
Operating License. An OL is an authorization from the Commission to operate a plant specified in a related CP. The requirements for the information to be included in ERs for an OL application are set forth in 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.53(b). No discussion of need for power, alternative energy sources or alternative sites for the facility is required. All the information described in Part C of this RG should be reviewed by the applicant to determine if any new information has become available for each resource area since the issuance of the CP EIS. In the OL ER, the applicant shall discuss matters only to the extent that they differ from those discussed previously or reflect new information in addition to that discussed in the final EIS prepared by the NRC in connection with the CP. Any new information identified, such as design information for SAMAs, will be required by the NRC staff for the review of the ER for the OL
application.
To this end, it is important for potential new reactor applicants considering a CP and the subsequent OL under 10 CFR Part 50 to be aware of the process for engaging the staff on environmental matters, as described in 10 CFR 51.40.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix A, Page A-4
Limited Work Authorizations and Site Redress A Limited Work Authorization (LWA) is an authorization by the Commission to construct certain safety-related structures, systems, or components before issuance of a CP or COL. The requirements for the information to be included in ERs for an LWA application are set forth in 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.49.
Requirements are provided for multiple cases including where (1) the LWA is submitted as part of a complete CP or COL application, (2) as a phased application for LWA and CP or COL, (3) as part of an ESP, (4) following receipt of an ESP, and (5) where the Commission previously prepared an EIS for construction and operation and the CP was issued, but facility construction was not completed. Only the first case (submitted as part of a complete CP or COL application) and the third case (as part of an ESP)
are discussed in this appendix.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.49(a) and (c), any ER prepared to support an LWA application under those regulations must include, which is in addition to the environmental report required by 10 CFR
51.50:
a description of the activities that would be conducted under the LWA
a statement of the need for the activities
a description of the environmental impacts that may be reasonably expected to result from the activities
the mitigation measures the applicant proposes to implement to achieve the level of environmental impacts described, and a discussion of the reasons for rejecting any mitigation measures that could be employed to further reduce environmental impacts In accordance with 10 CFR 51.49(d), an ER prepared to support an LWA application submitted by the holder of an ESP must include:
a description of the activities proposed to be conducted under the LWA
a statement of the need for the activities
a description of the environmental impacts that may be reasonably expected to result from the activities
the mitigation measures the applicant proposes to implement to achieve the level of environmental impacts described, and a discussion of the reasons for rejecting any mitigation measures that could be employed to further reduce environmental impacts
any new and significant information for issues related to the impacts of construction of the facility that were resolved in the early site permit proceeding with respect to the environmental impacts of the activities to be conducted under the limited work authorization
a description of the process used to identify new and significant information regarding NRC's conclusions in the early site permit environmental impact statement; the process must be a reasonable methodology for identifying this new and significant information
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix A, Page A-5 The applicant should determine which resource areas will be affected by LWA activities and provide information on the impacts to those resource areas consistent with the information provided in Part C of this RG.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.49(b), an ER prepared to support an LWA application submitted as part of a phased application in accordance with § 2.101(a)(9), may be limited to a discussion of the activities proposed to be conducted under the limited work authorization. If the scope of the environmental report for part one is so limited, then part two of the application must include the information required by § 51.50, as applicable.
The requirements of 10 CFR 50.10(d)(3)(iii) state that the application for an LWA must also include a plan for redress of activities performed under the LWA in the case where the activities associated with the LWA are terminated by the holder of the permit or license, if the LWA is revoked by the NRC, or if the associated CP or COL application is denied by the Commission. The plans for redress should be consistent with the regulations in 10 CFR 50.10(g) that the holder of the LWA must complete the redress of the site no later than 18 months after termination of construction, revocation of the LWA, or the effective date of the Commissions final decision to deny the associated CP or COL application as appropriate.
Standard Design Certification The applicant for a standard design certification (DC), in accordance with 10 CFR 51.55, shall submit with its application a separate document entitled Applicants Environmental Report - Standard Design Certification. The ER must address the costs and benefits of severe accident mitigation design alternatives, and the bases for not incorporating severe accident mitigation design alternatives in the design to be certified. The NRC staff will develop an environmental assessment (EA) based on the information provided in the ER for the DC. The requirements for the information to be included in an ER
for a DC application are set forth in 10 CFR 51.55.
