Regulatory Guide 4.2
| ML13350A248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1972 |
| From: | US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML13350A248 (113) | |
GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTSFOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTSU.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE
OF REGULATORY
STANDARDS
AUGUST 1972ISSUED FOR COMMENT
GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION
OFENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTSU.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE
OF REGULATORY
STANDARDS
AUGUST 1972Issued for comment TABLE OF CONTENTSPageINTRODUCTION
.................................................
National Environmental Goals ....................................
Applicant's Environmental Reports .................................
Commission Action on Environmcntal Reports .........................
Preparation of Environmental Reports ...............................
Criteria and Technical Specifications Relating to Environmental Impact ........STANDARD
FORMAT AND CONTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTS FORNUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
1. OBJECTIVES
OF THE PROPOSED
FACILITY
.......................
3341.1 Requirement for power .......................
1.1.1 Demand characteristics
....................
1.1.2 Power supply ..........................
1.1.3 System demznd and resource capability comparison
1.1.4 Input and output diagram .................
1.1.5 Report from Regional Reliability Council .......1.2 Other primary objectives
........................
1.3 Consequences of delay ........................
2. TH E SITE ...................................................
2.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.9Site location and layout .. ............
Regional demography, land and water use ..............
Regional historic and natural landmarks
...............
Geology .....................................
Hydrology
...................................
M eteorology
..................................
Ecoloý, ......................................
Background radiological characteristics
................
Other environmental features
.......................
.. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .... .. ........ .. .. .. .... .. .. ...... .. .. ...... .. .. ........ .. ....5555666677778888899999910101011III13. TH E PLANT ................................................
3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9External appearance
.............................
Reactor and steam-electric system ...................
Plant water use ................................
Heat dissipation system ..........................
Radwaste systems ..............................
Chemical and biocide systems ......................
Sanitary and other waste systems ....................
Radioactive materials inventory
.....................
Transmission facilities
............................
..........................................................................................iii PaOW
4. ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION,
PLANT ANDTRANSMISSION
FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
..........................
124.J Site preparation and plant construction
.. ..........................
124.2 Transmission facilities co
n. iruction
.. .............................
134.3 Resources committed
... ......................................
13S. ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION
...................
135.1 Effects of operation of heat dissipation system .. ..................
.. 135.2 Radiological impact on bio:j other than man .. ......................
145.2.1 Exposure pathways
......................................
is5.2.2 Radioactivity in environment
... .........................
.. Is5.2.3 Dose rate estimiales
... ...................................
155.3 Radiological impact on man ... ................................
155.3.1 Exposure pathways
... ...................................
Is5.3.2 Liquid effluents
.... ...................................
.. Is5.3.3 Gaseous effluents
.... ...................................
165.3.4 Direct radiation
... .....................................
165.3.4.1 Radiation from facility
..............................
165.3.4.2 Transportation of radioaclive materials
.. ................
165.3.5 Other exposure pathways
..................................
175.3.5 Summary of annual radiation doses ...........................
175.4 Effects of chemical and biocide discharges
.. ........................
175.5 Effects of sanitary and other Waste discharges
......................
175.6 Effects of operation and maintenance of the transmission system ........
175.7 O ther effects .............................................
175.8 Resources committed
... ......................................
17
6. EFFLUENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MEASUREMENTS
AND MONITORING
PROGRAMS
....................................................
186.1 Applicant's pre-operational environmental programs
... .................
186.1.I Surface waters ..............
........................
.. 196.1.2 Ground water ..........................................
196.1.3 Air ... ..............................................
206.1.4 Land .. ..............................................
206.1.5 Radiological surveys .. ..................................
206.2 Applicant's proposed operational monitoring programs
.. ...............
216.2.1 Radiological monitoring
.. ................................
216.2.2 Chemical effluent monitoring
.. ............................
216.2.3 Thermal effluent monitoring
.. .............................
216.2.4 Meteorological monitoring
.. ..............................
226.2.5 Ecological monitoring
.. .................................
22 46.3 Related environmental measurement and monitoring programs
..........
22iv Pawe
7. ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS
.......................
237.1 Plant accidents
..........................................
237.2 Transportation accidents
.....................................
287.3 Other accidents
..........................................
28
8. ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION
ANDOPERATION
................................................
288.1 Value of delivered products
..................................
288.2 Incom e ...............................................
298.3 Em ployment
...................
.........................
298.4 Taxes .................................................
208.5 Externalities
.............................................
298.6 Other effects ............................................
29
9. ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES ......................
309.1 Alternatives not requiring the creation of new generating capacity
....... 309.2 Alternatives requiring the creation of new generating capacity
..........
,309.2.1 Selection of candidate regions ............................
309.2.2 Selection of candidate sit
e. plant alternatives
..................
329.3 Co.--nurison of practicable alternatives and the proposed facility
.........
3310. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
................................
3410.1 Cooling system (exclusive of intake and discharge)
..................
3610.2 Intake system ............................................
3610.3 Discharge system .........................................
3610.4 Chemical systems ..........................................
3610.5 Biocide systems ..........................................
3610.6 Sanitary waste system .....................................
3610.7 Liquid radwaste systems ....................................
3610.8 Gaseous radwaste systems ...................................
3710.9 Transmission facilities
...................................
.... 3710.10 Other systems ............................................
3710.11 The proposed plant .......................................
3711. SUMMARY BENEFIT-COST
ANALYSIS
.............................
371
2. ENVIRONMENTAL
APPROVALS
AND CONSULTATIONS
...............
371
3. REFERENCES
..............................................
38Table I -Monetized Bases for Generating Costs ............................
39Table 2 -Guidance for Description of Environmental Effects ...................
40Form AEC- Benefits from the Proposed Facility
.........................
50Form AEC- Cost Description of Proposed Facility and Transmission Hook-Up ..... 51Supplementary Forms for Alternative Systems .............................
54v APPENDICES
Page1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 ("Interim Statement of General Policy and Procedure:
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [Public Law91-1901")
.. ...................................................
852. Questionnaire for Eliciting Basic Data for Source-Term Calculation
.............
963. Example of Chart Showing Radiation Exposure Pathways
.......................
994. Proposed Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 ("Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion
'As Low as Practicable'
for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents")
... 100vi4 INTRODUCTION
NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
GOALSPrior to the issuance of a construction permit oran operating license for a nuclear power plant, the U.S.Atomic Energy Commission is required to assess thepotential environmental effects of that plant in orderto assure that issuance of the permit or license will beconsistent with the national environmental goals, as setforth by the National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (Public Law 91-190).
In order to obtaininformation essential to this assessment, theCommission requires each applicant for a permit or alicense to submit a report on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plant andassociated facilities.
The national environmental goals as expressed bythe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are asfollows:"... it is the continuing responsibility of theFederal Government to use all practical means,coiisistent with other essential considerations ofnational policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may-"(l) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
"(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
"(3) attain the widest range of beneficial use ofthe environment without degradation, risk tohealth or safety, or other undesirable andunintended consequences;
"(4) preserve important historic, cultural, andnatural aspects of our national heritage andmaintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety ofindividual choice;"(5) achieve a balance between population andresource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life'samenities;
and"(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources."
Executive Order 11514 (35 F.R. 4247) of March 4,197/0, by which all Federal agencies were required, tothe fullest extent possible, to direct their policies, plans and programs to meeting the goals set out inNEPA.On April 2, 1970, the Commission's initialimplementation of NEPA was published
(35 F.R.5463) as 4n Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.Substantial amendments to Appendix EP were published on December
4, 1970 (35 F.R. 18469), and furtherminor amendments on July 7. 1971 (36 F.R. 12731).On September
9, 1971, a major revision of Arn""dixD, entided "Interim Statement of General P,..x aridProcedure:
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (P. L.91-190),
waspublished
(36 F.R. 18071). A copy of Appendix D,with amendments to May 18, 1972, is attached asAppendix I.APPLICANT'S
ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTSThe revised Appendix D of 10 CFR 50 discusses, in the first five paragraphs of Section A, the requiredcontent of the Environmental Reports to be submitted by the applicant:
"1. lEach applicant'
for a permit to construct aruclear power reactor...
shall submit withAMs application three hundred copies ... of aseparate document, entitled
'Applicant's Environmental Report-Construction PermitStage,' which discusses the following environmental considerations:
"(a) the environmental impact of theproposed action,"(b) any adverse environmental effects whichcannot be avoided should the proposalbe implemented,
"(c) alternatives to the proposed action,"(d) the relationship between localshort-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and'Where the "applicant",
as used in the Appendix, is aFederal agency, different arrangements for Implementing theNational Environmental Policy Act may be made. pursuant tothe guidelines established by the Council on Environmental Quality.The obligation of the Commission with respect tofurthering of the above aims derives fromtheI
INTRODUCTION
NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
GOALSPrior to the issuance of a construction permit oran operating license for a nuclear power plant, the U.S.Atomic Energy Commission is required to assess thepotential environmental effects of that plant in orderto assure that issuance of the permit or license will beconsistent with the national environmental goals, as setforth by the National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (Public Law 91-190).
In order to obtaininformation essential to this assessment, theCommission requires each applicant for a permit or alicense to submit a report on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plant andassociated facilities.
The national environmental goals as expressed bythe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are asfollows:" ...it is the continuing responsibility of theFederal Government to use all practical means,cohisistent with other essential considerations ofnational policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may-"(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
"(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
"(3) attain the widest range of beneficial use ofthp environment without degradation, risk tohealth or safety, or other undesirable andunintended consequences;
"(4) preserve important historic, cultural, andnatural aspects of our national heritage andmaintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety ofindividual choice;"(5) achieve a balance between population andresource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life'samenities;
and"(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources."
The obligation of the Commission with respect tothe furthering of the above aims derives fromExecutive Ordei 11514 (35 F.R. 4247) of March 4.l9j0, by which all Federal agencies were required, tothe fullest extent possible, to direct their policies, plans and programs to meeting the goals set oui inNEPA.On April 2, 1970, the Conimission's initialimplementation of NEPA was published
(35 F.R.5463) as an Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.Substantial amendments to Appendix D were published on December
4, 1970 (35 F.R. 18469), and furtherminor amendments on July 7, 1971 (36 F.R. 12731).On September
9, 1971, a major revision of Ar"'ndixD, entitled
"Interim Statement of General PL,.,:. antdProcedure:
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (P. L.91-190),
waspublished
(36 F.R. 18071). A copy of Appendix D,with amendments to May 18, 1972, is attached asAppendix I.APPLICANT'S
ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTSThe revised Appendix D of 10 CFR 50 discusses, in the first five paragraphs of Section A, the requiredcontent of the Environmental Reports to be submitted by the applicant:
"I. Each applicant'
for a permit to construct ar aclear power reactor...
shall submit withhis application three hundred copies..
.of aseparate document, entitled
.'Applicant's Environmental Report-Construction PermitStage,' which discusses the following environmental considerations:
"(a) the environmental impact of theproposed action,"(b) any adverse environmental effects whichcannot be avoided should the proposalbe implemented,
"(c) alternatives to the proposed action,"(d) the relationship between localshort-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and'Where the "applicant",
as used in the Appendix.
is aFederal agency. different arrangements for Implementing theNational Environmental Policy Act may be made, pursuant tothe guidelines established by the Council on Environmental Quality.I
"(e) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which wouldbe involved in the proposed actionshould it be implemented.
"2. The discussion of alternatives to thep-, posed action in the Environmental Reportrequired by paragraph I shall be sufficiently complete to aid the Commission indeveloping and exploring, pursuant to section102(2XD)
of the National Environmental Policy Act, 'appropriate alternatives
.. .inany propo.!,a.
which involves unresolved conflicts L:.,tcrning alternative uses ofavailable resot. ,::-ic.'"3. The Environmental Report required byparagraph I shall include a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances theenvironmental effects of the facility and thealternatives available for reducing or avoidingadverse environmental effects, as well as theenvironmental, economic, technical and otherbenefits of the facility.
The cost-benefit analysis shall, to the fullest extentpracticable, quantify the various factorsconsidered.
To the extent that such factorscannot be quantified, they shall be discussed in qualitative terms. The Environmental Report should contain sufficient data to aidthe Commission in its development of anindependent cost-benefit analysis coveringthe factors specified in this paragraph.
"4. The Environmental Report required byparagraph I shall include a discussion of thestatus of compliance of the facility withapplicable environmental quality standards and requirements (including, but not limitedto, thermal and other water quality standards promulgated under the Federal WaterPollution Control Act) which have beenimposed by Federal, State and regionalagencies having responsibility forenvironmental protection.
In addition, theenvironmental impact of the facility shall befully discussed with respect to matterscovered by such standards and requirements irrespective of whether a certification fromthe appropriate authority has been obtained(including, but not limited to, anycertification obtained pursuant to section21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct2). Such discussion shall be reflected in2No permit or license will, of course, be Issued withrespect to an activity for which a certification required bysection 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Act has not beenobtained.
the cost-benefit analysis prescribed inparagraph
3. While satisfaction of AECstandards and criteria pertaining toradiological effects will be necessary to meetthe licensing requirements of the AtomicEnergy Act, the cost-benefit analysisprescribed in paragraph
3 shall, for thepurposes of the National Environmental Policy Act, consider the radiological effects,together with the thermal effects and otherenvironmental effects, of the facility.
"5. Each applicant for a license to operate aproduction or utilization facility described inparagraph I shall submit with his application three hundred (300) copies ... of a separatedocument to be entitled
'Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating LicenseStage,' which discusses the sameenvironmental considerations described inparagraphs
14, but only to the extent thatthey differ from those discussed in theApplicant's Environmental Report previously submitted in iccordance with paragraph I.The 'Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Stage' mayincorporate by reference any information contained in the Applicant's Environmental Report previously submitted in accordance with paragraph
1. With respect to theoperation of nuclear power reactors, theapplicant, unless otherwise required by theCommission, shall submit the 'Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating LicenseStage' only in connection with the firstlicensing action that would authorize full-power operation of the facility,
3 exceptthat such report shall be submitted inconnection with the conversion of aprovisional operating license to a full-term license."
As is clear from the above paragraphs, twoEnvironmental Reports are required.
The first is the"Applicant's Environmental Report-Construction Permit Stage" which must be submitted in conjunction with the construction permit application.
The second isthe "Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Stage," which must be submitted later inconjunction with the operating license application.
Thesecond Report is, in effect, to be an updating of thefirst one and should:a. Discuss differences between currently projected environmental effects of the nuclear power plantsThis report is in addition to the report required at theconstruction permit stage.442 (including those which would degrade and thosewhich would enhance environmental conditions)
and the effects discussed in the Environmental Report submitted at the construction stage.(Differences may result, for example, fromchanges in plans, changes in plant design,availability of new or more detailed information, or changes in surrounding land use or zoningclassifications.)
b. Discuss the results of all studies which were notcompleted at the time of pre-construction reviewand which were specified to be completed beforethe pre.operational review. Indicate how theresults of these studies were factored into thedesign and proposed operation of the plant.c. Describe in detail the monitoring programs whichhave been and will be undertaken to determine the effects of the operating plant on theenvironment.
Include the results of preoperational monitoring activities.
A listing of types ofmeasurements, kinds, and numbers of. samplescollected, frequencies, and analyses should beprovided and the locations described andindicated on a map of the area.d. Discuss those planned studies, that are not yetcompleted, that may yield results relevant to theenvironmental impact of the plan
t. COMMISSION
ACTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTSAs noted in paragraph
6 of Section A of therevised Appendix D to 10 CFR 50, the Commission places each applicant's Environmental Report in theAEC's Public Document Room in Washington, D.C.and in a local public document room near theproposed site. The Report is also made available to thepublic at the appropriate State, regional andmetropolitan clearinghouses.
At the same time, apublic announcement is made and a summary noticepublished in the Federal Register.
The applicant's Environmental Report, relevantpublished information, and any comments receivedfrom interested persons are considered by theCommission's regulatory staff in preparing a "DraftDetailed Statement of Environmental Considerations"
concerning the proposed licensing action. Theregulatory staff's Draft Statement and the applicant's Environmental Report are transmitted for comment tothe Council on Environmental Quality, to certainFederal agencies, and "to the Governor or appropriate State and local officials, who are authorized to developand enforce environmental standards, of any affectedState." Comments on the Report and the. DraftStatement are requested within a specified timeinterval.
The Draft Statement is made available to thegeneral public in the same manner as the Report.As described in detail in paragraphs
6 through 9 ofSection A of the revised Appendix D, the regulatory staff considers the comments on the Report and onthe Draft Statement received from the various Federal.State, and local agencies and officials, from theapplicant, and from private organizations andindividuals, and prepares a "Final Detailed Statement on the Environmental Considerations."
The FinalStatement is transmitted to the Council onEnvironmental Quality and is made "available toappropriate Federal, State and local agencies and State,regional, and metropolitan clearinghouses."
A publicannouncement is made and a notice of availability published in the Federal Register.
Subsequent hearings and action on theenvironmental aspects involved in issuance of aconstruction permit or operating license are based onthe Commission's Final Environmental Statement.
TheEnvironmental Statement takes into accountinformation from many sources, including theapplicant's Environmental Report and its supplements, and the comments of the various governmental agencies, the applicant, and private organization- andindividuals.
The applicant's Environmental Report is animportant document of public record. Therefore, theapplicant is urged to give full attention to thecompleteness of the Repor
t. PREPARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTSThe second Section of this Introduction, withparticular reference to the paragraphs quoted from therevised Appendix D of 10 CFR 50, provides generalinformation concerning the content of the applicant's Environmental Report. To provide specific and detailedguidance, the following
"Standard Format and Contentof Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants"has been prepared.
Each applicant should follow thisformat in detail.If any topics in the guide relate to information not available at the time the Environmental Report isprepared, the applicant should indicate when theinformation will be available.
If any topics are notrelevant to the particular plant under consideration, the applicant should identify them.Descriptive and/or narrative text as well as tables,charts, graphs, etc. should be used. Each subject shouldbe treated in sufficient depth and should be3 documented
4 to permit a reviewer independently toevaluate the extent of the environmental impact. Theexact length of the Environmental Report will depndnot only on the format adopted but, also and moreimportantly, on the nature of the plant and itsenvironment.
Tables, line drawings, and photographs should be used wherever contributory to the clarityand brevity of the Report. Descriptive and narrative passages should be brief and concise.
The number ofsignificant figures stated in numerical data shouldreflect the accuracy of the-data.
Pertinent published information relating to thesite, the plant, and its surroundings should bereferenced.
Where published information is essential toevaluate specific environmental effects of the plantconstruction and operation, it should be included, insummary or verbatim form, in the Environmental Report or as an appendix to the report.Some of the information to be included in theEnvironmental Report may have already been preparedby the applicant during consideration of the safetyaspects of the proposed facility.
In such cases, thisinformation (whether in the form of text, tables orfigures)
should be incorporated in the Environmental Report where appropriate to. avoid duplication ofeffort.4,,Documentation"
as used in this Guide meanspresentation of evidence supporting data and stalements andIncludes:
(I) references to published Information,
(2) citations from the applicant's experience,
(3) references to unpublished information developed by the applicant or the applicant's consultants.
Statements not supported by documentation areacceptable provided the applicant identifies them either asInformation for which documentation Is not available or asexpressions of belief or judgment.
The site for a nuclear power plant may alreadycontain one or more "unr&' (i.e. steam-electric plants),either in being or for which an application for aconstruction permit or operating license has been filed.The applicant, in preparing the Environmental Reportrelating to such a site, should consider the effec's ofthe proposed plant (and its in-service schedule)
inconjunction with the effects of both pre-existing andprojected'
plants. Further, if the site contains sourcesof environmental impact other than electric powerplants, the environmental impact of these and theirinteractions with the proposed plant should be takeninto accoun
t. CRITERIA
AND TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS
RELATING
TO ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTPrior to issuance of a construction permit, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit, where applicable, proposed criteria and technical specifications relatingto environmental impact. The criteria should be thoseidentified for use in construction and operation of thefacility to minimize environmental impact. Thetechnical specifications should specify the limits ofchemical and thermal releases to the environment during construction and operation.