To perform the necessary offsite consequence analysis in support of the SAMDA assessment, the applicant should develop the necessary site data (population distribution, meteorological data, land use data, etc.) in order to apply a severe accident consequence code, such as MACCS. Since a DC licensing action is not tied to a specific site selection, the applicant has flexibility to choose the source for this site data. This forms a surrogate or representative site, since it is likely for a location where they have no plans to build the reactor design that is the subject of the DC and that may or may not rely on real-world data. Therefore, the staff recommends that any prospective applicant for a standard DC engage with the staff during pre-application activities in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40 regarding the development of the site data.
For additional information on SAMDAs see Chapter 5 of Part C of this RG.
COL Application Referencing Standard Design Certification As stated in 10 CFR 51.50(c)(2), if the COL references a DC, then the COL ER may incorporate by reference the EA previously prepared by the NRC for the referenced DC. If the DC EA is referenced, then the COL ER must contain information to demonstrate that the site characteristics for the COL site fall within the site parameters in the DC EA.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix A, Page A-6
Manufacturing License The applicant for a manufacturing license, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.54, shall submit with its application a separate document entitled Applicants Environmental Report - Manufacturing License. The ER must address the costs and benefits of severe accident mitigation design alternatives, and the bases for not incorporating severe accident mitigation design alternatives into the design of the reactor to be manufactured. The NRC staff will develop an EA based on the information provided in the ER for the manufacturing license. The requirements for the information to be included in an ER for a manufacturing license application are set forth in 10 CFR 51.54.
For additional information on SAMDAs, see Chapter 5 of Part C of this RG.
References A1. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Part 50, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy. 43 A2. CFR, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, Part 52, Chapter I, Title
10, Energy.
A3. CFR, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, Part 51, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.
A4. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 2012, Industry Guideline for Developing a Plant Parameter Envelope in Support of an Early Site Permit. NEI 10-01, Revision 1, Washington DC, (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12144A429).
A5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC.
A6. NRC, Review Standard (RS)-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits, Washington, DC (ADAMS Accession No. ML040700094).
A7. NRC, SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules, and Guidance for Future Reactor Applications, Washington, DC (ADAMS No. ML13277A420).
A8. NRC, Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-15-0002, Proposed Updates of Licensing Policies, Rules, and Guidance for Future Reactor Applications, Washington, DC (ADAMS No.
A9. Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Title 41, 42 U.S.C. § 4370m. 44
43 The Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained electronically from the U.S. Government Printing Office at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
44 The United States Code (USC) can be obtained electronically from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives at http://uscode.house.gov/.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix B, Page B-1 APPENDIX B
-
Consultations The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as a Federal agency, is required to consult with other Federal agencies under several Federal laws. While this is the responsibility of the NRC, applicants, as the proponent of the action, should provide the information that the NRC will need to complete the consultation process in an efficient manner. Applicants should be aware of NRCs interagency consultation requirements, and environmental reports (ERs) should contain the information necessary for NRC to support completion of the consultation process. The NRC may or may not jointly perform consultations in conjunction with one or more other agencies who cooperate on the EIS; this, however, does not affect the information the NRC will need in order to perform such consultations.
Endangered Species Act Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Ref. B1)
to protect and recover imperiled species and the habitats upon which they depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAAs)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the ESA.
The NRC must comply with the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536) requires that each Federal agency ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by an agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species (jeopardy), or destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat for such species (adverse modification). Action, for the purposes of NRC activities, may include licensing, rulemaking, and/or other regulatory activities. Federal agencies should act, where they have the legal authority to do so, to prevent endangered species and their habitats from being threatened or destroyed. If an action may affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, the NRC must consult with the Secretary of the Interior (for freshwater and terrestrial species through the FWS) or the Secretary of Commerce (for marine and anadromous species through the NMFS). Depending on the specific resources involved, the NRC consults with the FWS or NMFS (collectively referred to as the Services) for all major Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) that require the preparation of an EIS. The NRC
also may have to consult with the Services for actions that may affect a listed species or habitat but for which it does not prepare an EIS.
The Services joint regulations implementing the ESA at 50 CFR, Wildlife and Fisheries Part
402 Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Ref. B2), allows for two types of consultations: informal and formal. Informal consultation is a less structured approach than formal consultation and may include phone calls, e-mail, letters, and meetings between the NRC and the Services. Informal consultation is typically initiated early in the application review process and may be the only type of consultation needed if the Services concur with the NRC that a proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. The formal consultation process is a more structured approach to meeting ESA Section 7 requirements. Formal consultation is required if the NRC
determines that a proposed action may adversely affect listed species or the action will result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Formal consultation may also be required if the Services do not concur with the NRCs conclusion that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitats. Consultation is not required should the applicant and NRC conclude that the licensed action would have no effect on any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix B, Page B-2 As a result of formal consultation, the Services may issue a Biological Opinion, a document that states the opinion of the Service as to whether the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The Biological Opinion may include an incidental take statement, reasonable and prudent measures to reduce impacts on species or habitats, and terms and conditions. The Biological Opinion may also contain conservation recommendations, which are voluntary actions that the applicant or licensee can take that benefit the species or critical habitat.
The NRC may prepare a Biological Assessment to support informal or formal consultation. A
Biological Assessment is a document that evaluates the potential effects of the action on listed and proposed species and critical habitats potentially affected by the action, and determines whether any species or habitats are likely to be adversely affected by the action. The Consultation Handbook (Ref.
B3), prepared by the Services, discusses the Section 7 consultation process, which includes a discussion of the information to be included in a Biological Assessment, as required by 50 CFR 402.
Applicants can help NRC complete its ESA consultation requirements in an efficient and timely manner. When preparing an application, applicants should identify which listed species or critical habitats may be present in the affected area. Applicants can obtain this information directly from the FWS and NMFS or through their websites. Applicants should present a detailed description of their proposed action in Chapter 3 of the ER. Applicants should then describe how their proposed action might potentially affect each listed species or critical habitat known to potentially be present in the area of their project.
Applicants can provide this information in the terrestrial and aquatic sections of the ER or in a separate attachment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (MSA) (Ref. B4)
ensures that renewable fishery resources are not exhausted by overharvesting or other environmental damage. Section 305 of the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1855) requires Federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce through NMFS before authorizing any action which may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) identified under MSA. The Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS,
designate EFH, which can consist of both the water column and the seafloor of an aquatic area needed to support one or more life stages of a managed fish species.
The NRC will typically initiate such EFH consultations and prepare any necessary EFH
assessment in conjunction with its NEPA review. The staff will document the status or outcome of the EFH consultation in the EA or EIS. If no change to any aspect of aquatic resources is anticipated, then an evaluation of EFH should not be necessary.
However, if a change to any aspect of aquatic resources is anticipated, then the NRC staff must determine if the requested action will result in any adverse effects to designated EFH, and if so, contact NMFS to initiate EFH consultation. The consultation process for an environmental review requiring an EFH assessment can be found in Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 1.1 (Ref. B5).
Applicants can help NRC complete its EFH consultation requirements in an efficient and timely manner. When preparing an application, applicants should identify whether any EFH may be present in potentially affected areas. Applicants can obtain this information directly from the NMFS or through its website. Applicants should present a detailed description of their proposed action in Chapter 3 of the ER.
Applicants should then describe how their proposed action might potentially affect each area of EFH
present in the area of their project. Applicants can provide this information in the aquatic sections of the ER or in a separate attachment.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix B, Page B-3
National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) (Ref. B6), was promulgated to coordinate public and private efforts to preserve significant historic and cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA directs Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to review and comment on the undertaking. The ACHP is an independent Federal agency charged with implementing Section 106 throughout the Federal government; NHPA Section 106 implementing regulations are at
36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties (Ref. B7). Undertakings (36 CFR 800.16(y))
denotes a broad range of Federal activities, including the issuance of NRC licenses and permits. Historic property (36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)) is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, traditional cultural property, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register).
Applicants should be aware that the NRC staff will, in accordance with NHPA, consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), American Indian Tribes, and interested parties. Applicants are encouraged to engage with these parties when developing its ER.