Administrative procedures, surveillance and controls to assurecompliance with the proposed criteria and technical specifications should also be identified.
44'Projected plants are those for which an application for aconstruction permit or operating license has been filed.I4 STANDARD
FORMAT AND CONTENT OFENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
1. OBJECTIVES
OF THE PROPOSED
FACILITYThis Section should discuss the objectives of theproposed facility
-the power requirement to besatisfied, the system reliability to be achieved, anyother primary objectives to be met -and.should doso in sufficient detail to make clear those aspects ofthe power requirement and system reliability, suchas date of readiness, that will directly influence thechoice of alternatives as presented in subsequent sections of the Environmental Report.1.1 Requirement for powerThis Section should discuss the requirement for the proposed nuclear unit(s) in theapplicant's system and in the region,considering the overall power supply situation, present load and projected load growth,reserve margins, and consequences of delay inproviding the proposed new generation capacity on adequacy and reliability of thebulk power supply. The data presented shouldbe consistent with that furnished to theFederal Power Commission and the RegionalReliability Council.1.1.1 Demand characteristics The applicant should present data on thepast pattern of demand characteristics anda forecast of future market trends. Thepresentation should include summaryresults of an appropriate sensitivity analysis indicating thi basis of demandforecasts, such as average income, presentper capita consumption, or othercorrelates of power demand. The dataidentified below should include the fiveyears preceding the filing of theEnvironmental Report through at leasttwo years beyond the projected initialdate of commercial operation of the lastnuclear, unit with which the Report isconcerned.
c) Load duration curves or information derived from such curves to indicateeconomic or other reasons for typeof generation selected.
1.1.2 Power supplyThis Section should discuss briefly theapplicant's bulk power supply planningand present actual and projected generating capabilities, capacity purchases and capacity sales at the time of annualsystem peak.hour demand for the fiveyears preceding filing of this Reportthrough at least two years beyond theprojected initial date of commercial operation of the last nuclear unit withwhich the Environmental Report isconcerned.
1.1.2.1 Capacity resources a) Capability assigned to eachcategory of generation:
hydroelectric, fossil, nuclear.pumped storage, etc.b) Capacity sales.c) Capacity purchases.
d) New generating units and theirprojected capabilities.
e) Planned retirements of presentcapacities for economic, environmental or other reasons.1.1.2.2 Reserve marginThe applicant's minimum systemreserve criterion should be described.
The basis and justification for itsadoption should be presented.
Describe the method employed todetermine the minimum systemreserve criterion such as single largestunit, probability method based onloss of load one day in ten years, orhistorical data and judgment.
ifprobabilistic studies are used as aplanning tool the results should bea)b)Annual system peak-hour demand,Annual system peak-hour demandadjusted to reflect firm powertransactions with other powersuppliers, and5 stated along with the significant inputdata utilized, such as the load model,generating unit characteristics (including forced outage rates andmaintenance schedules),
the durationof periods examined, and a generaldescription of the methodology employed.
Discuss the effect of operation of theproposed nuclear unit(s) on theapplicant's minimum system reservecriterion.
In addition, discuss theeffects of present and plannedinterconnections on the minimumsystem reserve criterion.
Describe the minimum reserve marginresponsibility to other participants ofthe area coordinating group or powerpool.1.1.3 System demand and resource capability comparison Show applicant's system demand, resourcecapability and reserve margin with andwithout the proposed nuclear unit(s).
Theinformation should be presented on twographs:Applicant's system demand or resources (MWe) versus yeai,: 5 curves showingcapability resources with the proposedunit(s) in operation, capability resources without the proposed unit(s),
annualsystem peak demand, generating capability with the proposed unit(s),
andgenerating capability without theproposed unit(s).Applicant's reserve margin (as percent ofannual system peak demand) versus years:2 curves showing reserve margin with theunit(s) and reserve margin without theunit(s).In all graplis the years, plotted asabscissae, should be from five yearspreceding the date of filing of theEnvironmental Report through at leasttwo years after the scheduled initial dateof operation of the last unit.1.1.4 Input and output diagramA block diagram should be submitted showing the applicant's system powerinput and output (power consumption)
atthe time of peak-hour demand for for thefirst year of commercial operation.
The block diagram should represent theapplicant's system capability resources (MWe), showing two categories of input:(1) the applicant's system generating capabilities (MWe) according to type(fossil, hydro, nuclear, other), and (2) thecapacity transactions (MWe) and otherarrangements with outside organization(s).
(Identify each outside organization.)
The output of the block representing theapplicant's system capability resources should consist of: (1) the peak demand(MWe) for each load market category(industrial, commercial, residential, other),and (2) the peak demand (MWe) for eachwholesale market category (municipal, cooperative, other).In addition, the output should showsystem firm power transactions, approximate total system losses, andsystem reserve, all in MWe. A separateblock diagram should be provided for eachgenerating unit with which theEnvironmental Report is concerned.
1.1.5 Report from Regional Reliability CouncilSubmit the report by the appropriate Regional Reliability Council(s)
whichidentifies the requirement for power inthe affected area.This report should include:a) Description of the minimum reservecriterion for the region or qubregion.
b) Identification.
description and briefdiscussion of studies conducted bythe Council to determine theadequacy and reliability of powersupply in the region or subregion forthe first three years of commercial operation of the proposed nuclearunit(s) at the time of annualpeak-hour demand.c) The latest date the proposed nuclearunit(s) can be placed in commercial operation without endangering theadequacy and reliability of theprojected bulk power supply.1.2 Other primary objectives If other primary objectivws are to be met bythe proposed facility, such as the production of process steam for sale, or desalting water,an analysis of these should be made.44I6
1.3 Consequences of delayThe economic and other consequences ofdelays in the proposed project should bediscussed.
Where the applicant has a legalobligation to supply energy to meet thedemands of a specified area, the nature andextent of this obligation should be made clear.The role of the proposed facility in fulfilling the applicant's obligation should be discussed.
The applicant should discuss the effects ofdelaying the scheduled in-service date of theproposed nuclear unit(s) on the adequacy andreliability of the power supply for theapplicant's systems, subregion and region, aswell as for other interconnected utilities in thesubregion or region.2. THE SITEThis Section should present the basic, relevantinformation concerning those physical, biological, and human characteristics of the area environment that might be affected by the construction andoperation of a nuclear power plant on thedesignated site. To the extent possible, theinformation presented should reflect observations and measurements made over a period of years.2.1 Site location and layoutProvide a map showing the coordinates of thesite and its location with respect to State,county and other political subdivisions.
Ondetailed maps show location of the plantperimeter, exclusion area boundary, utilityproperty, abutting and adjacent properties, including water bodies, wooded areas, andfarms, nearby settlements, industrial plants.parks and other public facilities, andtransportation links (railroads, highways, waterways).
Indicate total acreage owned bythe applicant and that part occupied ormodified by the plant and plant facilities.
Indicate other uses, if any, of applicant's property and the acreage devoted to theseuses. Describe any plans for site modifications, such as a visitor's center or park. A contourmap of the site should also be supplied.
2.2 Regional demography, land and water useTwo maps indicating the locations and areasof towns and cities should be provided, withthe first covering an area of 10-mile radiuscentered at the proposed plant location andthe second covering an area of 50-mile radius.Each map should present the 16 cardinalcompass directions identified by marked linesradiating from the reactor building location.
The 10-mile map should have circles, centeredat the reactor building location, of I, 2, 3. 4,5, and 10 miles radius; on the 50-mile map,circles with radii of 5, 10. 20, 30, 40 and 50miles should be draw
n. The populations
(1970census) of the towns and cities shown on themaps should be indicated either on tlte mapsor in a separate tabulation.
The above maps will show 22.5' segmentsbounded by arcs and compass lines. Prepare aduplicate pair of maps, omitting the townsand cities, and bisect each angle formed bytwo adjacent compass lines with a broken line.This will generate sectors centered withrespect to the compass directions.
Thepermanent and transient populations withinthese sectors should be tabulated for thefollowing:
1970 (census),
year of proposedplant startup, and census years through theanticipated life of the plant.Descriptive material should include tablesgiving the population and visitor statistics ofneighboring schools, plants, hospitals, sportsfacilities, residential areas. parks, beaches, etc.,within 5 miles from the plant. Indicate thenature and extent of present land use(agriculture, livestock raising, dairies.residences, industries, recreation, transportation.
etc.).Indicate the nature and extent of presentwater use (water supplies, irrigation, recreatioti, transportation, etc.) with ihe plantsite and environs.
The applicant shouldprovide data concerning any drawdown ofground water caused by withdrawals fromneighboring major industrial and municipal wells and how they may result in thetransport of material from the site to those orother wells. All points of water usage of astream or lake within 50 miles should beidentified and the population associated witheach use point given. In addition, allpopulation centers taking water fromwaterwavs from the plant to the ocean shouldbe tabulated (distance and population).
Sources which are river bank wells should betabulated separately with their associated population.
Note whether any other nuclear facilities arelocated within a 50-mile radius of the site.The degree of detail to be provided willgenerally depend upon distance from the7 plant; that is, nearby activities (within 5 milesfrom the plant) should be desc:ribed in greaterdetail than those at greater distances.
2.3 Regional historic Pnd natural landmarks Areas valued for either their historic ornatural significance may be affected.
TheEnvironmental Report should include a briefdiscussion of the historic and naturalsignificance, if any, of the plant site andnearby areas with specific attention to thesites and areas listed in the National Registerof Historic Places and the National Registry ofNatural Landrnarks.
(The 1972 cumulative revision of the National Register is in theFederal Register of March 15, 1972, 37 F.R.5428; additions are published in the FederalRegister on the first Tuesday of each month.)State and local historical societies should alsobe consulted.
In addition, indicate whether ornot the site has any archaeological significance and explain how conclusions were reached.
Ifsuch significance or value is present, describeplans to ensure its preservation.
State whether the proposed transmission lineright-of-way from the plant to the hook-upwith existing system (Section
3.9) will passthrough or near any area or location ofknown historic, natural, or archaeological significance.
2.4 GeologyDescribe the major geological aspects of thesite and its immediate environs.
The discussion should be limited to noting the broad featuresand general characteristics of the site andenvirons (stratigraphy, soil and rock types,faults, seismic history).
2.5 Hydrology The effects of plant construction andoperation on any adjacent above-ground orbelow-ground bodies of water are of primeimportance.
Accordingly, describe thephysical, chemical, and hydrological characteristics (and their seasonal variations)
of surface and ground waters (marshes, lakes,streams, estuaries, bays, oceans, etc.) of thesite and the immediate environs.
Include adescription of significant tributaries above andbelow the site and the pattern and gradients of drainage in the area. Note that information relating to water characteristics should includemeasurements made on or in close proximity to the site.Monthly and daily maxima, averages, andminima of important parameters of groundand surface waters, such as temperature, flowrate, velocity, water table height. gas andchemical stratification, circulation patterns, river and lake levels, tides, floods, currents, wave action, and flushing times, should bepresented.
Vertical and areal variations shouldbe established on a regional basis as well as inthe immediate vicinity of the site. If data areavailable, ground water contours (including seasonal variations)
within 2 or 3 miles of theplant should be presented.
(Note that wateruse at the site is discussed in Section 2.2.)2.6 Meteorology Present data on site meteorology:
(I) diurnaland monthly averages and extremes oftemperature and humidity;
(2) monthly windcharacteristics including speeds, directions.
frequencies and joint wind speed, stability category, wind direction frequencies;
(3) dataon precipitation;
(4) frequency of occurrence and effects of storms accompanied by highvelocity winds including tornadoes andhurricanes.
(In the second item, the joint windspeed-stability-direction frequencies should bepresented in tabular form, giving thefrequencies as fractions when using 5-yearU.S. Weather Bureau summaries, or as numberof occurrences when using only one or twoyears of onsite data. The data should bepresented for each of the 16 cardinal compassdirections, and the stability categories shouldbe established to conform as closely aspossible with those of Pasquill.)
2.7 EcologyIn this Section the applicant should identifythe important local flora and fauna, theirhabitats and distribution as well as therelationship between species and theirenvironments.
A species, whether animal orplant, is "important"
if it is commercially orrecreationally valuable, if it is rare orendangered, if it is of specific scientific interest or if it is necessary to the well-being of some significant species (e.g., a food chaincomponent)
or to the balance of theecological system.In cataloging the local organisms, theapplicant should identify and discuss theabundance of the terrestrial vertebrates, provide a map that shows the dist1fibution ofthe principal plant communities, and describethe plant communities and animal populations
44I8 within the aquatic environments.
Thediscussion should include species that migratethrough the area or use it for breedinggrounds.The discussion of species-environment relationships should include descriptions ofarea usage (e.g. habitat, breeding, etc.); itshould- include life histories of important regional animals, tE.-ir normal population fluctuations and their habitat requirements (e.g. thermal tolerance ranges);
and it shouldinclude identification of food chains and otherinterspecies relationships, particularly whenthese are contributory to predictions orevaluations of the impact of the nuclear planton the regional biota.Identify any definable pre-existing environmental stresses from sources such aspollutants, as well as any ecological conditions suggestive of such stresses.
Describe the statusof ecological succession.
Discuss anyimportant histories of disease occurring in theregional biota as well as vectors or reservoirs of disease, or serious infestations by pestspe'cies.
The sources of information should beidentified.
As part of this identification, present a list of any published material dealingwith the ecology of the region. Locate anddescribe any ecological or biological studies ofthe site or its environs now in progress.
2.8 Background radiological characteristics Regional radiological data, including bothnatural background radiation levels and resultsof measurements of any concentrations ofradioactive materials occurring in important biota, in soil and rocks and in regional surfacewaters should be reported.
These data,whether determined during the applicant's preoperational surveillance program (seeSection 6.1.5) or obtained from other sources,should be referenced.
2.9 Other environmental featuresFor certain sites, some relevant information on the plant environs may not clearly fallwithin the scope of the preceding topics.Additional information may be required withrespect to some environmental features inorder to reflect the value of the site and siteenvirons to important segments of thepopulation.
Such information should beincluded here. Where relevant, the applicant should appraise and discuss the reaction ofinterested citizen groups to locating theproposed facility at this site.3. THE PLANTThe operating plant and transmission system are tobe described in this Section.
Since theenvironmental effects are of primary concern inthe Report, the plant effluents and plant.related systems that interact with the environment shouldbe described in particular detail.3.1 External appearance The building layout, plant perimeter, exclusion boundary, and plant profile shouldbe shown to scale. by line drawings or otherillustrative techniques.
The architectural design and efforts to makethe structures and grounds aesthetically pleasing should be noted.The location and elevation of release pointsfor liquid and gaseous wastes should be clearlyindicated.
3.2 Reactor and steam-electric systemThe reactor type (BWR, PWR, HTGR, etc.),manufacturer, architect-engineer, number ofunits, and kind (make) of turbine generator should be stated. The fuel (cladding, enrichment, etc.) should be described.
Ratedand design electrical and thermal power of. thereactor as well as the in-plant electrical powerconsumption should be given.3.3 Plant water useA quantitative water-use diagram for the plantshould be presented, showing water flows toand from the various plant water systems(heat dissipation system, sanitary system,radwaste and chemical waste systems, processwater system, etc.) The sources and condition (quality)
of the water in each input andoutput should be described.
Show totalconsumptive use of water by the plant. Theabove data which quantify plant water useshould be tabulated for various plantconditions including maximum poweroperation, minimum anticipated poweroperation, temporary shutdown, with andwithout cooling towers and cooling ponds (ifseasonal usage is planned).
To avoid excessive detail on the diagram, cross-reference other9 sections (e.g., Sections
3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7) forrelevant data.3.4 Heat dissipation systemHeat-removal facilities should be discussed indetail. Simplified flow diagrams, sketches ofintake and outfall structures are essential.
Thereasons for providing the particular facilities (such as water resources limitations orreduction of thermal effects)
should be noted.The source of the cooling water should beidentified.
(Its natural temperature, including monthly changes and stratification, should bedescribed in Section 2.5.)Topics to be covered include:
quantity of heatdissipated;
quantity of water withdrawn, consumptive use, return: design, size, andlocation of cooling towers, cooling lakes orspray ponds: air, water flow rates, pertinent temperatures, estimates of quantity of driftatid drizzle (and methods used in makingestimates)
for cooling towers: blowdownvolume, ,ate of discharge and physical andchemical characteristics for towers and ponds;temperature changes, rate of changes andholdup times in cooling ponds; rate ofevaporation of water from towers or ponds;information on dams or dikes where a coolingreservoir is created;
design and location ofwater intake structures, including water depth,flow and velocity, screens.
number andcapacity of pumps at intake structure;
temperature differences between withdrawn and returned water; time of travel acrosscondenser and to end of contained discharge lines for different months and flows. details ofoutfall design including discharge flow andvelocity.
Descriptions should includeoperational modes of important subsystems.
Describe procedures for reducing the thermalshock to aquatic biota during shutdown orrefueling.
Procedures and schedules for removal anddisposal of blowdown of slimes and algalgrowth in the system, and of trash collected at the intake structures, should be described.
Data on relevant chemical constituents shouldbe presented in Section 3.6.3.5 Radwaste systemsProvide a detailed description of the radwastesystems including flow diagrams showingorigin, treatment, and disposal of all solid,liquid, and gaseous radioactive waste generated by the plant under consideration.
Listestimated quantities, volumes and flow ratesfrom all sources, expected aecontamination factors, holding times, and expected frequency and magnitude of variations from normaloperating conditions.
(Accident conditions areto be discussed under Section 7.)Indicate which radwaste systems are usedsingly and which are used jointly with otherunits at the site, as applicable.
List allradionuclides (and their half-lives)
that will bedischarged with each effluent stream and givethe expected anoual average release rates. Ifthe release rates are intermittent, give themaximum release rates and times involved.
Supply all pertinent supporting information, including a description of assumptions andcomputational methods used. Identify thephysical characteristics of all radioactive effluents-particulate.
ionic, gaseous, etc.State the concentrations of all liquid effluentradionuclides prior to mixing with receiving water body (e.g.. stream, lake, estuary).
Theseconcentrations should take into accountdilution by plant water bodies such as coolingponds or canals which receive effluents priorto mixing with the receiving water body.Seasonal and operational variations in dilutionwater usage in radwaste effluents should bestated.Describe the orifices (high stacks or vents)from which airborne or gaseous radioactive materials are to be emitted, giving base andorifice elevations, inside diameter and shape.In cases where the height of the emittingorifice is less than 2.5 times that ofsurrounding buildings, supply relevantinformation on height, location, and shape ofnearby buildings and structures.
(Crossreference to Section 3.1 as appropriate).
Provide data on effluent velocity, volume flowrate from the orifice, and the temperature ofthe effluent gases if appreciably different fromambient.3.6 Chemical and biocide systemsDescribe chemical additives (including corrosion inhibitors, chemical and biological antifouling agents),
corrosion products, waste'The information requested here is commonly called the"source term." The applicant's attention is directed to the setof questions in Appendix
2 of this Guide. The responses tothese constitute the basic data required in calculating thesource term. The set of questions may be used by theapplicant as a checklist to ensure the completeness of datapresented in this Section of the Report.4U1110
streams or discharges from chemical processing and water treatment that may enter the localenvironment as a result of plant operation.
Maximum and average concentrations ofchemicals and solids in any brines orcooling-system effluents should be given.Ground deposition of chemicals and solidsentrained in spray fallout should be estimated.
The discussion should include description ofprocedures by which effluents will be treated,controlled and discharged, the expectednominal and maximum concentrations foreach discharge, and the quantities that will bedischarged in a specified time. Seasonal andoperational variations in discharges should bedescribed.
A flow diagram (which may also becombined with the liquid radwaste system)should be included.
3.7 Sanitary and other waste systemsDescribe any other nonradioactive solid orliquid waste materials, such as sanitary andchemical laboratory wastes, laundry anddecontamination solutions, that may becreated during plant operation.
Describe themanner in which they will be treated andcontrolled and describe procedures fordisposal.
Describe any other gaseous effluents (i.e.,from diesel engines, gas turbines, heatingplants, incinerators)
created during plantoperation;
estimate the frequency of releaseand describe how they will be treated beforerelease to the environment.