When engaging these parties, the applicant should clarify that the NRC, as a Federal agency, is responsible for initiating and conducting government-to-government consultation with American Indian Tribes once the application is submitted. An American Indian tribe is not obligated to consult with an applicant or share information about properties of religious and cultural significance with an applicant, and may prefer to communicate directly with NRC at the government-to-government level.
Face-to-face interactions with the SHPO will generally prove beneficial as a supplement to written correspondence, especially when agency feedback is requested on the scope and methodology for conducting cultural resource investigations. The applicant should also work with the SHPO to identify American Indian Tribes that have ancestral ties to the proposed project area, and determine if/when to initiate outreach with THPOs and American Indian Tribes. The applicant should not view the described initial outreach activities as merely checking a box to meet the NRCs expectations for an ER. Rather, such interactions will provide useful information for developing the scope of field surveys, identifying criteria for plant design or layout (e.g., impact avoidance or mitigation), and assessing resources of concern in the ER.
References B1. Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. 45
45 The Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained electronically from the U.S. Government Printing Office at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix B, Page B-4 B2. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, Part 402, Chapter IV, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries.46 B3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 1998.
Consultation Handbook.47 B4. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
B5. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 1.1. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, MD. 48 B6. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
B7. CFR, Protection of Historic Properties, Part 800, Title 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property.
46 The Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained electronically from the U.S. Government Printing Office at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
47 Copies of National Marine Fisheries Service documents can be obtained electronically from their website:
48 Copies of the Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance can be obtained electronically from their website:
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix C, Page C-1 APPENDIX C
-
Small Modular Reactors and Non-Light Water Reactors This regulatory guide (RG) was developed primarily to provide guidance for the preparation of environmental reports (ERs) for license or permit applications for large light-water reactors (LLWRs).
This appendix provides additional guidance for preparation of ERs for license or permit applications for light-water small modular reactors (SMRs) and non-light water reactors (non-LWR). SMRs are generally defined as reactor units with an electrical output of less than 300 Megawatts-electric (MW(e)) that are produced using modular fabrication and construction techniques. The terms unit and module both refer to a reactor and are used interchangeably in this appendix. Non-LWRs are generally defined as a nuclear power reactor using a coolant other than light water. Most non-LWRs are also expected to be SMRs. However, some non-LWRs may not be an SMR and have an electrical output well in excess of
300 MW(e).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has identified issues for which additional information should be provided to support environmental reviews of applications addressing SMRs and non-LWRs, (e.g., purpose and need, alternatives, cumulative impacts, the need for power, and benefit- cost). The guidance in this appendix applies to information that will be used to complete environmental reviews for SMRs and non-LWRs associated with applications for limited work authorizations (LWAs),
construction permits (CPs), operating licenses (OLs), early site permits (ESPs), and combined licenses (COL).
In general, the approach for developing an ER to support environmental reviews of SMR or non- LWR applications will be the same as the approach for developing an ER to support LLWR applications.
However, there may be differences in the amount of information and analysis needed for an SMR or a non-LWR depending on application specific factors such as the size of the reactor, its footprint and the amount of resource it uses (e.g., water), the purpose and need for the proposed action, reasonable alternatives, the need for power, benefit-cost, and the design differences between SMRs, non-LWRs, and LLWRs.
Non-LWR designs (e.g., high-temperature gas-cooled, liquid-metal, and molten salt reactors) will present some unique issues associated with environmental analyses of impacts of operation. While Parts A through D of this RG do not specifically address non-LWRs, most of the guidance contained within could be used for such reactors. Exceptions would include areas such as accidents, fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials, and decommissioning. An applicant for a non-LWR should consult with the NRC staff in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40 (Ref. C1) to discuss the appropriate level of environmental studies or information which should be provided for a non-LWR design (e.g., additional information about the fuel cycle, radiological effluents, and accidents should be provided). The following guidance highlights areas for consideration in developing ERs for SMRs and non-LWRs.