3.8 Radioactive materials inventory The transportation of radioactive materials haspotential environmental effects (to bediscussed in Section 5.3). In this Section theradioactive materials to be transported to andfrom the site should be described.
Describe the type of fresh fuel to be used andthe quantity to be shipped to the site eachyear. The form of fuel, enrichment, cladding, total weight per shipment, and expected formof packaging should be discussed.
Estimate the weight of irradiated fuel to beshipped from the site per year, the number ofshipments per year, the average and maximumburnup for each shipment, the cooling timerequired prior to each shipment, and theexpected form of packaging to be used.Estimate the annual weight, volume andactivity of radioactive waste materials (e.g..spent resins and air filters)
to be shipped fromthe site. Categorize the wastes according towhether they are liquid, solid or gaseous.
Anyprocessing that may be required beforeshipment, such as compacting or consolidating with vermiculite and cement, should hedescribed.
3.9 Transmission facilities The Environmental Report should containsufficient information to permit evaluation ofthe environmental impact of transmission linesand related facilities that must be constructed to convey energy from the proposed nuclearinstallation to an interconnecting point orpoints on the existing distribution system. Formaterial useful in preparing this subsection.
the applicant is advised to consult theDepartment of Interiot/Department ofAgriculture publication entitled"Environmental Criteria for ElectricTransmission Systems"
(U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971) and the Federal PowerCommission publication
"Electoic PowerTransmission and the Environment."
This portion of the Report should identifyand discuss parameters of possibleenvironmental significance, including radiatedelectrical and acoustic noise, induced orconducted ground currents, and ozoneproduction.
The applicant should supply contour mapsand/or aerial photographs showing theproposed right-of-way and identifying anyexisting substation(s)
or other point(s)
atwhich the transmission line(s) will connectwith the existing distribution system. Thelengths and widths of the proposedrights-of-way should be specified.
Any accessroads, maintenance roads and new facilities located on or near the right-of-way should beshown. The applicant should indicate whetherthe land adjacent to the right-of-way hasresidential, agricultural, industrial orrecreational uses. Any area where construction of the transmission line(s) will requirepermanent clearing of vegetation, changes intopography, or removal of manmadestructures should also be indicated as well asareas where the transmission line(s) will beplaced underground.
Indicate the degree towhich the above-ground lines will be visiblefrom frequently traveled public roads.II
Adequate descriptions of proposed line-related facilities, such as substations, should beincluded in the Report. This portion of theReport should provide detailed profiledrawings of the various types of transmission structures, including dimensions and specifying their color and finish. The type, number andconfiguration of conductors and the color,number and configuration of insulators shouldbe described and illustrated as appropriate.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF SITEPREPARATION,
PLANT AND TRANSMISSION
FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
The construction of a nuclear power plant andrelated faci.ities will inevitably affect theenvironment;
some of the effects will be adverse.Effects are considered adverse if environmental change or stress causes some biotic population ornonviable resource to be less safe, less healthy, lessabundant, less productive, less aesthetically orculturally pleasing, as applicable;
or if the changeor stress reduces the diversity and variety ofindividual choice, the standard of living, or theextent of sharing of life's amenities;
or if thechange or stress tends to lower the quality ofrenewable resources or to impair the recycling ofdepletable resources.
The severity of unavoidable adverse effects should be reduced to minimumpracticable levels.In the applicant's discussion of adverseenvironmental effects, it should be made clearwhich of these are considered unavoidable andsubject to later amelioration and which areregarded as unavoidable and irreversible.
Thoseeffects which represent an irretrievable commitment of resources should receive detailedconsideration in Section 4.3. (In the context ofthis discussion,
"irretrievable commitment ofresources"
alludes to natural sources and means apermanent impairment of these, e.g., loss ofwildlife habitat;
destruction of nesting, breeding ornursing areas; interference with migratory routes;loss of valuable or aesthetically treasured naturalareas; as well as expenditure of directly utilizedresources.)
4.1 Site preparation and plant construction The applicant should organize the discussion in terms of the effects of site preparation andplant construction on (a) land use and (b)water use. The applicant should considerconsequences to both human and wildlifepopulations and indicate which ateunavoidable, reversible, etc. according to thecategorization set forth earlier in this Section.In the land use discussion, describe howconstruction activities may disturb the existingterrain and wildlife habitats.
Consider theeffects of such activities as creating buildingmaterial supply areas; building temporary orpermanent roads, bridges, service lines;disposing of trash, excavating and land filling.Provide information bearing on suL.h questions as: How much land will be torn up? For howlong? Will there be dust or smoke problems?
What explosives will be used? Where and howoften? Indicate proximity of humanpopulations and identify undesirable impactson their environment arising from noise, frominconvenience due to the movement of men,material, machines, including activities associated with any provision of housing,transportation, educational facilities forworkers arI their families.
Describe anyexpected changes in accessibility of historical and archaeological sites in the region. Discussmeasure!.
designed to mitigate or reverseundesirable effects, such as erosion control,dust stabilization, landscape restoration, control of truck traffic, restoration of affectedanimal habitat.The discussion should also include any effectsof site preparation and plant construction activities whose consequences may bebeneficial to the region, as, for example, theuse of spoil to create playgrounds and/orrecreational facilities.
The discussion of water use should describethe impingement of site preparation andconstruction activities on regional water(lakes, streams, ground water, etc.). Suchactivities would include the construction ofcofferdams, and/or storm sewers, dredgingoperations, placement of fill material in thewater, and the creation of shoreside facilities involving bulkheads, piers, jetties, basins orother structures enabling ingress or egressfrom the plant by water. Examples of otherpertinent activities are the construction ofintake and discharge structures for coolingwater or other purposes, straightening ordeepening a water channel and operations affecting water levels (flooding),
etc. Theapplicant should describe the effects of theseactivities on navigation, fish and wildliferesources, water quality, water supply,aesthetics and so on as applicable.
Measures tomitigate undesirable effects, such as flood andpollution control, installation of fish laddersor elevators and other procedures for habitatimprovement should be described.
III12
4.2 Transmission facilities construction The effects of construction and installation oftransmission line towers and facilities on theland and on the people, including those livingin and those visiting or traveling through theadjacent area, should be discussed in thisSection.
(Refer to Section 3.9 for the basicinformation.)
The following topics may serve as guidelines for this discussion but the applicant shouldinclude additional material if it is relevant:
a) Any permanent changes that will beinduced in the physical and biological processes of plant and wild life throughthe changes in the hydrology, topography or ground cover during construction andinstallation of the transmission lines.b) Total length of new lines and number oftowers through and in various categories of visually sensitive land .(that is sensitive to presence of transmission lines andtowers) such as natural shoreline, marshland, wildlife refuges, parks,national and state monuments, scenicareas, recreation areas, historic areas,national forests and/or heavily timberedareas, shelter belts, steep slopes,wilderness areas.c) Number and length of new access andservice roads required.
d) Erosion directly traceable to construction activities.
e) Plans for protection of wildlife, fordisposal of slash and unmerchantable timber, and for cleanup and restoration ofarea affected by clearing and construction activities.
4.3 Resources committed Discuss any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources (loss of land,destruction of biota, etc.) which are expectedshould site preparation and plant andtransmission facilities construction proceed.Such losses should be evaluated in terms oftheir relative and long term net, as well asabsolute, impacts.
(See Section 5.8 of thisGuide for more detailed consideration.)
5. ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF PLANTOPERATION
This Section describes the interaction of the plant(discussed in Section 3) and the environment (discussed in Section 2). To the extent possible, the applicant should avoid repeating the materialpresented in Sections
2 and 3. Measures plannedto reduce any undesirable effect of plant operation on the environment should be described in detail.In the discussion of environmental effects, as inSection 4. effects that are considered unavoidable but either inherently temporary or subject to lateramelioration should be clearly distinguished fromthose regarded as unavoidable and irreversible.
Those effects which represent an irretrievable commitment of resources should receive detaill.d consideration in Section 5.8.The impacts of operation of the proposed facilityshould be, to the fullest extent practicable.
quantified and systematically presented.'
In thediscussion of each impact. the applicant shouldmake clear whether the supporting evidence isbased on theoretical, laboratory, on-site, or fieldstudies undertaken on this or on previousoccasions.
The source of each impact-the plantsubsystem, waste effluent-and the population orresource affected should be made clear in eachcase The impacts should be distinguished in termsof their effects on surface water bodies,ground water, air, and land.Finally, as directed by the Guidelines of the Councilon Environmental Quality (36 F.R. 7724, April 23,1971), the applicant should discuss the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
In accordance with this directive, theapplicant should assess the action for cumulative and long-term effects from the point of view thateach generation is trustee of the environment foreach succeeding generation.
This means considering, for example, the commitment of a water source touse as a cooling medium in terms of impairment ofother actual or potential uses, and any otherlong-term effects to which the operation of thisfacility may contribute.
S.1 Effects of operation of heat dissipation systemWaste heat, dissipated by the system described in Section 3.4, alters the thermal conditions ofthe environment.
In all cases the heat iseventually transferred to the atmosphere.
Since the transfer is usually effected throughthe surface of a river, pond, lake, estuary orocean or by the evaporation of water in acooling tower, the hydrology of the* 'Quantincation of environmental costs is discussed inSection 10.13 environment (Section
2.5) and thd aquaticecology (Section
2.7) are of primaryimportance in determining what effects thereleased heat will have on the environment.
Describe the effect that the heated effluent willhave on the temperature of the receiving bodyof water with respect to space and time.Describe changes in temperature caused bydrawing water from one depth and discharging it at another.
The predicted characteristics ofthe mixing zone and temperature changes in thereceiving body of water as a whole should becovered.
Include seasonal effects.
Discuss anymodel studies that have been performed todetermine these characteristics, givingreferences to reports that provide supporting details.
Indicate whether the discharge couldaffect the quality of the waters of any otherState or States.Describe the thermal standards applicable tothe water source (including maximumpermissible temperature, maximum permissible increase, mixing zones, and maximum rates ofincrease and decrease)
and whether, and towhat extent, these standards have beenapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency inaccordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.Describe the effects of released heat on marineand fresh.water life. Give basis for prediction ofeffects.
In this discussion, appropriate references to the baseline ecological datapresented in Section 2.7 should be made.Expected thermal effects should be related tothe optimum and tolerance temperature rangesfor important (as defined in Section 2.7)aquatic species and the food base whichsupports them. The evaluation should considernot only the mixing zone, but the entireregional aquatic habitat potentially affected byoperation of the proposed plant.Potential hazards of the cooling water intakeand discharge structures (described in Section3A) to fish species and food base organisms should be identified and steps planned tomeasure and minimize the hazards should bediscussed.
Diversion techniques should bediscussed in light of information obtained fromecological studies on fish population, size, andhabitats.
The effects of passage through the condenser on zooplankton, phytoplankton, meroplankton, and small nektonic forms suchas immature fish and the resultant implications for the important species and functional groupsshould be discussed.
The applicant should discuss the potential biological effects of modifying the naturalcirculation of the water body, especially wherewater is withdrawn from one region or zoneand discharged into another.
This includes suchfactors as dissolved oxygen, nutrients, scouring, and suspended sediments.
Plant-inJuced changes in the temperature of thedischarged water subsequent to environmental stabilization, can affect aquatic life in thereceiving body. Accordingly, the applicant should discuss the possible effects of reactorshutdown (and other temporary relatedconditions)
including the dependence of effectson the season in which shutdown occurs. Anestimate of the number of scheduled andunscheduled shutdowns per year should begiven. Refueling schedules should be indicated, particularly where temperature cycling in thereceiving waters is likely to be large (e.g.,refueling in winter).
Discuss steps to be takento mitigate the effects of shutdown.
Discuss the expected environmental effects, ifany, of heat dissipation facilities such as coolingtowers, lakes, spray ponds, or techniques suchas dilution with additional water or diffusersystems on the local environment and onagriculture, housing, highway safety, airports, or other facilities with respect tometeorological phenomena including fog oricing, cooling tower blowdown and drift, noise.If fog or icing may occur, the estimated hoursper year, distances, directions, andtransportation arteries potentially affectedshould be presented.
Consider possiblesynergistic effects that might result frommixing with other effluents in the atmosphere.
(Environmental effects of chemicals discharged from cooling tower blowdown Ind drift shouldbe discussed in Section 5.4).5.2 Radiological impact on biota other than manIn this Section the applicant should considerthe impact on biota other than manattributable to the release of radioactive materials from the facility.
Specifically, thediscussion should include an estimate of typicalmaximum dose rates (rad/year)
for species oflocal flora and local and migratory faunaconsidered to be "important"
as defined inSection 2.7i44I14
5.2.1 Exposure pathwaysThe various possible pathways for radiation exposure of the important local flora andlocal and migratory fauna should beidentified and described in textual andflowchart format. (An example of anexposure pathway chart is given inAppendix
3.) The pathways should includethe important routes of radionuclide translocation (including food chainsleading to important species)
to organisms or sites.5.2.2 Radioactivity in environment In Section 3.5, the radionuclide concentrations in the liquid and gaseouseffluents from the facility are listed. In thisSection, the applicant should consider howthese effluents are quantitatively distributed in the environment.
Specifically, estimates should be providedfor the radionuclide concentrations in anysurface waters (including the water thatreceives any liquid radioactive effluents),
on land areas, and on vegetation (on a perunit area basis) in the environs.
If there areother components of the physicalenvironment that may becomecontaminated and thus cause the exposureof living organisms to nuclear radiations, they should be identified and theirradioactivity burden estimated.
Inaddition, information concerning anycumulative buildup of radionuclides in theenvironment, such as in sediments, shouldbe presented and discussed.
5.2.3 Dose rate estimates From considerations of the exposurepathways and the distribution offacility-derived radioactivity in theenvirons, the applicant should estimate themaximum radionuclide concentrations thatmay be present in important local flora andlocal and migratory fauna and the resultant dose rates (rad/year).
Values ofbioaccumulation factors2 used in preparing
2The bloaccumulation factor is the equilibrium ratio:(concentration in organLsm)/(concentratIon in water). Values ofbioaccumulation factors can be obtained from such references as:W. H. Chapman, H. L. Fisher, M. W. Pratt, "Concentration factors of chemical elements in edible aquatic organisms",
University of California Radiation Laboratory reportUCRL,- 50564 (December
30, 1968).A. M. Freke, "A Model for the Approximate Calculation of SafeRates of Discharge of Radioactive Wastes Into MarineEnvironments"
Health Physic, 13, 734 (1967).the estimates should be based onsite.specific data if available- otherwise, values from the literature may be used. Theapplicant should tabulate and reference thevalues of bioaccumulation factors used inthe calculations.
Since the region may contain manyimportant specics, the applicant shouldlimit the calculations to estimating thedose rates experienced by selected species(indicator organisms)
from habitats(terrestrial and/or aqueous)
having thehighest potential for radiation exposure.
5.3 Radiological impact on manIn this Section the applicant should considerthe radiological effects of facility operation andtransportation of radioactive materials on manl.Estimates of the radiological impact on man viavarious exposure pathways should be provided.
5.3.1 Exposure pathwaysThe various possible pathways for radiation exposure of man should be identified anddescribed in textual and flowchart format.(An example of an exposure pathway chartis given in Appendix
3.) As a minimum, thefollowing pathways should be evaluated:
drinking;
swimming;
fishing:
eating fish.invertebrates, and plants.5.3.2 Liquid effluents Estimate the expected annual averageconcentrations of radioactive nuclides(listed in Section 3.5) in receiving water atlocations where water is consumed orotherwise used by human beings or whereit is inhabited by biota of significance tohuman food chains. (if discharges areintermittent, concentration peaks as well asannual averages should be estimated.)
Specify the dilution factors used inpreparing the estimates and the locations where the dilution factors are applicable.
Provide data on recreational and similar useof receiving water and its shoreline, e.g.,swimming, fishing, picnicking, hunting,clam digging.
Include any persons whoderive the major parts of their incomesfrom water adjacent to the site andIndicate the amount of time spent per yearin this activity.
i5 Data on irrigation usage of the receiving water should be included, such as thenumber of acres irrigated, points at whichirrigation water is drawn (downstream from the site), what type(s) of crops areproduced within 50 miles of the site andthe yield of each crop per acre.Provide data on the commercial fish andseafood catch (number of pounds per yearof each species within the region).
Includeany harvest and usage of seaweed or otheraquatic plant life.Determine the expected radionuclide concentrations in aquatic and terrestrial organisms significant to human foodchains. Use the bioaccumulation factorsgiven in Section 5.2.3 or supply others asnecessary.
Calculate the following, using the aboveinformation and any other necessary supporting data (provide details andmodels of the calculation as an appendix):
Total body and significant organ doses(rem/year)
to individuals in thepopulation from all receiving water-related exposure pathways, i.e.,all sources of internal and externalexposure.
5.3.3 Gaseous effluen:.
From release rates of radioactive gases andmeteorological data (Sections
3.5 and 2.6,respectively),
estimate total body andsignificant organ doses (rem/year)
toindividuals exposed at the point ofmaximum ground-level concentrations off-site.
Assume annual averagemeteorological conditions for a BWR andlimiting meteorological conditions for aPWR. Identify locations of points ofrelease (stack, roof vent, etc.) used incalculations.
Estimate deposition ot radioactive halogensand particulates on food crops and pasturegrass. Consider maximum ground-level deposition on pasture grass, even thoughmilk cows may not be grazing there at thepresent time. Estimate total body andthyroid doses (rem/year)
and significant doses received by other organs via suchpotential pathways (include, in particular, the air-grass-milk pathway).
Provide an appendix describing the modelsused in these calculations.
5.3.4 Direct radiation
5.3.4.1 Radiation from facilityThe applicant should provide, anestimate of the total external dose(rem/year)
anC the total population external dose (man-rem/year)
receivedby individuals outside the facility fromdirect radiation, e.g., gamma radiation emitted by turbines and radioactive waste vessels.
In particular, theapplicant should estimate the expectedexternal dose rates received byindividuals in nearby schools,hospitals.
or other publicly usedfacilities.
5.3.4.2 Transportation of radioactive materials Radioactive materials to be shipped toand from the plant during itsoperation have been identified anddescribed in Section 3.8. In thisSection the direct radiation exposureof man attributable to thetransportation of these materials should be estimated.
The applicant should identify thesupplier of the fresh fuel and the mostlikely route to be taken by the carrierfrom the point of supply to the plant.The distance, most likely mode oftransport and details of shipmentshould be described.
The latterdiscussion should include information on the number of fuel elements perpackage, number of packages pervehicle (truck, barge, railroad car)andthe probable number of shipments peryear. The applicant should estimatethe radiological dosage, if any, todrivers, helpers and population alongthe transport route.Similar information concerning shipments of irradiated fuel should be,upplied by the applicant.
Inconnection with the description ofshipment details, the applicant shouldindicate the method of in-transit cooling and the methods used tocontain leaking fuel assemblies.
Theapplicant should estimate theradiological doses in man-rem per tripand per year to drivers, helpers andpopulation along the transport route.4I416 For other radioactive wastes to beshipped from the plant, the applicant should identify the disposal site and itsdistance from the plant, the mostlikely route of transport, mode oftransport as well as the type ofpackaging, the number, weight andactivities of packages to be shippedeach year. The applicant shouldestimate the radiological doses inman-rem per trip and per year todriver, helpers and population alongthe transport route.5.3.5 Other exposure pathwaysProvide estimates of individual total bodydoses (rem/year)
and population totalbody doses (man-rein/year)
that could bereceived via pathways other than thosepreviously discussed.
Discuss any exposurepathways.
if they exist, involving radionuclides accumulated in sediments orin other components of the environment.
(See Section 5.2.2.)5.3.6 Summary of annual radiation dosesThe applicant should present a table thatsummarizes the estimated radiation dose tothe regional population from allplant-related sources using valuescalculated in previous Sections.
Thetabulation should include (a) the totalbody doses to the population (man-rem/year)
from all receiving water-related pathways and (b) the totaldistances from the point of discharge should beprovided.
The effects on terrestrial and aquaticenvironments from chemical wastes whichcontaminate ground water should be included.