Licensing Scenarios for SMRs There are several possible scenarios for SMR applications (both LWR and non-LWR). The information provided in the ER would depend on the types of applications submitted and the timing of actions proposed in the application. The most likely licensing scenarios for SMR applications are described below.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix C, Page C-2 C.1.1 Scenario 1: All Modules in One Application A potential applicant could request licenses for multiple modules installed over time. Under this scenario, the proposed action would include licenses for all the modules that would be constructed at the proposed site. The applicant should provide a schedule as to when each module would be constructed and operated to inform the NRC staff of the timing of impacts. The information submitted to support the NRCs cumulative impact analysis should follow the guidance in Chapter 7 of this RG. In Chapter 9 of the ER, the analysis should compare the impacts of constructing and operating all of the modules at the alternative sites to the cumulative impacts of Chapter 7 of the ER to determine if an environmentally preferable or obviously superior site exists. The information submitted by the applicant to support the need-for-power analysis, alternative energy analysis and benefit-cost analysis should be based on an accounting of the full capacity of all the modules for which licenses are being requested.
C.1.2 Scenario 2: Two or More Separate License Applications (Subsequent application considered an expansion of the existing site)
An applicant could request licenses for one or more modules and inform the NRC that it intends to request licenses for additional modules in the future. Under this scenario, the proposed action would include only the modules for which licenses are requested. The applicant should indicate to the NRC how many additional modules will be treated as reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of evaluating cumulative impacts. For the additional modules to be treated as reasonably foreseeable, the siting study submitted with the original application should include consideration of all the modules.
The information requested in Chapters 4 (construction) and 5 (operations) of this RG would apply to the modules for which licenses have been requested. This would also include the construction of any infrastructure meeting the NRCs definition of construction in 10 CFR 51.4 that is proposed to be built with the initial units. The information requested in Chapter 7 (cumulative impacts) of this RG should include the impacts of the additional modules deemed to be reasonably foreseeable. The information requested in Chapter 9 (alternatives) of this RG for the alternative sites should also include consideration of the additional future modules that are considered reasonably foreseeable. The information requested for the need-for-power analysis in Chapter 8, alternative energy analysis in Chapter 9, and benefit-cost analysis in Chapter 10 of this RG would be based on only the modules for which licenses were being requested.
If an applicant subsequently requests licenses for additional modules, the ER for the additional modules should address all the issues except alternatives sites. The ER should use the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the original group of modules as a starting point and evaluate any new and significant information relevant to environmental concerns similar to an ER for a COL referencing an ESP. The NRC staff would develop a supplemental EIS based on the information provided in the new ER.
C.1.3 Scenario 3: Two or More Separate License Applications (Subsequent applications not considered an expansion of the existing site)
In certain circumstances, a licensee or applicant may identify the need for additional modules that were not identified as reasonably foreseeable in a previous application, and therefore not addressed in the in the previous application (e.g., siting, alternative energy). In such a case, the ER (and the NRCs EIS)
for the subsequent application must address all of the issues in this RG including alternative sites and alternative energy.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix C, Page C-3 C.1.4 Scenario 4: ESP and COL Application An applicant may request an ESP for all planned modules and then request COLs for only those modules it plans to build in the short term. In this scenario, the information that should be supplied in the ER for the ESP review should include consideration of all of the modules that are planned. If the proposed site is found acceptable by the NRC staff, the issue of alternative sites would be resolved for any future COLs referencing the ESP. The issues of alternative energy and need for power (if addressed in the ESP application and EIS) would also be resolved unless the NRC staff identified new and significant information on these issues in its review of the COL application referencing the ESP.
Consideration of the various modules (i.e., those for which licenses are requested and those planned in the future) in the COLs would follow the same steps as described above for Scenario 2.
C.1.5 Summary of Licensing Scenarios All of the scenarios described above are valid approaches. The outcome of Scenario 1 is that the NRC staff would have completed its environmental analysis for all modules, the licensing action would have been taken, and no further environmental analysis would be required.
The outcome of Scenario 2 is that, if the applicant applies for licenses for future modules, the NRC would prepare a supplemental EIS that would tier off the EIS prepared for the initial modules in which the cumulative impacts for the future modules were assessed. The supplemental EIS would evaluate any new and significant information, need for power, and the cost-benefit for the additional modules being licensed. The supplemental EIS would not evaluate alternative sites.
Under Scenario 3 the NRC would evaluate only the requested number of modules and any subsequent application for additional modules at that site would need to address all environmental review areas including alternative sites and alternative energy.
Under Scenario 4, the NRC would prepare a supplemental EIS for each COL application referencing the ESP. Key differences between Scenarios 2 and 4 are that, in Scenario 4, an applicant would be resolving siting issues in the ESP and could maintain flexibility in selecting the design until submittal of the COL application. All issues resolved in the ESP EIS would be considered resolved for the COL EIS unless the NRC staff identified new and significant information.
ESP EISs are intended to facilitate early resolution of siting issues. ESP applications can, but are not required to, include need for power or alternative energy.
Information to be provided in SMR Applications The additional guidance below specifies differences in the information that should be provided in ERs supporting license or permit applications for SMRs (both LWR and non-LWR).
C.2.1 Chapter 1: Introduction In general, Chapter 1 should follow the guidance in Chapter 1 of this RG; however, the purpose and need statement may be different in the case of SMRs. For SMRs, the purpose and need is expected to include the production of electricity, although not necessarily baseload electricity, whether for a defined service area or for a specific end-user. In addition, as noted in Chapter 1 of this RG, the purpose and need statement may address additional needs other than the production of electricity. For an SMR, an additional need could be to provide the ability to install modules over longer time frames to increase capacity incrementally to follow load growth.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix C, Page C-4 C.2.2 Chapter 2: Affected Environment In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 2 of this RG. However, because of features specific to a particular SMR design, more or less description of the affected environment may be warranted. For example:
- The hydrology section directs the applicant to characterize groundwater. The applicant should consider environmental parameters that could be affected by the installation of project structures to a greater depth below grade than current LLWR designs. The applicant should confirm that groundwater location and flow is fully characterized at all depths of the excavation.
- The ecology section directs the applicant to analyze one year of aquatic data. If the facility uses dry cooling rather than surface water or groundwater, there may be no need for one year of aquatic data because there may be no impacts to aquatic resources. However, in such case the applicant should provide sufficient justification for excluding collection and analysis of aquatic data from the ER.
C.2.3 Chapter 3: Site Layout and Plant Description In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 3 of this RG. However, the applicant should also describe the unique features of an SMR facility, including a plot plan that shows the location of proposed modules and the locations of environmental interfaces. The site layout and plant description should clearly describe the scope of the project as proposed in the license application, including the total number of modules requested to be licensed and the proposed operational date for each module. The applicant should also include any information known about planned installation of future units.
C.2.4 Chapter 4: Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 4 of this RG for preparing a discussion of construction impacts. However, because modules may be installed over time to meet the demand for electricity, the applicant should describe and evaluate construction impacts over the time frame specified in the application.
As part of the proposed action, the applicant may install infrastructure and facilities that could be used to support additional reactor modules. These activities should be evaluated as part of the construction impact analysis in the ER.
C.2.5 Chapter 5: Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 5 of this RG for preparing a discussion of the operational impacts. However, because modules may be installed over time to meet the demand for electricity, the applicant should evaluate operational impacts over the time frame specified in the application.
Specific SMR designs may have features that differ from LLWR designs. For example, dry cooling may be proposed, resulting in significantly less consumptive water use. In these cases, an applicant would not need to evaluate impacts from entrainment or impingement, or impacts from thermal discharges to a waterbody. The ER should include a short statement that environmental impacts in these areas are not expected because of the design features of the proposed plant.
If the SMR is also a non-LWR, there may be significant differences in the analysis of accidents.
An applicant for such a design should consult with the NRC staff in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40 to
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix C, Page C-5 discuss the information and analysis that should be provided in the ER to support the evaluation of the impacts of accidents.
C.2.6 Chapter 6: Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning The applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 6 of this RG for preparing a discussion of the fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning.
If the SMR is also a non-LWR, there may be significant differences in the analysis of the fuel cycle, transportation and decommissioning. An applicant for such a design should consult with the NRC
staff in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40 to discuss the information and analysis that should be provided in the ER to support the evaluation of the impacts for these areas.