The effects of chemicals in cooling towerblowdown and drift on the environment shouldalso be considered in this Section.5.5 Effects of sanitary and other waste discharges Sanitary and other waste systems have beendescribed in Section 3.7. Treat the expecteddischarges as in Section 5.4.5.6 Effects of operation and maintenance of thetransmission systemThe environmental effects of operation andmaintenance of the transmission systemrequired to tie in the proposed facility to thepre-existing network must be evaluated.
Theevaluation of effects should make clear theapplicant's plans for maintenance of theright-of-way and required access roads. Plansfor use of herbicides and pesticides shouldindicate types, volume, concentrations, andmanner and frequency of use.Resulting effectson plant life, wildlife habitat, land resources, and scenic values should be evaluated.
This Section of the Report should alsoreference the applicant's estimate of anyelectrical effects of potential environmental significance which were, previously identified and discussed in Section 3.9.5.7 Other effectsThe applicant should discuss any effects ofplant operation that do not clearly fall underany single topic of Sections
5.1 to 5.6. Thesemay include changes in land and water use atthe plant site, interaction of the plant withother neighboring plants, and disposal of solidand liquid wastes other than those discussed inSections
5.3 through 5.5.5.8 Resources committed Discuss any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources due to plantoperation.
This discussion should include bothdirect commitments,.
such as depletion ofuranium resources, and Irreversible environmental losses, such as destruction ofwildlife habitat.body doses t(man-rem/year)
atieffluents out to amiles from the site.o the population tributable to gaseousdistance at least of 505.4 Effects of chemical and biocide discharges Chemical and biocide discharges have beendescribed in Section 3.6. Water resources anduse are discussed in Sections
2.5 and 3.3. In thisSection, the specific concentrations of thesewastes at the points of discharge should becompared with natural ambient concentrations without the discharge and also compared withapplicable water standards.
The projected effects of the effluents for both acute andchronic exposure of the biota (including anylong-term buildup in sediments and in thebiota) should be identified and discussed.
Dilution and mixing of discharges into thereceiving waters should be discussed in detailand estimates of concentrations at various17 In this discussion the applicant should considerlost resources from the viewpoints of bothrelative impacts and long-term net effects.
Asan example of relative impact assessment, theloss of two thousand fish of a given speciescould represent quite different degrees ofsignificance, depending on the total population in the immediate region. Such a loss however,in the case of a small local population, could beless serious if the same species were abundant inneighboring regions.
Similarly, the loss of agiven area of highly desirable land should beevaluated in terms of the total amount of suchland in the environs.
These relative assessments should accordingly include statements expressed in percentage terms in which theamount of expected resource loss is related tothe total resource in the immediate region andin which tile total in the immediate region isrelated to that in surrounding regions.
Thelatter should be specified in terms of areas anddistances from the site.In evaluating long-term effects for their netconsequences, the applicant may consider, as anexample, the impact of thermal and chemicaldischarges on fish. There may be severe losses inthe local discharge area. However, the slighttemperature elevation of neighboring regionsof the water body, together with possiblesynergistic effects of diluted chemicaldischarges, may augment the spawning rate. Insuch a case the local population change may ormay not be a net loss. Therefore, changes inpopulation of important species, caused by, orexpected to be caused by, the operation of theplant should be examined with the view ofdetermining whether they represent long-term net losses or long-term net gains. Theconsiderations are also applicable to Sections
9and 10 of the Report.
6. EFFLUENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MEASURE-MENTS AND MONITORING
PROGRAMSThe purposes of this Section are to describe in detailthe means by which the applicant collected thebaseline data presented in other Sections and todescribe the applicant's plans and programs formonitoring the environmental impacts of sitepreparation, plant construction and operation.
Section 6.1 is addressed to the measurement otpre-existing characteristics of the site and thesurrounding region. This program will establish areference framework for assessing subsequent environmental effects attributable to the activity.
The applicant's attention is directed to twoconsiderations pertinent to this Section.
First, theterm "pre-existing"
means, in all cases, at leastpre-operational.
A given characteristic or parameter may or may not require assessment prior to sitepreparation and plant construction, depending onwhether that particular characteristic may be alteredat these stages. Second, in most instances this Guideindicates the specific environmental effects to beevaluated;
consequently, the parameters to bemeasured will be apparent.
In some cases, it may benecessary for the applicant to establish a monitoring program based on his own identification ofpotential or possible effects and to provide hisunderlying rationale for such. Accordingly, theapplicant should carefully review the plans formeasurement of pre-existing conditions to ensurethat these plans include all factors which must besubsequently monitored during plant operation, asdiscussed in Section 6.2.Sampling design, frequency, methodology (including calibration and checks with standards)
and instrumentation for both collection and analysisare to be discussed and justified as applicable.
Information should be provided on instrument sensitivity and, especially for highly automated systems, reliability.
6.1 Applicant's pre-operational environmental programsThe programs for collection of environmental data prior to operation should be described insufficient detail to make it clear that theapplicant has established a thorough andcomprehensive approach to environmental assessment.
The description of these programsshould be confined principally to technical descriptions of instrumentation, technique, andprocedures.
Organizational aspects such asscheduling or validation are relevant only asthey may bear upon technical programcharacteristics.
Where information from the literature has beenused by the applicant, it should be concisely summarized and documented by reference tooriginal data sources.
Where the availability oforiginal sources that support important conclusions is limited, the applicant shouldprovide either extensive quotations orreferences to accessible secondary sources.'
Inall cases, information derived from published results should be clearly distinguished frominformation derived from the applicant's fieldmeasurements.
'Any reports of work (e.g., ecological surveys)
supported bythe applicant that are of significant value in assessing theenvironmental impact of the proposed action should be includedas appendices or supplements to the Environmental Report,unless the reports are otherwise generally available.
44!18
6.1.1 Surface watersWhen a body of surface water may beaffected by the proposed facility or apracticable alternative, the applicant should describe the programs by which thebackground condition of the water and therelated ecology were determined.
In caseswhere a natural water body has alreadybeen subjected io environmental stressfrom pollutant sources, the nature of thisstress and its consequences should beevaluated.
The applicant should thenestimate the potential quality of theaffected water body, assuming removal ofthe existing pollutant
,,ources;
knowledge of this quality level will permit evaluation of any adverse effect of the proposedfacility.
6.1.1.1 Physical and chemical parameters The programs and methods formeasuring physical and chemicalparameters of potentially affectedsurface waters should be described.
The sampling program should bepresented in sufficient detail todemonstrate its adequacy with respectboth to spatial coverage (surface areaand depth) and to temporal coverage(duration and sampling frequency),
giving due consideration to seasonalchanges in effluent.
This description ofdata collection programs shouldinclude methods used in determining the pre-existing condition of thesurface waters with respect to anyparameters which might change as aresult of plant operation.
Thisdiscussion should include a description of the techniques used to identify anycondition that might lead tointeractions with plant discharges, forexample, the presence of impurities ina water body which may reactsynergistically with heated effluent.
In addition to describing the programsfor obtaining the data, the applicant should also describe the computational models used in predicting effects.
Theapplicant should indicate how themodels were verified and calibrated.
6.1.1.2 Ecological parameters The applicant should describe thepreoperational program used to assessthe ecological characteristics identified in Section 2.7. Those portions of theprogram concerned with determining the presence and abundance of speciesshould be detailed in terms offrequency, pattern and duration ofobservation.
The applicant shoulddescribe how taxonomic determinations were made andvalidated.
In this connection, theapplicant should discuss its reference collection of voucher specimens orother means whereby consistent identification will be assured.Describe the methods used or to beused for observing natural variations ofecological parameters.
If thesemethods will involve indicator organisms, the criteria for theirselection should be presented.
The applicant should discuss therationale for predicting whichnon-lethal physiological and behavioral responses of important species may beaffected because of construction andoperation of the facility.
Thisdiscussion should be appropriately correlated with the description of themonitoring program.Sources of parameters of lethality fororganisms potentially affected byplant discharges should be identified.
The methodology for determining such parameters should be reviewedwith respect to applicability to actuallocal conditions to be anticipated during operation, including interactive effects among multiple effluents andexisting constituents of the surfacewater body concerned.
6.1.2 Ground waterIn those cases in which the proposedfacility or a practicable design alternative may potentially affect local ground water,the program leading to assessment ofpotential effects should be described.
6.1.2.1 Physical and chemical parameters The properties and configuration ofthe local aquifer will have beendefined in sufficient detail (in Section2.5) to permit a reasonable projection of effects of plant operation on the19 ground water. Methods for obtaining information on ground water levelsand ground water quality should bedescribed.
6.1.2.2 ModelsModels may be used to predict effects,such as changes in ground water levels,dispersion of contaminants, andeventual transport through aquifers tosurface water bodies. The modelsshould be described and supporting evidence for their reliability andvalidity presented.
6.1.3 AirThe applicant
,!-ould describe the programfor obtaining information on local airquality, if wIlcv:,nt, and local meteorology.
The description should show the basis forpredicting such effects as the dispersion ofgaseous effluents and alteration of localclimate (e.g., fogging and icing) as well aspresent the methodology for gathering baseline data.6.1.3.1 Meteorology The applicant should identify sourcesof meteorological data relevant to sucheffects as the dispersion of watervapor, dissolved solids and particulates carried by droplets.
Locations ofobservation stations, instrumentation, and frequency and duration ofmeasurements should be specified both for the applicant's measuring activities and for activities ofgovernmental agencies or otherorganizations on whose information the applicant intends to rely.6.1.3.2 ModelsAny models used by the applicant either to derive estimates of basicmeteorological information or toestimate the effects of effluentsystems should be described and theirvalidity and accuracy discussed.
6.1.4 LandData collection programs concerning theterrestrial environment of the proposedfacility should be described and justified with regard to both scope andmethodology.
- 6.1.4.1 Geology and soilsGeological studies conducted insupport of safety analyses should bebriefly summarized and reference made to the rulevant safety reports fora more detailed presentation.
Theapplicant should describe thecollection of data on any soilconditions that may be altered byplant construction and operation.
Thedescription should includeidentification of the sampling patternand the justification for its selection, the sampling method, holding periodsand pre-analysis treatment, andanalytic techniques.
6.1.4.2 Land use and demographic surveysThe applicant should describe hisprogram for identifying the actual landuse in the site environs and foracquiring demographic data for theregion.Sources of information should beidentified and their accuracy assessed.
Methods used to forecast from datashould be described.
6.1.4.3 Ecological parameters In this Section the applicant shoulddiscuss the program used to assess theecological characteristics of the sitewith primary reference to important terrestrial biota. In general, theconsiderations involved are similar tothose suggested in connection withaquatic biota (Section
6.1.1.2).
However, the difference in habitat,differences in animal physiology andother pertinent factors will, ofnecessity, influence the design of theassessment program.
The applicant
.ý.,ould present, as in Section 6.1.1.2,an analysis of the program in terms oftaxonomic validation, rationale for itspredictive aspects and the details of itsmethodology.
6.1.5 Radiological surveysThis Section of the Environmental Reportshould discuss the methods used todetermine the pre-operational radiation levels at the site and environs and the414420
concenlrations of any radioactive materials occurring in important local and regionalbiota, as well as in soil, rocks and surfacewaters (see Section 2.8).The methods used should be thoroughly described and documented.
The discussion should include identification of samplingor collection sites, sampling methods,duration and frequency, and analytical procedures (including pre-analysis treatment, instruminentation and mininiuni sensitivities)
as applicable.
6.2 Applicant's proposed operational monitoring programsTile applicant should present the proposedoperational monitoring program for the facility.
Review of this description will be facilitated ifthe applicant includes maps of observation sitesand tabnlar presentation of summarydescriptors of such facto:s as frequency, typeof sampling, method of collection, analyticmethod, holding times and pre-analysis treatment, instrumentation, and minimumsensitivities.
The program description should beexplidt with respect to the parameter limitsthat are not to be exceeded under normaloperating conditions and with regard to theactions planned in the event th'! limits areexceeded.
6.2.1 Radiological monitoring The applicant's operational monitoring program for radiological effects should bedescribed both for the plant monitoring system and the environmental monitoring program.6.2.1.1 Plant monitoring systemDescribe, in general, in-plantmonitoring systems for radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents.
Discussthe sensitivity limits for detecting radioactivity corresponding torc:,,drnely expected release rates. Listthe effluent streams, if any, that wilinot be monitored and provide briefrationale for the absence ofmonitoring.
6.2.1.2 Environmental radiological monitoring The operational surveillance programshould be described in detail, withspecific allention given to lhe types ofsamples to be collected, samplinglocations and frequency, and tlheanalyses to be performed on eachsample. The analytical sensitivity (detection threshold)
for e.jclh analysisand tile schedule for reporting datacollected froni the surveillance program should be discussed.
6.2.2 Chemical effluent monitoring The proposed measurement program,including instrumentation, locations andfrequencies, and analytical techniques, should be fully described.
The description of the program should includeinst r u me ntation sensitivity and.particularly in the case of automated systems, reliability.
Monitoring procedures prescribed by local. State. or Federalagencies as conditions placed uponoperation should be so identified.
The criteria for setting threshold levels forcorrective action should be presented.
Inthe case of prescribed quantitative standards set by agencies, the applicable regulation should be cited. In the case ofquantitative limits set by tile applicant toconform to qualitative standards orrest rictions, the applicant's rationale should be presented.
In either case, theaction to be taken if measurements exceedthresholds should be specified.
If the program for monitoring chemicaleffluents does not include monitoring substances which are naturally present inthe intake water and are routinely discharged from the facility, the bases forthese omissions should be verified.
6.2.3 Thermal effluent monitoring The proposed program for monitoring thermal effluents should be described andsampling sites located on maps or diagrams.
Sampling procedures, schedules, andinstrumentation sensitivity and reliability should be described.
Applicable water quality standards shouldbe cited. It should be made clear howconformance to such standards is verified.
In particular, if conformance is inferred byextrapolation from measurements using acomputational model, the validity of the21 model should be reviewed.
The applicant should present the criteria used todetermine the action to be taken whensurveillance indicates non-conformance:
the specific remedial actions should beidentified.
Obligations for reporting results should bestated and schedules presented.
6.2.4 Meteorological monitoring The applicant's program for monitoring meteorological phenomena should bedescribed.
In cases where possible foggingand icing in the environs are predicted.
thequantitative levels of the phenomena to beobserved should be specified.
The applicant should describe plans for compiling data,verifying models, and accumulating resultsuseful in planning other facilities.
Means bywhich the meteorological effects of plantoperation can be isolated from naturalmeteorological phenomena should bedescribed.
(This may include correlation ofdata with observations made at a sitenearby, but out of range of significant effects originating within the site.) Theapplicant should indicate the actionplanned to mitigate adverse effects (e.g.,Ihghway icing) in the event a real hazarddevelops.
6.2.5 Ecological monitoring In the pre-operational surveillance programthe applicant will have established methodology for determining theecological characteristics of the region. Inprinciple, this methodology should beappropriate for the subsequent monitoring program to be maintained during plantoperation.
However, the applicant maychoose to modify some aspects of hismethodology in view of the requirement for protracted monitoring.
Such aspects,may include frequency, observation sitesand so forth. These should be described and justified.
Also, the applicant should, inthis Section, indicate how changes in thephysiological and behavioral characteristics of the observed biota will be ascribedeither to specific effects of plant operation or to natural variation.
6.3 Related environmental measurement andmonitoring programsWhen the applicant's site lies within a region forwhich environmental measurement and/ormonitoring programs are carried out by publicor other agencies not directly supported by theapplicant, these programs should be identified and discussed.
Relevance of such independent findings to the proposed facility's effectsshould be described and plans for exchange ofinformation should be presented.
Agenciesresponsible for the programs should beidentified and. to the extent possible, theprocedures and methodologies employedshould be described in the same manner as forthe applicant's own programs.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS
The applicant should discuss thie environmental effects of possible accidents which may occurwithin the plant or during transportation ofradioactive materials.
7.1 Plant accidents'
Postulated accidents are discussed in anothercontext in applicant's safety analysis reports.The principal line of defense is accidentprevention through correct design,manufacture, and operation, and a qualityassurance program is used to provide andmaintain the necessary high integrity of thereactor system. Deviations that may occur arehandled by protective systems to place andhold thie plant in a safe condition.
Notwithstanding all this, the conservative postulate is made that serious accidents mightoccur, in spite of the fact that they areextremely unlikely, and engineered safetyfeatures are installed to mitigate theconsequences of these unlikely postulated events.In the consideration of the environmental risksassociated with the postulated accidents, theprobabilities of their occurrence and theirconsequences must both be taken into account.Since it is not practicable to consider allpossible accidents, the spectrum of accidents, ranging in severity from trivial to very serious,is divided into classes.Each class can be characterized by anoccurrence rate and a set of consequences.
Standardized examples of classes of accidents to be considered by applicants in preparing the'The text of this Section was published in 36 F.R.228S5-22854, December
1, 1971.44I22 section of Environmental Reports dealing withaccidents are set out in tabular form below. Thespectrum of accidents, from t(ie most trivial tothe most severe, is divided into nine classes,sorne of which have subclasses.
The accidents stated in each of the first eight classes tabulated below are representative of the types ofaccidents that must be analyzed by theapplicant in Environmental Reports:
however,other accident assumptions may be moresuitable for individual cases. Where assumptions as not specified, or where those specified aredeemed unsuitable, assumptions as realistic asthe stale of knowledge permits shall be used,taking into account the specific design aridoperational characteristics of tile plant underconsideration.
For each class, except Class I and 9, theenvironmental consequences shall be evaluated as indicated.
Those classes of accidents, otherthan Classes I and 9, found to have significant adverse environmental effects shall be evaluated as to probability, or frequency of occurrence, to permit estimates to be made ofenvironmental risk or cost arising fromaccidents of tile given class.Class I events need not be considered becauseof their trivial consequences.
Class 8 events are those considered in safetyanalysis reports and AEC staff safetyevaluations.
They are used, together with highlyconservative assumptions, as the design-basis events to establish the performance requirements of engineered safety features.
Thehighly conservative assumptions andcalculations used in AEC safety evaluations arenot suitable for environmental risk evaluation, because their use would result in a substantial overestimate of the environmental risk. For thisreason, Class 8 events shall be evaluated realistically.
Consequences predicted in thisway will be far less severe than those given forthe same events in safety analysis reports wheremore conservative evaluations are used.The occurrences in Class 9 involve sequences ofpostulated successyive failures more severe thanthose postulated for the design basis forprotective systems and engineered safetyfeatures.
Their consequences could be severe.However, the probability of their occurrence isso small that their environmental risk isextremely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical barriers),
quality assurance for design,manufacture, and operation, continued surveillance and testing, and conservative designare all applied to provide and maintain therequired high degree of assurance that potential accidei.:s in this class are, and will remain.sufficiently remote in probability tha tileenvironmental risk is extremely low. For thesereasons, it is riot fcccssar, to discuss suchevents in the Enviiitomiental Reptrt.Furthermore, it is not necessary it) take intoaccount those Class 8 accidents for which theapplicant can demonstrate that the probability has been reduced and thereby the calculated risk to the environment made equivalent It) thatwhich might be hypothesized for a Class 9.event.The applicant may substitute other accidentclass breakdowns and alternative values ofradioactive material releases and analytical assumptions, if such substitution is justified inthe Environmental Repor
t. ACCIDENT
ASSUMPTIONS
ACCIDENT-
1.0 Trivial itcidents These incidents shall be included and evaluated under routine releases in accordance withproposed Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 [SecAppendix
4 of this Guide] .A CCIDEN T- 2.0 Small Release OutsileContaiwnent These releases shall include such things asreleases through steamline relief valves andsmall spills and leaks of radioactive materials outside containment.
These releases shall beincluded and evaluated under routine releases inaccordance with proposed Appendix I of 10CFR Part 50. [See Appendix
4 of this Guide.]ACCCIDEANT-3.0
Radwaste Svstem 1ailure3.1 Equipment leakage or malfunction (Includes operator error)(a) Radioactive gases and liquids:
25% ofaverage inventory in the larges storagetank shall be assumed to be released.
(b) Meteorology assumptions:
xIQ valuesare to be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.2Copies of these Guide(s),
dated November
2, 1970. areavailable at the Commission's Public Document Room. 1"17 1iStreet, N. W. Washington, D.C. and (in request to the Director.
Division of Reactor Standards, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Washington, D.C. 20545.23 (c) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
3.2 Release of waste gas storage tank contents(Includes failure of release valve andrupture disks)(a) 100% of the average tank inventory shall be assumed to be released.
(b) Meteorology assumptions:
y/Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(c) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by die frequency of thewind blows in each direction.
3.3 Release of liquid waste storage tankcontents(a) Radioactive liquids:
100% of theaverage storage tank inventory shall beassumed to be spilled on the floor ofthe building.
(b) Building structure shall be assumed toremain in[,,A.(c) Meteorol.,gy assumptions:
xJQ valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(d) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the, windblows in each direction.
ACCIDENT-4.0
Fission Products to PrimarySystem (BIVR)4.1 Fuel cladding defectsRelease from these events shall be includedand evaluated under routine releases inaccordance with proposed Appendix I of10 CFR Part 50. [See Appendix
4 of thisGuide.]4.2 Off-design transients that induce fuelfailures above those expected (Such as flowblockage and flux maldistributions)
(a) 0.02% of the core inventory of noblegases and 0.02% of the core inventory of halogens shall be assumed to bereleased into the reactor coolant.(b) 1% of the halogens in the reactorcoolant shall be assumed to be releasedinto the steam.(c) The mechanical vacuum pump shall beassumed to be automatically isolatedby a high radiation signal of the steamline.(d) Radioactivity shall be assumed tocarry over to the condenser where 10%of the halogens shall be assumed to beavailable for leakage from thecondenser to the environment at0.5%/day for the course of theaccident
(24 horus).(e) Meteorology assumptions:
x]Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3.(f) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
.4CCIDENT-5.0
Fission Products to Primaryand Secondary Systems (Pressurized WaterReactor]5.1 Fuel cladding defects and steam generator leakRelease from these events shall be includedand evaluated under routine releases inaccordance with proposed Appendix I of10 CFR Part 50. [See Appendix
4 of thisGuide.]5.2Off-design transients that induce fuelfailure above those expected and steamgenerator leak (such as flow blockage andflux maldistributions)
(a) 0.02% of'the core inventory of noblegases and 0.02% of the core inventory and halogens shall be assumed to bereleased into tlhe reactor coolant.(b) Average inventory in the primarysystem prior to the transient shall bebased on operation with 0.5% failedfuel.4(c) Secondary system equilibrium radioactivity prior to ftie transient shall be based on a 20 gal/day steamgenerator leak and a 10 gpmblowdown rate.(d) All noble gases and 0.1% of thehalogens in the steam reaching thecondenser shall be assumed to bereleased by the condenser air ejector.(e) Meteorology assumptions:
X]Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 4.(f) Consequcnces should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
5.3 Steam generator tube rupture(a) 15% of the average inventory of noblegases and halogens in the primary024 coolant shall be assumed to be releasedinto the secondary coolant.
Theaverage primary coolant activity shallbe based on 0.5% failed fuel.(b) Equilibrium radioactivity prior torupture shall be based on a 20 gallonper day steam generator leak and a 10gpm blowdown rate.(c) All noble gases and 0.1% of thehalogens in the steam reaching thecondenser shall be assumed to bereleased by the condenser air ejector.(d) Meteorology assumptions:
X/Q valuesshall be 1110 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 4.(e) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the wind,blows in each direction.
ACCIDENT-
6. 0 Refuieling Accidents
6.1 Fuel bundle drop(a) The gap activity (noble gases andhalogens)
in one row of fuel pins shallbe assumed to be released into thewater. (Gap activity is 1% of totalactivity in a pin).(b) One week decay time before theaccident occurs shall be assumed.(c) Iodine decontamination factor inwater shall be 500.(d) Charcoal filter efficiency for iodinesshall be 99%.(e) A realistic fraction of the containment volume shall be assumed to leak to theatmosphere prior to isolating thecontainment.
(f) Meteorology assumptions:
xjQ valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(g) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
6.2 Heavy object drop onto fuel in core(a) The gap activity (noble gases andhalogens)
in one average fuel assemblyshall be assumed to be released intothe water. (Gap activity shall be 1% oftotal activity in a pin).(b) 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of decay time before objectis dropped shall be assumed.(c) Iodine decontamination factor inwater shall be 500.(d) Charcoal filter efficiency for iodinesshall be 99%(e) A realistic fraction of the containment volume shall be assumed to leak to theatmosphere prior to isolating thecontainment.
(1) Meteorology assumptions:
y]Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(g) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
ACCIDENT-
Z70 Spent Fuel Handling Accident7.1 Fuel assembly drop in fuel storage pool(a) The, gap activity (noble gases andhalogens)
in one row of fuel pins shallbe assumed to be released into thewater. (Gap activity shall be 1% oftotal activity in a pin).(b) One week decay time before accidentoccurs shall be assumed.(c) Iodine decontamination factor inwater shall be 500.(d) Charcoal filter efficiency for iodinesshall be 99%.(e) Meteorology assumptions:
xIQ valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(0 Consequences shall be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
7.2 Heavy object drop onto fuel rack(a) The gap activity (noble gases andhalogens)
in one average fuel assemblyshall be assumed to be released intothe water. (Gap activity is 1% of totalactivity in a pin).(b) 30 days decay time before theaccident occurs shall be assumed.(c) Iodine decontamination factor inwater shall be 500.(d) Charcoal filter efficiency for iodinesshall be 99%.(e) Meteorology assumptions:
xJQ valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(f) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
7.3 Fuel cask drop(a) Noble gas gap activity from one fullyloaded fuel cask (120 day cooling)shall be assumed to be released.
(Gapactivity shall be 1% of total activity inthe pins).25 ACCIDENT--8.0
Accident Initiation EventsConshiercd in Design Basis Evaluation inthe Safety Analysis Report8.1 Loss-of-coolant accidents Small Pipe Break (6-in. or less)(a) Source term: the average radiocictivity inventory in the primary coolant shallbe assumed.
(This inventory shall bebased on operation with 0.5% failedfuel).(b) Filter efficiencies shall be 95% forinternal filters and 99% for externalfilters.(c) 50% building mixing for boiling waterreactors shall be assumed.(d) For the effects of plateout, sprays,decontamination factor in pool, andcore sprays the following reduction factors shall be assumed:For pressurized water reactors:
0.05with chemical additives in sprays, 0.2for no chemical additives.
For boiling water reactors:
0.2.(e) A realistic building leak rate as afunction of time shall be assumed.(f) Meteorology assumptions:
YQ valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(g) Consequciwes should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
Large Pipe Break(a) Source term: The average radioactivity inventory in the primary coolant shallbe assumed (This inventory shall bebased on operation with 0.5% failedfuel), plus release into the coolant of:For pressurized water reactors:
2% ofthe core inventory of halogens andnoble gases.For boiling water reactors:
0.2% of thecore inventory of halogens and noblegases.(b) Filter efficiencies shall be 95% forinternal filters and 99% for externalfilters.(c) 50% building mixing for boiling waterreactors shall be assumed.(d) For the effects of plateout, containment sprays, core sprays(values based on 0.5% of halogens inorganic form) the following reduction factors shall be assumed:For pressurized water reactors:
0.05with chemical additives in sprays, 0.2for no chemical additives.
For boiling water reactors:
0.2.(e) A realistic building leak rate as afunction of time and including designleakage of steamline valves in BWRsshall be assumed.(f Meteorology assumptions:
XJQ valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3 or 4.(g) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
8.1(a) Break in instrument line from primarysystem that penetrates the containment (Lines not provided with isolation capability inside containment).
(a) The primary coolant inventory ofnoble gases and halogens shall be basedon operation with 0.5% failed fuel.(b) Release rate through failed line shallbe assumed constant for the four hourduration of the accident.
(c) Charcoal filter efficiency shall be 99%.(d) Reduction factor from combinedplateout and building mixing shall be0.1.(e) Meteorology assumptions:
>/Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3.(f) Consequences shall be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
8.2(a) Rod ejection accident (pressurized waterreactor)(a) 0.2% of the core inventory of noblegases and halogens shall be assumed tobe released into the primary coolantplus the average inventory in theprimary coolant based on operation with 0.5% failed fuel.(b) Loss-of-coolant accident occurs withbreak size equivalent to diameter ofrod housing (See assumptions forAccident
8.1).II26
8.2(b) Rod drop accident (boiling waterreactor)Radioactive material released(a) 0.025% of the core inventory of noblegas and 0.025% of the core inventory of halogens shall be assumed to bereleased into the coolant.(b) 1% of the halogens in the reactorcoolant shall be assumed to be releasedinto the condenser.
(c) The mechanical vacuum pump shall beassumed to be automatically isolatedby high radiation signal on thestreamline.
(d) Radioactivity shall be assumed tocarry over to the condenser where 10%of the halogens shall be assumed to beavailable for leakage from thecondenser to the environment at0.5%/day for the course of theaccident
(24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />).(e) Meteorology assumptions:
X/Q valuesshall be i/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 3.(f) Consequences should be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
8.3(a) Steamline breaks (pressurized waterreactors-outside containment)
Break size equal to area of safety valvethroatSmall break(a) Primary coolant activity shall be basedon operation with 0.5% failed fuel.The primary system contribution during the course of the accident shallbe based on a 20 gal/day tube leak.(b) During the course of the accident ahalogen reduction factor of 0.1 shallbe applied to the primary coolantsource when the steam generator tubesare covered;
a factor of 0.5 shall beused when the tubes are uncovered.
(c) Secondary coolant systemradioactivity prior to the accident shallbe based on:(a) 20 gallons per dayprimary-to-secondary leak.(b) Blowdown of 10 gpm.(d) Volume of one steam generator shallbe released to the atmosphere with aniodine partition factor of 10.(e) Meteorology assumptions:
x/Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 4.(f) Consequences shall be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
Large break(a) Primary coolant activity shall be basedon operation with 0.5% failed. fuel.The primary system contribution during the course of the accident shallbe based on a 20 gal/day tube leak.(b) A halogen reduction factor of O.5 shallbe applied to the primary coolantsource during the course of theaccident.
(c) Secondary coolant systemradioactivity prior to the accident shallbe based on:(a) 20 gallons per dayprimary-to-secondary leak.(b) Blowdown to 10 gpm.(d) Volume of one steam generator shallbe assumed to be released to theatmosphere with an iodine partition factor of 10.(e) Meteorology assumptions:
x/Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those given in AECSafety Guide No. 4.(f) Consequences shall be calculated byweighing the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
8.3(b) Steamline breaks (boiling water reactor)Small pipe break (of ' ft2 )(a) Primary coolant activity shall be basedon operation with 0.5% failed fuel.(b) The main steamline shall be assumedto fail releasing coolant until 5 secondsafter isolation signal is received.
(c) Halogens in the fluid released to theatmosphere shall be at 1/10 theprimary system liquid concentration.
(d) Meteorology assumptions:
XJQ valuesshall be 1/10 of these in AEC SafetyGuide No. 3.(e) Consequences shall be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
Large break(a) Primary coolant activity shall be basedon operation with 0.5% failed fuel.(b) Main steamline shall be assumed to fail27 releasing that amount of coolantcorresponding to a 5 second isolation time.(c) 50% of the halogens in the fluidexiting the break shall be assumed tobe released to the atmosphere.
(d) Meteorology assumptions:
x/Q valuesshall be 1/10 of those in AEC SafetyGuide No..`%(e) Consequences shall be calculated byweighting the effects in different directions by the frequency the windblows in each direction.
.7.2 Transportation accidents
3The potential environmental effects from atransportation accident involving radioactive materials should be evaluated.
Even though theprobability of such an accident may be low andits consequences small, the applicant shouldidentify the environmental effects that mightresult. Adequate documentation should bepresented to provide assurance that all safetyrequirements will be met prior totransportation of radioactive materials.
7.3 Other accidents In addition to accidents that can releaseradioactivity to the environs, there may beaccidents that, although radioactive materials are not involved, do have consequences thataffect the environment.
Such accidents aschemical explosions or fires, steam boilerfailures, leakage or ruptures of vesselscontaining toxic materials can have significant environmental impacts.
These possibleaccidents and associated effects should beidentified and evaluated.
8. ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PLANTCONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION
Social and economic effects of a nuclear powerplant may be mixed. Some may be beneficial, asexemplified by increased employment opportunities and augmented commerce.
Other effects may beadverse, such as the loss or displacement of localagricultural or residential property.
The applicant should assess the social, cultural andeconomic consequences of achieving the objectives of the facility.
Any additional effects resulting fromthe proposed plant which are not in themselves direct objectives of the facility and its operation
3The radiological impact of transportation In the absence ofaccidents if to be. discussed in Section 5.3.4.2.may also be discussed in this Section.
Such effectswould include attraction of industrial or otheractivities.
The discussion of these effects shouldinclude both beneficial and adverse social andeconomic consequences.
The Commission recognizes that some effectscannot be monetized, particularly in the area ofsocial impact. The applicant may, accordingly, electto use other than monetary measures.
Wheremonetary measures are used, dollar estimates shouldbe discounted to their present value using aprescribed rate of 10% as suggested by OMB forFederally sponsored projects.
The applicant mayselect a different rate; if so, the choice should bejustified and well documented.
In any case,documentation of the analysis should be provided insufficient detail to permit the AEC to make anindependent calculation of present value.AEC Form provides for the summary display ofbenefit measures.1
8.1 Value of delivered productsIn this Section the applicant may, in presenting the value to society of the proposed facility, provide a breakdown of the distribution of theplant products (electric energy, steam, etc.) tothe various sectors of customers served. Thediscussion should include present and projected values of electrical energy and any by-products generated by the facility.
In addition, theapplicant may detail expected end uses of theproducts.
In the case of electrical energy, itwould be appropriate to quantify, wherepossible, such uses in terms of major consumerapplications.
Residential applications mightinclude examples of ways in which electricpower contributes to raising the standard ofliving, i.e., improved lighting and heating,frostless refrigeration and air conditioning, home entertainment, air cleaners, trashcompactors.
Particular attention may be givento any significant public benefit such as mightbe associated with security, safety, generalconvenience including adequate street lighting, power for hospitals, rapid transit systems andother public facilities.
Conversely, thediscussion may include consideration of anyimportant regional deficiencies which would beameliorated by operation of the proposedfacility.
This might include retirement ofpolluting industrial facilities throughsubstitution of electric power or use of powerfor operating water treatment or pollution
'This and other forms appear after Section 13 of this Guide.001128 control facilities.
Dis-benefits associated withthie projected benefits should be identified anddiscussed.
8.2 IncomeExpenditures for the construction andoperation of a nuclear power plant represent anaddition to national as well as regional income.While the total expenditure would add tonational income, expenditures within aparticular region would constitute a localincome gain. Thus, the applicant
-shouldidentify the 'amount of outlay for labor,materials and equipment that will be expendedin the region in which the plant will beconstructed and that which will be expendednationally.
Successive rounds of local income,beyond the direct plant expenditure, will begenerated by the construction and continued operation of the facility, so that the totaladdition to regioml income will be muchgreater than the initial expenditure.
Theapplicant may therefore estimate an incomemultiplier for tIle region.8.3 Employment The construction and operation of a nuclearpower plant will have an impact on regionalemployment.
It may create jobs in the nationaleconomy, as well as in local industrial andservice sectors in addition to those jobs directlycreated by the construction and operation ofthe plant. As in the case of income, a localmultiplier is involved and the applicant mayestimate an employment multiplier for theregion in which it is proposed to construct theplant in order to determine the total effect onregional employment.
Conceptually this may be regarded as a form ofdouble-counting, because the incremental regional income is roughly proportional to theincremental regional employment.
However,this approach may be useful becauseincremental employment may be easier toestimate.
8.4 TaxesLocal tax revenues may be significantly increased by the construction and operation ofa nuclear power plant. The tax base would beincreased by the addition of the plant itself,other new commercial property, and by newresidential property as required.
The applicant should estimate the addition to the region's taxbase and revenues and provide the basis for theestimates.
8.5 Externalities The production of more, and perhaps lowercost electricity, could induce local industry toincrease the production of goods and services, thereby increasing the region's gross productand employment.
This increment would he inaddition to the increase resulting from theconstruction and oper'tion of the proposedplant. Conversely, increased industrial activities could lead to adverse environmental effects inthemselves, such as increased air pollution.
Theapplicant should estimate both favorable andunfavorable effects.There could be other adverse effects on aregion's economy.
While the proposed facilitywould increase a region's tax base, it would alsoadd an additional burden to local services, suchas water, sewage, education, and transportation.
The applicant should therefore estimate suchadverse effects as well as the benefits.
8.6 Other effectsThe applicant may wish to consider othereconomic and social effects beneficial to theregion, such as increased recreational activity, improvements in navigation in adjacent waters,and increased educational and environmental research benefits.
Recreational benefit may be projected on thebasis of expected annual user-days or thepresent value in dollars of future use.Evaluation of benefits achieved by facilitating navigation in affected water bodies may followthe guidelines of the Army Corps ofEngineers.'
The applicant should select andjustify appropriate measures for evaluating these and any other benefits described.
The applicant should summarize information from Section 2.2 concerning present andprojected land and water use in the region andshould supply a documented
"qualified opinion"
of the associated economic and socialconsequences.
Additional benefits may be discussed by theapplicant and presented to AEC Form I. Bothquantitative measurements and qualitative assessments should be used in deriving anevaluation of the net of the benefits andadverse effects caused by the plant construction and operation.
Department of the Army. Office or the Chief of Engineers.
Regulation No. 1120-114, dated June I. 1968, entitled
"SurveyInvestigations and Reports:
Water Improvement'
Studies-Navigation Benefits."
29
9. ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY SOURCES AND SITESIn this Section of the Environmental Report theapplicant's choice of a particular proposed nuclearfacility at a particular proposed site will besupported through a comparative evaluation ofavailable alternatives.
The AEC will consideravailable alternatives which may reduce or avoidadverse environmental effects expected to resultfrom construction and operation of a proposednuclear facility.
The AEC will not specify inadvance which alternatives should be selected by theapplicant for consideration:
rather, the applicant should make this selection and also make clear thebasis for the choices in regard to number,availability and suitability, as well as factors limitingthe range of alternatives.
Two classes of alternatives should be considered:
those which can meet the power demand withoutrequiring the creation of new generating capacityand those which do require the creation of newgenerating capacity.
9.1 Alternatives not requiring the creation of newgenerating capacity.
Practicable means which meet the projected power demand with adequate system reliability and which do not require the creation ofadditional generating capacity should beidentified and evaluated.
Such alternatives mayinclude purchased energy, reactivation orupgrading an older plant, and/or base loadoperation of an existing peaking facility.
Suchalternatives should be analyzed in terms of cost,environmental impact, adequacy, reliability andother pertinent factors.
The applicant is advisedthat this analysis is of major importance because it provides the basis for justifying thecreation of a new generating capability.
9.2 Alternatives requiring the creation of newgenerating capacity.
In this Section an alternative requiring newgenerating capacity is termed a "site-plant combination"
in order to emphasize that thealternatives to be evaluated should include bothsite and energy source options.
By site-plant combination is meant a combination of aspecific site (which may include the proposedsite) and a particular category of energy source(nuclear, fossil-fueled, hydroelectric, geothermal)
together with the transmission hook-up.
A given site considered incombination with two different energy sourcesis regatded as providing two alternatives.
9.2.1 Selection of candidate regionsMeaii ngful evaluation of site-plant alternatives can be made only after aselection process which identifies realistic candidate choices within the larger groupof technically feasible site-plant combinations.
In the initial screening, theapplicant should identify geographical regions (both within and outside of theapplicant's franchise service area) whichmay contain potential site locations.
It isexpected that these regions will be smallenough so that any site developed within agiven region would have approximately thesame type of environmental relationship (i.e., thermal discharge to some body ofwater, proximity to urban areas, etc.):however, actual sites may not be ownedwithin these areas; detailed land availability may not be known; detailed transmission line routings will be unspecified.