C.2.7 Chapter 7: Cumulative Impacts In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 7 of this RG for preparing a discussion of the cumulative impacts. The applicant should consider impacts from the total number of modules being proposed in the licensing action, in addition to impacts from other reasonably foreseeable past, present, and future actions.
Under licensing Scenarios 1 and 3 described in Section C.1, the impacts of all the modules for which licenses have been requested would be direct impacts and cumulative impacts for all modules should be addressed in the ER. Under Scenario 2, the ER should address cumulative impacts for those modules for which licenses have been requested plus future modules that the applicant considers reasonably foreseeable. Under Scenario 4, the additional modules considered in the ER and EIS for the ESP should be considered reasonably foreseeable future actions for the evaluation of cumulative impacts of the modules considered in the initial COL applications.
C.2.8 Chapter 8: Need for Power In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 8 of this RG for preparing a discussion of the need for power. For all licensing scenarios described in Section C.2, the analysis of the need for power and the cost-benefit analysis in Chapter 10 of this RG, the ER should only consider the modules for which licenses are being requested.
C.2.9 Chapter 9: Environmental Impacts of Alternatives In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapter 9 of this RG for the development of a discussion of the project alternatives.
With LLWRs, reasonable alternatives to the proposed action may be limited because of the plants large installed capacity. Because SMRs are much smaller in generating capacity, installations of individual renewable energy technologies (or combinations of renewable and non-renewable energy technologies), conservation, and/or energy efficiency could potentially meet the projects purpose and need. An alternative is not reasonable if it does not meet the purpose and need statement. The applicant should identify alternative energy sources that would meet the purpose and need of the proposed action as defined in Chapter 1 of the ER. For example, the alternative power source would generate the same amount of electrical energy (i.e., MWh/yr) with the same reliability as that generated by the total number of SMR modules for which the applicant has requested licenses, as well as any additional purposes identified in the purpose and need statement in Chapter 1.
RG 4.2, Rev. 3, Appendix C, Page C-6 For the site-selection process, the applicant should consider sites that could support all the modules for which licenses or permits are being requested, plus any planned future modules that the applicant concludes are reasonably foreseeable. Because SMRs are expected to require a smaller site footprint than LLWRs, a larger set of potential sites may need to be included in the site-selection process.
An applicant may request construction at a specific location to meet its purpose and need for an SMR facility. For example, an applicant may propose to use excess heat for industrial processes or station heating as an additional purpose for the proposed project, or provide a secure energy source for military, government, or critical industrial facilities. In these cases, the applicant must still submit alternative sites.
However, the region of interest (ROI) used for the site-selection process may be much smaller than is typical for LLWRs (e.g., the ROI may be limited to areas on or adjacent to the facility to which heat or power is being provided).
C.2.10
Chapter 10: Conclusion and Recommendation Chapter 10 of this RG should provide sufficient guidance for preparing concluding remarks and discussing the projects benefits and the environmental costs for the proposed action for which a license or permit is being requested. However, the applicant should note that any additional purposes and needs that are unique to the proposed SMR project should be accompanied by a description (quantified or qualified as the subject permits) of the benefits of each additional purpose in sufficient detail so that a fully informed benefit-cost conclusion can be reached.
C.2.11 Information to be Provided in Non-LWR Applications That Are Not SMRs The additional guidance in this section specifies differences in the information that should be provided in ERs supporting license or permit applications for non-LWRs.
In general, the applicant should follow the guidance in Chapters 1 through 10 of this RG for preparing the ER. However, for a non-LWR there may be significant differences in the analysis of postulated accidents and severe accident mitigation alternatives in Chapter 5. Similarly, there may be significant differences in the analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the fuel cycle (e.g.,
fuel fabrication and spent fuel storage), transportation of radioactive material, and decommissioning in Chapter 6. An applicant for such a design should consult with the NRC staff in accordance with 10 CFR
51.40 to discuss the information and analysis that should be provided in the ER to support the evaluation of the environmental impacts for these areas.
Reference C1. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, Part 51, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.49
49 The Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained electronically from the U.S. Government Printing Office at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.