In this Section the applicant shouldappraise the identified regions with respectto power network considerations, environmental considerations and energytype and source considerations.
Thisappraisal will result in the elimination ofcertain geographical regions because ofsuch disadvantages as poor location withrespect to the applicant's power network,lack of cooling water, or obviousenvironmental incompatibility.
Theremaining regions will be those in and fromwhich candidate site-plant alternatives willbe selected.
(The latter selection process isdiscussed in Section 9.2.2.)As an initial step in appraising theidentified regions, the applicant shouldprepare two sets of maps, one of which willbe related to power network considerations and the other to environmental considerations.
Each map should clearlyshow all regions considered.
(The regionsshould be numbered and the samenumbering system used on all maps inwhich they appear.)Power network considerations.
2 The mapor maps related to power networkconsiderations should show the following:
a. The applicant's total service area.As used ia Section 9, the term "region"
is defined asseveral square.:.piles (large enough to contain several sites).'To avoid repetition, the applicant should refer, asappropriate, to material presented in Section 1. 1,4I.430
b. Relevant service subareas.
c. Regions considered by applicant.
d. Major urban areas, water bodies, andpolitical boundaries such as countylines where significant.
e. Primary generating plants, togetherwith effective operating capacity inmegawatts, both electrical andthermal, and indication of fuel type(all plants of same type at samelocation should be lumped together).
f. Transmission lines of 115 kV orhigher, and termination points on thesystem for proposed and potential lines from the applicant's proposedfacility.
g. Major interconnections with otherpower suppliers.
If other generating additions to thenetwork are to be installed before theproposed facility goes on-line, these shouldalso be shown.Where the following considerations affectthe decision process.
separate tables shouldindicate, for each of the subareas shownunder (b) above:a. The estimated peak and average powerdemand;b. The generating capacity;
c. Firm net power to be exported orimported at major interconnections (transient load swinging andthrough-power transfers should beeliminated).
All amounts should be estimated for loadconditions during initial year of fulloperation of the applicant's proposedfacility, using data consistent with powerprojections.
Environmental considerations.
The map ormaps related to environmental considerations should show the following:
a. The applicant's total service area,b. Adjacent service areas,c. Regions considered by the applicant, d. Major areas of population density(urban, high, medium, low density orsimilar scale),e. Water bodies suitable for use incooling systems.f, Railroads, highways, and waterways suitable for fuel and wastetransportation, g. Unsuitable topographic features (suchas mountains marshes, fault lines),h. Dedicated land-use areas (parks,historical sites, wilderness areas,testing grounds, airports, etc.).and any other environmental factors.suitable for display, which are appropriate to the discussion under 9.2.2 below.The number of maps to be furnished willdepend on the number of geographical regions considered during the selection process.Maps of regions outside the service areashould include the likely transmission corridor to the applicant's systeminterconnection.
Supplementary important environmental information should be included with theenvironmental maps for completeness.
The supplementary information shouldinclude:a. Prevailing meterological conditions, b. General environmental characleristics of rivers, lakes (capacity, biota,applicable standards),
c. Local habitat (animal population, vegetation, bird migration or nesting),
d. Prevailing and projected land use.Suitable cross-referencing may be madebetween the maps. For example, one ormore of the environmental maps may be tothe same scale as the power map; or,current generation sites and majortransmission lines may be overlaid on theenvironmental maps, where this isappropriate to the discussion of 9.2.2.Energy type and source considerations.
The applicant should present a summaryanalysis of the availability of fuel or otherenergy source actually assumed in theplanning process.
It is recognized thatconditions with regard to alternatives tonuclear fuel will vary greatly for different applicants.
Oil and coal may be readilyavailable in many areas, althoughlimitations on maximum sulfur content ortransportation costs may restrict or preventtheir use. Natural gas may be an available alternative in some areas. The applicant should make clear at what pointconsiderations of reliable fossil fuel supplyand facilities for its transportation, as wellas of hydroelectric and geothermal sources,entered the planning process.
The31 discussion should clearly establish theenergy source alternatives.
Using the materials prepared as described above, the applicant should provide acondensed narrative description of themajor issues which led to the elimination of certain regions and to the final selection of the candidate regions.The following remarks may apply inspecific instances:
a. It is anticipated that the first generalgeographic selection will be based onpower load and transmission considerat ions:b. In selecting candidate regions, theapplicant may consider expansion ofcurrently used and/or owned sites:c. Certain promising regions may bepinpointed early in the decisionprocess and, because of transportation or geophysical characteristics, may besuitable for only one type of fuelkd. Other regions may be rather broadlydefined at this stage of analysis (e.g., astretch of coast line) and may admitseveral fuel type solutions:
e. Not all regions will receive the samedetailed consideration in the selection process;
for example, some regions willbe eliminated early in the selection process by consideration ofenvironmental impacts or transmission or operating costs. Other regions maybe preferred in the final selection because their dominance over otherpossibilities is based on a mixture ofenvironmental and engineering factors.f. Only salient characteristics of theidentified regions need be considered.
Specific tracts need not be identified, unless already owned by the applicant.
g. If regions outside the service area werenot considered during this phase of thedecision process, the reasons for theirelimination should be discussed.
h. If certain fuel types are eliminated inselecting candidate regions because ofpredicted nonavailability or economicfactors, appropriate supporting evidence should be provided.
The applicant is reminded that the purposeof this Section is to exclude from furtherconsideration those identified regionshaving less desirable characteristics whichare readily recognizable without extensive analysis.
This stage v' the selection processcan thus be regarded as a screening procedure.
9.2.2 Selection of candidate site-plant alternatives At this point the applicant should identify, within each of the selected regions,practicable potential site(s) and theassociated energy source(s)
considered suitable for each site. From these identified site-plant combinations the applicant should then select those regarded as mostsuitable, i.e., those whose construction andoperation would result in incurring minimal environmental and other costswithout compromising the projected benefits.
The criteria to be used in selecting thecandidate site-plant alternatives from allthe identified site-plant combinations areessentially the same as the criteria alreadyused in selecting candidate regions.
Thecriteria, however, must now be applied ingreater depth because the differences indesirability of the various site-plant combinations will be less obvious thanthose of the initially identified regions.Furthermore, while the unsuitability of arejected identified region could beestablished by noting one major overriding disadvantage, the suitability of a givensite-plant combination must be determined by balancing both favorable andunfavorable factors (benefits versusenvironmental and other costs).The range of candidate site-plant alternatives selected by the applicant should include other energy source options(coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal)
aspracticable.
The applicant should discuss in detail theprocess of selection used and clearlyidentify the bases for the choice orrejection of each candidate site-plant alternative.
The applicant's discussion should includeconsideration of the compatibility of theproposed development of the site withsound principles of land use planning.
Views of cognizant local planning groupsand interested citizens should be solicited and summarized.
Areas of both consistency and conflict of the proposed site use withany regional development program shouldbe specified and discussed.
44432 In addition to criteria already cited; theapplicant should note:a. If considerations of alternative transmission hook-ups are required byother local, State, or Federal agencies, or if the applicant has made a choicebetween practicable alternative hook.ups, these alternatives should beidentified and describea.
b. In eliminating a fuel source at a site onthe grounds of cost, the applicant should make clear that the excess costsover a preferred alternative outweighany potential advantages of theeliminated fuel with respect toenvironmental protection.
9.3 Comparisen of practicable alternatives and theproposed facilityThe purpose of this Section is to show, bydirect comparison of realistic alternatives, interms of both economic and environmental criteria, why the proposed site and nuclear fuelare preferred over any other alternatives formeeting the power demand.In presenting the results of comparison ofsite-plant alternatives, the applicant shouldutilize, in so far as posrible, a tabular formatshowing side-by-side comparison of alternatives with respect to relevant factors.
It isrecommended that comparisons first be madeseparately between fossil-fueled alternatives, nuclear-fueled alternatives, and otheralternatives (including those discussed inSection 9.1), if any exist. The comparison should clearly indicate, in terms of economicand environmental factors, the basis for thepreferred site-plant alternative in each energysource category.
A further tabular presentation should then bemade, demonstrating the balanced preference of the proposed site with nuclear fuel over thebest fossil fuel and best other, if any,alternatives (including those discussed inSection 9.1). Tabular presentations should besupplemented with brief resumes of the factorswhich ruled out alternatives other than theapplicant's preferred choice.Quantification, while desirable, is notmandatory for all factors used when it can bemade clear that data are not reasonably available for comparison.
Under suchcircumstances, qualitative and generalcomparative statements are permissible.
Thebasis for such statements should be made clearby accompanying documentation.
Wherepossible, operating experience from nearbyplants may be helpful in appraising the natureof environmental impacts to be anticipated.
This guideline does not make mandatory anyspecific list of criteria with respect to whichalternatives and the proposed facility must becompared.
The factors presented should bethose used by the applicant in a selection process which weighs the projected benefitsagainst environmental and other3 costs. Whilethe comparative analysis should clearly setforth the general environmental and otherrelevant features, it is not expected that theapplicant will conduct extensive field studies ateach of the alternative sites. The following listof additional evaluatory considerations isoffered for further guidance.
Benefits:
Contributions to generating capacityand system reliability.
Possibilities for the beneficial deliveryof waste heat.Creation of additional benefits such asadded park land and recreational facilities, reductions in airpollutant emissions where existingold capacity is partially or entirelyreplaced.
Engineering Constraints of the Site:GeologySeismology Hydrology Population density in site environsAccess to road, rail, and watertransportation Fuel supply and waste disposal routesCooling water supplyConstraints of Transmission Hook-Up:Access to transmission system in placeProblems of routing new transmission linesProblems of transmission reliability Minimization of transmission lossesConstruction Constraints:
Access for equipment and materials Access, housing, etc., for construction workersSThe applicant may use, if the necessary data are available, the method for calculating generating cost discussed in Sectiont0.33 Land Use Constraints Costs:Construction costsCosts of transmission hook-upOperating costsEnvironmental Constraints:
Sensitivity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats affectedRisks and uncertainties with regard topotential impactsCommitment of resources Projected recreational usageScenic valuesOperating Constraints:
Load-following capability Transient response.
10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Most of the environmental effects of a nuclearpower plant will be associated with the operation ofcertain identifiable systems.
The applicant's proposed plant should incorporate a combination ofthese identifiable systems each of which has beenselected, through evaluation of environmental.
economic and other costs, as the optimal choicewithin its category.
In some instances, theinteraction of these systems may be such as torequire their selection on the basis of an optimalcombination rather than on the basis of individual optimal systems.
For example, an alternative cooling system may have to be evaluated incombination with a preferred chemical effluentsystem that would be used with it,The applicant should, in this Section, show how theproposed plant design was arrived at throughconsideration of alternative designs of identifiable systems and through t'e;r comparative assessment.
The applicant's discussion shauld be organized onthe basis of plant systems, arranged a,.cording to thefollowing list:I. Cooling system (exclusive of intake anddischarge)
2. Intake system3. Discharge system4. Chemical systems5. Biocide systems6. Sanitary waste system7. Liquid radwaste systems8. Gaseous radwaste systems9. Transmission facilities
1'0. Other systemsThe following should be considered in preparing thediscussion:
a. Range of alternatives-The applicant's discussion should emphasize those alternative plant systems that appear promising in terms ofenvironmental protection.
Different designs forsystems that are essentially identical withrespect to environmental effects should beconsidered only if their costs are appreciably different.
The applicant should includealternatives which provide levels ofenvironmental protection above those of theproposed facility when, although notnecessarily econormically attractive, they arepracticable on technological grounds.b. Normalization of cost comparison-Alternatives should be compared on the basis of assuming afixed amount of energy generated fordistribution outside the plant. (Thus, any effectof an alternative on plant power consumption should be discussed.)
c. Effect of capacity factor-Where the cost ofoperation affects the plant capacity factor, theeffect of alternatives on the plant capacityfactor should be documented.
d. Monetized costs-The acquisition and operating costs of individual systems and theiralternatives (as well as costs of the total plantand transmission facility and alternatives)
are tobe expressed as power generating costs. Thelatter will be derived from cost elementscompounded or discounted (as appropriate)
totheir present values as of the date of initialcommercial operation and will be converted totheir annualized values. The method ofcomputation is shown in Table I and t[ieindividual cost items in this table are to be usedas applicable.
The total cost will be the sum of:Capital to be expended between the dateof submission of the Environmental Reportand the scheduled date of operation.
Interest to the date of operation on allexpenditures prior to that date.Expenditures subsequent to the scheduled date of operation discounted to that date.In calculations, the applicant shouldassume a 30-year plant life.'Use 30-year life for steam-electric generating plants. Forother types of electric generating plants, use generally acceptedvalues.4.4I34 In computing thie annualized present value ofplant systems and their alternatives, thefollowing cost elements are suggested asallowable:
Engineering design and planning costs.Construction costs.Interest on capital expended prior tooperation.
Operating, maintenance and fuel (ifapplicable)
costs over the 30-year life ofthe plant.Cost of modification or alteration of anyother plant system if required for accom-modation of alternatives.
Maintenance costs for the transmission facility (if applicable).
Cost of supplying make.up power during adelay resulting from an alternative designchoice which will not meet tile powerrequirement by the scheduled in-service date.e. Environmental costs. Environmental effects ofalternatives should be fully documented.
To theextent practicable, the magnitude of each effectshould be quantified.
Where' quantification isnot possible, qualitative evaluations should beexpressed in terms of comparison to the effectsof the subsystem chosen for the proposeddesign. In either case, the derivation of theevaluations should be completely documented.
Both short-term and long-term environmental effects should be reported by the applicant.
Table 2 provides three key elements ofenvironmental cost evaluation:
(1) A description of each effect to bemeasured (column 3).(2) Suggested units to be used formeasurement (column 4) The AECrecognizes the difficulty, if not theimpossibility, of using the assigned unitsfor every item in Table 2 in each case,given the current state-of-the-art.
Theapplicant may elect to use other units,provided they are meaningful to theinformed public and adequately reflect theimpact of the listed environmental effects.(3) A suggested methodology of computation (column 5). Computation of effects inresponse to each block in Table 2, e.g., 1.1,1.2 etc., should be given withoutadjustment for effects computed in otherblocks for the sFai, p'pulation or resourceaffected.
How,,.c,.
nrovision is made inTable 2 (i.e.. 1.9 and 4.9) to account forcombined effects that may be either lessthan or greater than the sum of individual effects.In discussing environmental effects, the applicant should specify not only the magnitude of the effect(e.g., pounds of fish killed, acres of a particular habitat destroyed)
but also the relative effect, thatis the fraction of the population or resource that isaffected.
See discussion in Section 5.8.In some specific cases, accurate estimation of aneffect which the applicant believes to be very smallmay require a data collection effort that would notbe commensurate with the value of the infomation to be obtained.
In such cases, the applicant maysubstitute a preferred measure which conservatively estimates environmental costs for the effect inquestion, provided the substituted measure is clearlydocumented and realistically evaluates thepotentially detrimental (i.e., worst case) aspects ofthe effect, and provided the measure is appliedconsistently to all alternatives.
In the following subsections, the applicant is todiscuss design alternatives for each of the relevantplant systems (i.e., cooling system, intake system.etc.). The discussion should describe eachalternazive and should present estimates of thedifference between its environmental impact andthat of the proposed system. The assumptions andcalculations on which the estimates are based shouldbe presented, and the results should be entered inthe appropriate forms. In the columns headed"Page," the applicant should cite the appropriate references to the text of his Report. Note that, inthe forms, the categorization and numerical identification of each environmental effectcorresponds to that of Table 2. In each of the formsused in the subsections
10.1 to 10.9 the applicant must include, in the first "A" column, data on thesystem selected in the applicant's proposed design.Each supplemental form provides space for thedisplay of data regarding four alternatives;
however,the applicant is neither obligated to consider, norlimited to, any precise number. The applicant should limit the discussion to those alternatives which the current state-of-the-art indicates aretechnically practicable.
The monetized costs of the proposed systems andalternatives to be entered in the supplemental formsare to be presented on an incremental basis. Thismeans that the costs of the proposed systems would35 appear as zeroes in the "A" columns of the formsand that the costs of' the other alternative systems(B, C, D, etc.) should appear as cost differences, i.e.,B-A, C-A, etc., with the appropriate sign. Tiheenvironmental costs are not incremental and thesupplemental forms should therefore show these asthe total costs, whether monetized or not. (If anenvironmental effect is considered beneficial, theentry should be preceded by a negative sign.)In addition to the infolmation displayed on forms,the applicant should provide a verbal description ofthe process by which the trade-offs were weighedand balanced in arriving at the propos-d design. Thisdiscussion may include any factors not provided foron the forms supplied.
10.1 Cooling system (exclusive of intake anddischarge)
The applicant should identify and describecooling system alternatives to the proposeddesign. Estimates of environmental effectsshould be prepared and presented on AECForm10.2 Intake systemThe applicant should identify and describeintake system alternatives to the proposeddesign. Estimates of environmental effectsshould be prepared and presented on AECForm10.3 Discharge systemThe applicant should identify and describedischarge system alternatives to the proposeddesign. Estimates of environmental effectsshould be prepared and presented on AECForm10.4 Chemical systemsAlternative chemical systems that have thepotential for reduced adverse environmental effects should be described and theenvironmental impacts of effluents should befully identified.
Corrosion products as well ascorrosion inhibitors should be considered.
The description should include specification of both maximum and average concentrations and dilution sources.
(Where a discharge is notcontinuous, the discharge schedule should bespiecified.)
Any toxicity and lethality toaffected biota should be documented for allpotential points of exposure.
Specifically, information should be sufficient to define theimpacts to entrained organisms at their pointsof exposure as well as the impacts beyond thepoint of discharge.
Estimates of environmental effects should be prepared and presented onAEC Form10.5 Biocide systemsThe applicant should describe alternative systems for control of fouling organisms, including both mechanical and chemicalmethods where such alternative systems maybe expected to have less severe environmental effects than the proposed system. Thetreatment of chemical biocides should besimilar to that specified above for chemicaleffluent treatment.
Estimates ofenvironmental effects should be prepared andpresented on AEC Form10.6 Sanitary waste systemAlternative sanitary waste systems should beidentified and discussed with regard to theenvironmental implications of both wasteproducts and chemical additives for wastetreatment.
Estimates of environmental effectsshould be prepared and presented on AECForm10.7 Liquid radwaste systemsFor proposed light-water cooled reactorinstallations in which the quantities ofradioactive material in effluents will be limitedto levels that are within the numerical guidesfor design objectives and limiting conditions of operation set forth in the Commission's proposed amendments (dated June 9, 1971)to 10 CFR Part 50 and embodied in a newAppendix I (reproduced in Appendix
4 of thisGuide), no further consideration need be givento the reduction of radiological impacts informulating alternative plant designs.
If thereactor is not a light-water cooled reactor, thepossibility must be explored of an alternative radwaste system which reduces the level ofradioactivity in the effluents and directradiation to the levels proposed in Appendix
1.In any case, for reactors to which theproposed Appendix I does not apply, theapplicant should demonstrate sufficient consideration of alternative radwaste systemsand of their radiological output to assure thatreleases from the proposed facility will be aslow as practicable.
4436
10.8 Gaseous radwaste systemsConsideration of systems for the disposal ofgaseous radwaste is subject to the qualifying condition noted under 10.7 above.10.9 Transmission facilities The applicant will discuss the cost andenvironmental effects of alternative routes fornew transmission facilities required for tie-inof the proposed facility to the applicant's system. The documentation should includemaps of the alternative routes. These mapsshould clearly indicate topographic featuresimportant to evaluation of thie routes andboundaries of visually sensitive areas. Theapplicant may find thie documents cited inSection 3.9 helpful in this analysis.
Estimates of environmental effects should be preparedand presented on AEC Form10.10 Other systemsAny plant system, other than those specified above, which is associated with an adverseenvironmental effect, should be discussed interms of practicable and feasible alternatives that may reduce or eliminate thisenvironmental effect.10.11 The proposed plantHaving identified the preferred alternative system, the applicant should now provide thecost description of the proposed facility andtransmission hook-up.
AEC Form isprovided for this purpose.
In addition to thoseelements previously suggested as allowable incomputing plant system costs, the applicant may include the cost of site and right-of-way acquisition and preparation.
Note that the generating and transmission costentries on AEC Form are not to beincremental and, hence, should appear as totalvalues.11. SUMMARY BENEFIT-COST
ANALYSISIn this Section the applicant's summary bcnefit-cost statement will be presented.
The presentation should be made in the form of a narrative withaccompanyiag tables and charts. The presentation should make clear what the applicant considers tobe the important benefits and costs of the proposedfacility and why in the judgment of the applicant, the former outweigh the latter.The applicant will have to develop criteria forassessing and comparing benefits and costs wherethese are expressed in nonmonetary or qualitative terois. The rationale for the selection amongsite-plant alternatives, as well as am0ong subsystem alternatives, should be presented.
In any case, theapplicant should carefully describe any aggregation of effects and discuss in detail the trade.offs thatwere made in order to justify the proposed plant. Ifany of the benefits or costs are deleted from theapplicant's analysis.
the rationale for doing soshould be explained.
The applicant should key allthe terms used in the summary benefit-cost analysisto the relevant Sections of the Environmental Report.1
2. ENVIRONMENTAL
APPROVALS
ANDCONSULTATION
List all licenses, permits and other approvals ofplant construction and operations required byFederal.
State, local and regional authorities for theprotection of the environment.
List those Federaland State approvals which have already beenreceived, and indicate the status of mattersregarding approvals yet to be obtained.
' Forgeneral background, submit similar information regarding approvals, licenses and contacts with localauthorities..
List all licenses, permits and other approvals andcite laws and regulations applicable to thetransportation of fresh fuel, irradiated fuel, andradioactive wastes. Include restrictions on routes orspecification of routes imposed by cognizant local,State or other authorities.
List all laws or ordinances applicable to theproposed transmission system and the status ofapprovals that must be obtained.
Indicate anypublic hearings held or to be held with respect tothe proposed transmission system.The listing should cite the relevant statutory orother authority requiring approvals with respect tothe construction and/or operation of the plant andshould be categorized by the environmental impactto which the approval is addressed.
These categories could include, for example, air, land and water useand planning, fish diversion, and construction effects.'Includes.
for example.
the status of applications tothe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permits to dredge, todischarge or deposit materials into navigable waters or theirtributaries as required by Sec. 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Sec. 13(33 U.S.C. 407. "The Refuse Act") of the Rivers & Harbhors Actof 1899.37
10.8 Gaseous radwaste systemsConsideration of systems for the disposal ofgaseous radwaste is subject to the qualifying condition noted under 10.7 above.10.9 Transmission facilities The applicant will discuss the cost andenvironmental effects of alternative routes fornew transmission facilities required for tie-inof the proposed facility to the applicant's system. The documentation should includemaps of the alternative routes. These maps:;hould clearly indicate topographic featuresimportant to evaluation of the routes andboundaries of visually sensitive areas. Theapplicant may find the documents cited inSection 3.9 helpful in this analysis.
Estimates
- of environmental effects should be preparedand presented on AEC Form10.10 Other systemsAny plant system, other than those specified above, which is associated with an adverseenvironmental effect, should be discussed interms of practicable and feasible alternative"
that may reduce or eliminate thisenvironmental effect.10.11 The proposed plantHaving identified the preferred alternative system, the applicant should now provide thecost description of the proposed facility andtransmission hook-up.
AEC Form isprovided for this purpose.
In addition to thoseelements previously suggested as allowable incomputing plant system costs, the applicant may include the cost of site and right-of.way acquisition and preparation.
Note that the generating and transmission costentries on AEC Form are not to beincremental and, hence, should appear as totalvalues.11, SUMMARY BENEFIT-COST
ANALYSISIn this Section the applicant's summary benefit-cost statement will be presented.
The presentation should be made in the form of a narrative withaccompanying tables and charts. The presentation should make clear what the applicant considers tobe the important benefits and costs of the proposedfacility and why in the judgment of the applicant, the former outweigh the latter.The applicant will have to develop criteria forassessing and comparing benefits and costs wherethese are expressed in nonmonetary or qualitative terms. The rationale for the selection amongsite-plant alternatives, as well as among subsystem alternatives, should be presented.
In any case, theapplicant should carefully describe any aggregalion of effects and discuss in detail the trade-offs thatwere made in order to justify the proposed plant. Ifany of the benefits or costs are deleted from theapplicant's analysis, thie rationale for doing soshould be explained.
The applicant should key allthe terms used in the summary benefit-cost analysisto the relevant Sections of the Environmental Report.1
2. ENVIRONMENTAL
APPROVALS
ANDCONSULTATION
List all licenses, permits and other approvals ofplant construction and operations required byFederal, State, local and regional authorities for [ieprotection of the environment.
List those Federaland State approvals which have already beenreceived, and indicate the status of mattersregarding approvals yet to be obtained.
' Forgeneral background, submit similar information regarding approvals, licenses and contacts with localauthorities.
List all licenses, permits and other approvals andcite laws and regulations applicable to thetransportation of fresh fuel, irradiated fuel. andradioactive wastes. Include restrictions on routes orspecification of routes imposed by cognizant local,State or other authorities.
List all laws or ordinances applicable to theproposed transmission system and the status ofapprovals that must be obtained.
Indicate anypublic hearings held or to be held with respect tothe proposed transmission system.The listing should cite the relevant statutory orother authority requiring approvals with respect tothe construction and/or operation of the plant andshould be categorized by the environmental impactto which the approval is addressed.
These categories could include, for example, air, land and water useand planning, fish diversion, and construction effects.Includes, for example, the status of applications tothe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permits to dredge, todischarge or deposit materials into navigable waters or theirtributaries as required by Sec. 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Sec. 13(33 U.S.C. 407," "The Refuse Act") of the Rivers & Harhors Actof I 899.37 Discuss the status of efforts to obtain a waterquality certification under Section 21(b) of theFederal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Ifnot already obtained, indicate when ce tification isexpected.
If certification is not required, explain.If the discharge could alter the quality of the waterof another State, indicate the State or States thatmay be affected and their applicable water qualitystandards.
In view of the effects of the plant on the economicdevelopment of the region in which it is located, theapplicant should also note the State, local, andregional planning authorities contacted orconsulted.
The OMB Circular A-95 identifies theState, metropolitan, and regional clearinghouses that should be contacted as appropriate.
(A listingof applicable clearinghouses may be obtained fromthe AEC.)Cite meetings held with environmental and othercitizen groups with reference given to specificinstances of the applicant's compliance with citizengroup recommendations.
1
3. REFERENCES
The applicant should provide a bibliography ofsources used in preparation of the Environmental Report. References cited should be keyed to thespecific sections to which they apply.4438 Table I-MONETIZED
BASES FOR GENERATING
COSTS*ITEMSYMBOLUNITSITEM DESCRIPTION
4. 1 .4Total Outlay Requiredto Bring Facility toOperation Annual Operating CostAnnual Fuel CostCost of Make-up PowerPurchased or Suppliedin Year tDiscount FactorTotal Generating Cost-Present ValueTotal Generating Cost-Present ValueAnnualized CIOtFtPtGCpGCaAll capital outlays including interest expense to be investedin completion of the facility compounded to present valueas of the scheduled in-service date of operation.
This is the total operating and maintenance cost of plantoperation in year t.This is the total fuel cost in year t.Cost of power purchased or supplied internally in year t tomake up deficiency of power associated with anyalternative which introduces delay.v = (I + ij' where i is the applicant's estimated average costof capital over the life of this plant.3030GCP = C1 + FLvt (01 + Ft) + ;tIGCa= G,~ X*For conventionalI
(niuclear or fossil fuel) ste~am-electric plants.39 Table 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTSPrimary impact Population or Description Unit of Method ofResources Affected Measure'
Computation
1. Natural surface waterbody1.1lmpingement.
orentrapment by coolingwater intake structure
1.2 Passage through orretention in coolingsystems(Specify natural water bodyaffected)
1.1.1 Fish'Juveniles and adults are subject toattrition.
Plankton population may be reduceddue to mechnical, thermal and chemicaleffects.Pounds per year(as adults byspecies ofinterest).
Net effect inpounds per year(as adult fish byspecies ofinterest).
1.2.1 Phytoplankton andzooplankton
1.2.2 Fish1.3 Discharge area andthermal plume1.3.1 Water quality, excessheatAll life stages (eggs. larvae, etc.) whichreach the condenser are subject toattrition.
The rate of dissipation of the excessheat, primarily to the atmosphere, willdepend on both the method of discharge and the state of the receiving water, inrespect to ambient temperature andwater currents.
Dissolved oxygen concentration ofreceiving waters may be modified as aconsequence of changes in the watertemperature, the translocation of waterof different quality, and aeration.
Primary producers and consumers (including fish) may be affected directlyor indirectly due to adverse conditions inthe plume.Net effect inpounds per year(as adult fish byspecies ofinterest).
Acres andacre-feet.
Identify all important species.
Estimate the annual weightof each species that will be destroyed.
Foryoung-of-the-yeax destroyed, only the expectedpopulation that would have survived naturally need beconsidered.
Field measurements are required to establish the averageweight of organisms per unit volume by group (e.g.,diatoms, green algae, zooplankton, etc.).Determine the mortality of organisms passing through thecondenser and pumps. Include indirect3 effects whichaffect mortality.
Translate loss to pounds of fish.Identify all important species.
Estimate the annual weightof each species that will be destroyed.
For larvae, eggs,and young-of-the-ycar destroyed, only the expectedpopulation that would have survived naturally need beconsidered.
Estimate the average Btu's per hour dissipated to thereceiving water at full power. Estimate the water volumeand surface areas within differential temperature isotherms of 2%, 30, and 5VF under conditions that wouldtend, with respect to annual variations, to maximize theextent of the areas and volumes.Estimate volumes of affected waters with concentrations below 5, 3, and I ppm under conditions that would tendto maximize the impact.Field measurements are required to establish the averageweight of organisms per unit volume by group. Estimatethe mortality of organisms in the receiving water fromdirect and indirect effects.
Translate loss to pounds offish.1.3.2 Water quality, oxygenavailability Acre-feet.
1.3.3 Aquatic organisms Net effect inpounds per year(as adult fish byspecies ofinterest).
'Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure, where appropriate.
Such a measure should be applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
I "Fish" as used In this table Includes shellfish and other aquatic invertebrates harvested by man.5Indirect effects could Include increased disease Incidence, increased predation.
interference with spawning, reduced metabolic rates, hatching of fish out of phase with food organisms.
wwTable 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued LwPopulation or Unit of Method ofPrimary Impact Resources Affected Description Measure'
Computation
1.3.4 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammalsand reptiles).
Suitable habitats for wildlife may beaffected.
A thermal barrier may inhibit migration, both hampering spawning anddiminishing the survival of returning immature fish.Acres.1.3.5 Fish, migratory Pounds per year(as adult fish byspecies ofinterest).
Determine the area of wet land or water surface impairedas a wildlife habitat because of thermal discharges, including effects on food resources.
Document estimates of affected population by species.Estimate the fraction of the stock that is prevented fromreaching spawning grounds because of plant operation.
Prorate this directly to a reduction in current andlong-term fishing effort supported by that stock. Justifyestimate on basis of local migration patterns,
.xperience at other sites, and applicable State standards.
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemicalWater quality may be impaired.
Acre-feet,
%. The volume ,f water required to dilute the average dailydischarge of eachchcemical to meet applicable waterquality standards should be calculated.
Where suitablestandards do not exist, use the volume required to diluteeach chemical to a concentration equivalent to a selectedlethal concentration (e.g.. LDI .) for the most sensitive organism of commercial or ecological significance in thereceiving waters. The ratio of this volume to the annualminimum value of the daily net flow, where applicable, ofthe receiving waters should be expressed as a percentage, and the largest such percentage reported.
Include the totalsolids if this is a limiting factor. include in this calculation the blowdown from cooling towers.1.4.2 Aquatic organisms Aquatic populations may be affected bytoxic levels of discharge chemicals or byreduced dissolved oxygenconcentrations.
Suitable habitats for wildlife may beaffected.
Recreational water uses may beinhibited.
Pounds per year(by species asfish).1.4.3 Wildlife (Including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals,and reptiles).
1.4.4 PeopleAcres.Total chemical effect on aquatic biota should beestimated.
Biota exposed within the facility should beconsidered as well as biota in receiving waters. Supporting documentation should include reference to applicable standards, chemicals discharged and Ib'.r toxicity to theaquatic populations affected.
Estimate the area of wet land or water surface impaired asa wildlife habitat because of chemical contamination including effects on food resources.
Document estimates of affected population by species.Volume of the net flow to the receiving waters requiredfor dilution to reach established water quality standards must be determined on the basis of daily discharge andconverted to either surface area or miles of shore. Crosssection and annual minimum flow characteristics shouldbe incorporated where applicable.
User density for thelocality must be obtained.
Lost annual userdays and area fordilution.
'Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure.,
where appropriate.
Such a measure should be applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
Table 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued Primary Impact Population or Description Unit of Method ofResources Affected Measure'
Computation This permits estimation of lost user-days on an annualbasis. Indirect recreation losses due to eutrophication anddecrea3.-d fishing shall be included.
l.SRadionuclides discharged to waterbody1-5.1 Aquatic organisms
1.5.2 People, external1.5.3 People, ingestion Radionuclide discharge may introduce aradiation level which adds to naturalbackground radiation.
Radionucide discharge may introduce radiation level which adds to naturalbackground radiation for water users.Radlonuclide discharge may introduce aradiation level which adds to naturalbackground radiation for ingested foodand water.Drinking water supplies drawn from thewater body may be diminished.
Water may be withdrawn fromagricultural usage and use of remaining water may be degraded.
Turbidity, color or temperature ofnatural water body may be altered.Rad per year.Rem per year forindividual;
man-rem peryear for estima-ted population as of the Irustscheduled yearof plant opera-tion.Rem per year forindividuals (whole body andorgan); man-remper year forpopulation as offirst scheduled year of plantoperation.
Gallons per year.Acre-feet peryear.Sum dose contributions from radionuw!ides expected tobe released.
Sum annual dose contributions from nuciidie;
expected tobe released.
Calculate for above-water activities (skiing,fishing, boating),
in-water activities (swimming),
andshoreline activities.
Estimate biological accumulation in foods, and intake byindividuals and population.
Calculate doses by summingresults for expected radionuclides.
Where users withdraw drinking water supplies from theaffected water body, lost water to users should beestimated.
Where users withdrawing irrigation water are affected, theloss should be evaluated as the sum of two volumes:
thevolume of the water lost to agricultural users and thevolume of dilution water required to reduceconcentrations of dissolved solids in remaining water toan agriculturally acceptable level.The volume of dilution water required to meet applicable water quality standards should be calculated.
The realextent of the effect should be estimated.
To the extent possible, the applicant should treatproblems of spills and drainage during construction in thesame manner as 1.4.1.1.6Consumptive use(evaporative losses)1.6.1 People1.6.2 Property1.7 Plant construction (including sitepreparation)
1.7.1 Water quality, physicalAcre-feet andacres.1.7.2 Water quality, chemical Water quality may be impaired.
Acre-feet,
%.'Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of meaure, where appropriate.
Such a measure should be. applied consistently to alt alternatives for the effect being measured.
wwTable 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued wPopulation or Unit of Method ofPrimary Impact Resources Affected Description Measure, Computation
1.8 Other impacts1.9Co mbined orinteractive effectsThe applicant should describe and quantify any otherenvironmental effects of the proposed plant which aresignificant.
Where evidence indicates that the combined effects of anumber of impacts on a particular population or resourceis not adequatety indicated by measures of the separateimpacts, the total, combined effect should be described.
1.10 Net effectsSee discussion in Section 5.8.1 Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure.
where appropriate.
Such a measure should be applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
Table 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued Primary Impact Population or Description Unit of Method ofResources Affected Measure'
Computation I. Ground Water2.1 Raising/lowering ofground water levels2.1.1 People2.1.2 PlantsAvailability or quality of drinking watermay be decreased and the functioning ofexisting wells may be impaired.
Trees and other deep-rooted vegetation may be affected.
Drinking water of nearby communities.
Gallons per year.Volume of replacement water for local wells actuallyaffected must be estimated.
Estimate the area in which ground water level change mayhave an adverse effect on local vegetation.
Report thisacreage on a separate schedule by land use. Specify suchuses as recreatioiual.
agricultural and residential.
Acres.2.2C h e m i c a Icontamination ofground water(excluding salt)2.2.1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3.1 PeopleGalloas per year.Compute annual loss of potable water.Trees and other deep-rooted vegetation may experience toxic effects.Radionuclides which enter ground watermay add to natural background radiation level for water and food supplies.
Acres.Estimate area affected and report separately by land use.Specify such uses as recreational, agricultural andresidential.
Estimate intakes by individuals and populations.
Sumdose contributions for nuclides expected to be released.
2.3 R a d i o n u c Ii d econtamination ofground waterRem per year forindivid uals(whole body andorgan); man-remper year forpopulation as ofyear of firstscheduled yearof plant opera-tion.Rad per year.2.3.2 Plants and animalsRadionuclides which enter ground watermay add to natural background radiation level for local plant forms and animalpopulation.
Estimate uptake in plants and transfer to animals.
Sumdose contributions for nuclides expected to be released.
The applicant should describe and quantify any otherenvironmental effects of the proposed plant which aresignificant.
2.4 Other impacts onground water'Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure, where appropriate.
Such a measure should be applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
wMWTable 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continuwd Primary Impact Population or Unit of Method ofResources Affected Description Measuret Computation
3. Air3.1 Fogging and icing(caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation
3.1.3 Water transportation
3.1.4 Plants3.2.1 Air quality, chemical3.2.2 Air quality, odor3.3.1 People, externalSafety hazards may be created in thenearby regions in all seasons.Safety hazards may be created in thenearby regions in all seasons.Safety hazards may be created in thenearby regions In all seasons.Damage to timber and crops may occurthrough introduction of adverseconditions.
Pollutant emissions may diminish thequality of the local ambient air.Odor in gaseous discharge or fromeffects on water body may beobjectionable.
Radionuclide discharge or directradiation may add to natural background radiation level.Hours per year.Hours per year.Hours per year.Acres by crop.% and pounds ortons.Compute the number of hours per year that drivinghazards will be increased on paved highways by fog andice from cooling towers and ponds. Documentation should include the visibility criteria used for defininghazardous conditions on the highways actually affected.
Compute the number of hours per year that commercial airports will be closed because of fog from cooling towers.Compute the number of hours per year ships will need toreduce speed because of fog from cooling towers or pondsor warm water added to the surface of the river, lake orsea.Estimate the acreage of potential plant damage by crop.The actual concentration of each pollutant in ppm formaximum daily emission rate should be expressed as apercentage of the applicable emission standard.
Reportweight for expected annual emissions.
A statement must be made as to whether odor originating in plant is perceptible at any point off-site.
Sum dose contributions from nuclides expected to bereleased.
tl.A3.2 Chemical discharge toambient airStatement.
3.3 R a d i o n u c lid e sdischarged to ambientair and direct radiation from radioactive materials (in-plant orbeing transported).
Rem per year forindividuals (whole body andorgan); man-remper year forpopulation as ofyear of firstscheduled operation.
Rem per year forin divi duals(whole body andorgan); man-rcmper year for3.3.2 People, ingestion Radionuclide discharge may add to thenatural radioactivity in vegetation and insoil.For radionuclides expected to be teleased estimatedeposit and accumulation in foods. Estimate intakes byindividuals and populations and sum results for allexpected radionuclides.
'Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure, where appropriate.
Such a measure should be applied consistently to all alternatives for the eifect being measured.
Table 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued Primary Impact Population or Description Unit of Method ofResources Affected Measure'
Computation population as ofyear of fisstscheduled operation.
3.3.3 Plants and animalsRadionuclide discharge may add to Rad per year.natural background radioactivity of localplant and anjmal life.Estimate deposit of radionuclides on, and uptake in plantsand animals.
Sum dose contributions for radionuclides expected to be released.
"Re applicant should describe and quantify any otherenvixonmental effects of the proposed plant which aresignificant.
3.4 Other impacts on air1 Applicant may substitute an altemalive unit of measure, where appropriate.
Such a measur- ihodld be applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
JOE
wWTable 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued WPrimary Impact Population or Unit of Method ofResources Affected Measure'
Computation
4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land,amount
4.2 Construction activities (including sitepreparation)
4.2.1 People (amenities)
Land will be preempted for construction of nuclear power plant, plant facilities, and exclusion zone.There will be a loss of desirable qualities in the environment due to the noise andmovement of men, material andmachines.
of Historical sites may be affected byconstruction of Construction activity may impinge uponsites of archaeological value.Acres.4.2.2 People (accessibility historical sites)4.2.3 People (accessibility archeological sites)4.2.4 WildlifeWildlife may be affected.
Number bycategory, years.Visitors per year.Qualified opinion.Qualified opinion.Cubic yards andacres.Number ofresidents, schoolpopulations, hospital beds.Qualified opinion.State number of acres preempted for plant. exclusion zone, and accessory facilities such as cooling towers andponds. By separate schedule slate the type and class ofland preempted (e.g.. scenic shoreline, wet land, forestland, etc.).The disruption of community life (or alternatively thedegree of community isolation from such irritations.
should be estimated.
Estimate the number of residences, schools, hospitals, etc., within area of visual and audioimpacts.
Estimate the duration of impacts.Determine historical sites that might be displaced bygeneration facilities.
Estimate effect on any other sites inplant environs.
Express net impact in terms of annualnumber of visitors.
Summarize evaluation of impact on archeological resources in terms of remaining potential value of the site.Referenced documentation should include statements from responsible county, State or Federal agencies, ifavailable.
Summarize qualified opinion including views of cognizant local and State wildlife agencies when available, takinginto account both beneficial and adverse affects.Estimate soil displaced by construction activity anderosion.
Beneficial and detrimental effects should bereported separately.
Use the Proposed
!!UD Criterion Guideline forNon-Aircraft Noise to establish areas receiving noise in thecategories of "Cleariy Unacceptable,"
"Normally Unacceptable"
and "Normally Acceptable."
For each areareport separately the number of residences, the totalschool population, and the total number of hospital beds.Summarize qualified opinion including views of cognizant local and regional authorities when available.
4.2.5 Land (erosion)
4.3.1 People (amenities)
Site preparation and plant construction will involve cut and fill operations withaccompanying erosion potential.
4.3 Plant operation Noise may induce stress.4.3.2 People (aesthetics)
The local landscape as viewed fromadjacent residential areas andneighboring historical, scenic, andrecreational sites may be renderedApplicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure, where appropriate.
Such a measure should be applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
Table 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued Population or Description Unit of Method ofPrimary Impact Resources Affected Measure'
Computation aesthetically objectionable by the plantfacility.
4.3.3 WildlifeWildlife may be affected.
4.3.4 Land, flood control4.4 Salts discharged fromcooling towers4.4.1 PeopleHealth and safety near the water bodymay be affected by flood control.Intrusion of salts into groundwater mayaffect water supply.Deposition of entrained salts may bedetrimental in come nearby regions.Qualified opinion.Reference toFlood ControlDistrict approv-al.Pounds persquare foot peryear.4.4.2 Plants and animalsAcres.Summarize qualified opinion including views of cognizant local and State wildlife agencies when available, takinginto account both beneficial and adverse effects.Reference must be made to regulations of cognizant Flood Control Agency by use of one of the following terms: Has NO IMPLICATIONS
for flood control,COMPLIES
with flood control reguL-tion.
Estimate the amount of salts discharged as drift andparticulates.
Report maximum deposition.
Supporting documentation should include patterns of deposition andprojection of possible effect on water supplies.
Salt tolerance of local affected area vegetation must bedetermined.
That area, if any, receiving salt deposition inexcess of tolerance (after allowance for dilution)
must beestimated.
Report separately an appropriate tabulation ofacreage by land use. Specify such uses as recreational.
agricultural and residential.
Where wildlife habitat isaffected identify populations.
If salt spray impinges upon a local community, thenproperty damage may be estimated by applying to thelocal value of buildings, machinery, and vehicles adifferential in average depreciation rates between this anda comparable sea-coast community.
State total length and area of new rights-of-way.
Total length of new transmission lines and area ofright-of-way through various categories of visuallysensitive land.Estimate total number of visually undesirable features.
such as: Number of major road crossings in vicinity ofintersection or interchanges.
Number of major waterwaycrossings.
Number of crest, ridge, or other high pointcrossings.
Number of "long views" of transmission linesperpendicular to highways and waterways.
4.4.3 Property resources
4.5 Transmission routeselection
4.5.1 Land, amountStructures and movable property maysuffer degradation from corrosive effects.Land will be preempted for construction of transmission line systems.Lines may pass through visually sensitive (that is sensitive to presence oftransmission lines and towers) areas, thusimpinging on their present and potential use and value.Lines may present visually undersirable features.
Dollars per year.Miles, acres.Miles, acres.4.S.2 Land use and land value4.5.3 People (aesthetics)
"!umber of suchteatures.
'Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure, where appropriate.
Such a measure should be applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
wTable 2-GUIDANCE
FOR DESCRIPTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS-Continued WPrimary I mpact Population or Description Unit of Method ofResources Affected Measure'
Computation
4.6 Transmission facilities
4.6.1 Land adjacent to Constructing new roads for access to Miles. Estimate length of new access and service roads requiredconstruction right-of-way right-of-way may have environmental impact.Soil erosion may result fromconstruction activities.
for alternative routes.Estimate area with increased erosion potential traceable to construction activities.
4.6.2 Land, erosionTons per year.Qualified opinion.4.6.3 Wildlife4.7.1 Land UseWidlife may be affected.
4.7 Transmission lineoperation Land preempted by right-of-way may beused for additional beneficial purposessuch as orchards, picnic areas, nurseries.
hiking and riding trails.Modified wildlife habitat may result inchanges.%64.7.2 WildlifeQualified opinton.4.8 Other land impacts4.9Co mbined orinteractive effectsEstimate percent of right-of-way for which no multipleuse activities are planned.Summarize qualified opinion including views of cognizant local and State wildlife agencies when available.
The applicant should describe and quantify any otherenvironmental effects of the proposed plant which aresignificant.
Where evidence indicates that the combined effects of anumber of impacts on a particular population or resourceare not adequately indicated by measures of the separateimpacts, the total combined effect should be described.
See discussion in Section 5.8.q.10 Net effects1 Applicant may substitute an alternative unit of measure, where appropriate.
Such a measure should he applied consistently to all alternatives for the effect being measured.
AEC FORM_BENEFITS
FROM THE PROPOSED
FACILITYDirect BenefitsExpected Average Annual Generation in Kilowatt-Hours
......................
Capacity in Kilowatts
.................................................
Proportional Distribution of Electrical Energy ExpectedAnnual Delivery in Kilowatt-Hours:
Industrial
...................................................
Com m ercial .................................................
Residential
..................................................
O ther ......................................................
Expected Average Annual Btu (in millions)
of Steam Sold from the Facility
.......Expected Average Annual Delivery of Other Beneficial Products (appropriate physical units) ...................................................
Revenues from Delivered Benefits:
Electrical Energy Generated
........................................
Steam Sold .....................................................
O ther Products
..................................................
Indirect Benefits (as appropriate)
Taxes (Local, State, Federal)
...........................................
Research
...........................................................
Regional Product ....................................................
Environmental Enhancement:
R ecreation
......................................................
N avigation
......................................................
Air Quality:S0 2 .......................................................
NOX ..................................................
Particulates
..................................................
O thers .....................................................
Employment
...Education
.........
........O thers ............................................................
50
COST DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSED
FACILITY
AND TRANSMISSION
HOOK-UP(All monetized costs expressed in terms of their present and annualized values)Generating Cost Present WorthAnnualized Present WorthTransmission and Hook.up Cost Annualized Environmental Costs UNITS MAGNITUDE
] PAGE1. Natural surface water body1.1 Impingement or entrapment by cooling water intake structure
1.1.1 Fish1.2 Passage through or retention in cooling systems1..-1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton
1.2.2 Fish1.3 Discharge area and thermal plume1.3.1 Water quality, excess heat1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen availability
1.3.3 Aquatic biota1.3.4 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic and amphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.3.5 Fis
h. migration
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4.2 Aquatic organisms
1.4.3 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic and amphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.4.4 People1.5 Radionuclides discharged to water body1.5.1 Aquatic organisms
1.5.2 People, external1.5.3 Peopl
e. ingestion
1.6 Consumptive use (evaporative losses)1.6.1 People1.6.2 Property1.7 Plant construction lincluding site preparation)
1.7.1 Water quality, physical1.7.2 Water quality, chemical1.8 Other Impacts1.9 Combined or intrractive effects1.10 Net effect51 COST DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSED
FACILITY
AND TRANSMISSION
HOOK-UP(Continued)
Environmental Costs ] UNITS MAGNITUDE
I PAGE2. Ground water2.1 Raising/lowering of ground water levels2.1.1 People2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical contamination of ground water lexcluding salt)2.2.1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3 Radionuclide contamination of ground water2.3.1 People2.3.2 Plants and animals2.4 Other impacts on ground water3. Air3.1 Fogging and icing (caused by evaporation and drift3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation
3.1.3 Water transportation
3.1.4 ":I., s3.2
- charge to ambient air1 2.1 Ai, u jality. chemical3.2.2 Air teuality.
odor3.3 Radionuclldes discharged to ambient air and directradiation from radioactive materials
3.3,1 People, external3.3.2 People, ingestion
3.3.3 Plants end animals4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land, amount4.2 Construction activities (including site preparation)
4.2.1 People (amenitles)
4.2.2 People (accessibility of historical sites)4.2.3 People (accessibility of archeological sites)4.2.4 Wildlife4.2.6 Land52I
COST DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSED
FACILITY
AND TRANSMISSION
HOOK-UP(Continued)
Environmental Costs [ UNITS I MAGNITUDE
PAGE4.3 Plant operation
4.3.1 People lamenities)
4.3.2 People (aesthetics)
4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land. flood control4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals4.4.3 Property resources
4.5 Transmission route selection
4.5.1 Land, amount4.5.2 land use and land value4.5.3 People (aesthetics)
4.6 Transmission facilities construction
4.6.1 Land adjacent to right-of-way
4.6.2 Land, erosion4.6.3 Wildlife4.7 Transmission line operation
4.7.1 Land use4.7.2 Wildlife4.8 Other land impacts4.9 Combined or Interactive effects4.10 Net effects53 COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING SYSTEMS(exclusive of intake and discharge)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C oINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COST Present WorthAnnualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page1. Natural Surface Water Body1.1 Impingement or entrapment by coolingwater intake structure
1,1.1 Fish1.2 Passage through or retention in coolingsystems1.2.1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton
1.2.2 Fish1.3 Discharge area and thermal plume1.3.1 Water quality, excess heat1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen availability
1.3.3 Aquatic organisms
1.3.4 Wildlife lincluding birds, aquaticand amphibious mammals.
andreptiles)
1.3.5 Fish, migratory
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4.2 Aquatic organisms
1.4.3 Wildlife (including birds, aquaticand amphibious mammals.
andreptiles)
1.4.4 People1.5 Radlonuclides discharged to water body1.5.1 Aquatic organisms
1.5.2 People, external1.5.3 People, ingestion COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A a C I DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Pogp Magnitude Pagp Magnitude Page Magnitude Page1.6 Consumptive use (evaporative losses)1.5.1 People1.6.2 Property1.7 Plant construction (including esiepreparation)
1.7.1 Water quality.
physical1.7.2 Watr quality, chemical18 Other Impacts1,9 Combined or interacthe effects1.10 Not effects
2. Groundwater
2.1 of ground water levels2.1.1 People% 2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical contamination of ground water(excluding salt)2.2.1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3 Radionuclide contamination of groundwater2.3.1 People2.3.2 Plants and animals2.4 Other impects on ground woe3. Air3.1 Fogging and icing lcaused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation
3.1.3 Waewr transportation COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
ABCD___________
I
- I IENVIRONMENTAL.
COSTSUNITSMagnitude PageMagnitude PageMagnitude PageMagnitude PageENIOMNA COSTS__________
-3.1.4 Plants3.2 Chamical discharge to ambient air3.2.1 Air quality, chemical3.2.2 Air quality, odor3.3 Radlonuclides discharged to amtbent airand direct radiation from radioactive materials (in-plant or being transported)
3.3.1 People, external3.3.2 People, Ingestion
3.3.3 Plants and animals3.4 Other impacts on air4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land, amountoA4.2 Construction activities (including sitepreparation)
4.2.1 People (amenities)
4.2.2 People (accessibility of historical sites)4.2.3 People (accessibility of archeological site,)4.2.5 Land (erosion)
4.3 Plant operation
4.3.1 People (amenities)
4.3.2 People (asthetics)
4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land, flood control4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A 1 C 0ENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page4.4.3 Property resources
4.5 Not applicable
4.6 Not applicable
4.7 Not applicable
428 Other land Impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net effectsUI-.JI
COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING INTAKE SYSTEMSALTERNATIVES
A B C DINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COST 'Present WorthAnnualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS I Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnltude Page Magnitude Page1. Natural Surface Water Body1.1 Impingement or enrtenpment by coolingwater Intake sructure1.1.1 Fish1.2 Passage through or retention in coolingsystems1.2.1 Phytoplenkton and zooplankton
1.22 Fish1.3 Discharge area and thermal plume1.3.1 Water quality, excess heat1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen availability
1.3.3 Aquatic urganisms td'0o 1.3A Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.3.5 Fish, migratory
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4.2 Aquatic organisms
1.4.3 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.4.4 People1.5 Not applicable
1.6 Consumptive use (evaporative losses)1.6.1 People1.6.2 Property1.7 Plant construction (including sitepreparation
1.7.1 Water quality, physical Ww__WCOST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING INTAKE SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A _ _B. 1___ 1 C I__ D _ENVIRONMENTAL
COSTSUNITSMagnitude PageMagnitude PageMagnitude PageMagnitude PageI J. 4. & 4 I 41.7.2 Water quality.
chemical1.8 Other impacts1.9 Combined or interactive effects1.10 Net effects2. Ground Water2.1 Ralsing/lowering of ground water levels2.1.1 People2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical contamination of ground water(excluding salt)2.2.1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3 Not applicable
2.4 Other impacts on ground water3. Air3.1 Fogging and Icing (caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transoortation
3.1.2 Air transportation
3.1.3 Water transportation
3.1.4 Plants3.2 Chemical discharge to ambient air3.2.1 Air quality, chemical3.2.2 Air quality, odor3.4 Other impacts on air COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING INTAKE SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C 0ENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Landamount
4.2 Construction activities (including sitepreparation)
4.2.1 People (amenities)
4.2.2 People (accessibility of historical sites)4.2.3 People (accessibility of archeological sites)4.2.4 Wildlife4.2.5 Land (erosion)
4.3 Plant operation
4.3.1 People (smenities)
4.3.2 People (eesthb.,:s)
a',4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land, flood control4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals4.5 Not eplicable
4.6 Not applicable
4.7 Not applicable
4.2 Other land impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net effects COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING DISCHARGE
SYSTEMALTERNATIVES
A B C DINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COST Present WorthAnnualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Pag Magnitude Page Magnitude Page1. Natural Surface Water Body1.1 Impingement or entrament by coolingwoter intake structure
1.1.1 Fish1.2 Passage through or retention in coolingsystenm1.2.1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton
1.2.2 Fish1.3 Discharge was and thermal plume1.3.1 Water quality, exam heat1.3.2 VWter quality, oxygen availability
1.3.3 Aquatic organium1.3.4 Wildlife (induding birds, aquatic andasaphiblous nmrmals, and reptiles$
1.3.5 Fish, migratory
1.4 Chermical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4.2 Aquatic organisms
1.4.3 Wildlife lincluding birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.4.4 People1.5 Not applicable
1.6 Consumptive use (evaporative lossesi1.6.1 People1.6.2 Property1.7 Plant construction (including site -preparation
1.7.1 Water quality, physical COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING DISCHARGE
SYSTEM (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A T.. D _ _c _ _ENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS1.7.2 Water quality, chemical19 Other impacts1.9 Combined or intaractrw affects1.10 Nut effects2. Ground Water2.1 Raising/iowering of ground water kosy2.1.1 People2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical cntamination of ground waterlexcdudng salt)2.2.1 Peoplet.J 2.2.2 Plants2.3 Not appicable
2.4 Other inpects on ground vat3. Air3.1 Fogging and Icing (caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation
3.1.3 Water transportation
3.1.4 Plants3.2 Chemical discharge to mbiaent air3.2.1 Air quality, clemijcl3.2.2 Air quality, odor3A Other Impacts on airUNITSMagnitude PageMagnitude PageMnonitude Pn PmMagnitude
_____ --it I -4 -wI o COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
COOLING DISCHARGE
SYSTEM (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land, amount4.2 Construction activities (including sitepreparation)
4.2.1 People (amenities)
4.2.2 People (accessibility of historical sites)4.2.3 People leccessibility of archeological site%)4.2.4 Wildlife4.2.5 Land (erosion)
4.3 Plant operation
4.3.1 People (amenities)
CsW 4.3.2 People (aesthetics)
4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land, flood control4.4 Salts disdtuai from oooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals4.5 Not applicable
4.6 Not applicable
4.7 Nc: applicable
4.8 Other land impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects'..,0 Net effects COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
CHEMICAL
SYSTEMSALTERNATIVES
A 6 C DPresent WorthINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COST PresCAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Pger Magnitude
1 P-ge Magnitude CHEMICAL
SPECIES DISCHARGED
(LISTBELOW) (indicate concentrations at point ofdischarge)
1. Natural Surface Water Body1.1 Impingement or entrapment by coolingwater intake structure
1.1.1 Fish1.2 Passage through or retention in coolingsystems1.2.1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton
1,2.2 Fish1.3 Discharge area and thermal plume1.3.1 Water quality, excess heat1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen availability
1.3.3 Aquatic organisms
1.3.4 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.3.5 Fis
h. migratory
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4.2 Aquatic organisms COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
CHEMICAL
SYSTEMS (continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B3 I C I j 0 DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page1.4.3 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.4A4 People1.6 Consumptive use (evaporative losses)1.6.1 People1.6.2 Property1.7 Plant construction (including sitepreparation)
1.7.1 Water quality, physical1.7.2 Water quality, chemical1.8 Other impacts1.9 Combined or interactive effects1.10 Net elfectsLn2. Ground Water2.1 Raising/lowering of ground water levels2.1.1 People2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical contamination of ground water(excluding salt)2.2.1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3 Not applicable
2.4 Other impacts on ground water3. Air3.1 Fogging and icing (caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVES
CHEMICAL
SYSTEMS (Continued)
A _ _ I B C I D 0ENVIRONMENTAL
COSTSUNITSMagnitude PageMagnitude Pagee, irtn3.1.3 Water transportation
3.1.4 Planis3.2 Chemical discharge to ambient air3.2.1 Air quality, chemical3.2.2 Air quality.
odorMantd P e'__ -n+ud -e 1 _3.3 Not applicable
3.4 Other impacts on air4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land, amount4.2 Construction activities (including sitepreparation)
4.2.1 People (amenities)
4.2.2 People (accessibility of historical sites)4.2.3 People (accessibility of archeological sites)4.2.4 Wildlife4.2.5 Land (erosion)
4.3 Plant operation (including site preparation)
4.3.1 People (amenities)
4.3.2 People (aesthetics)
4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land, flood control4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals4.4.3 Property resources COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
CHEMICAL
SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page4.8 Other land Impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net effects COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
BIOCIDE SYSTEMSALTERNATIVES
A 8 C DPresent WorthINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COST.Annualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude PageCHEMICAL
SPECIES DISCHARGED
ILISTBELOW) (indlcate conmntrations at point ofdschagme)
1. Natural Surface Water Body1.1 Inpingement or entrapment by coolingvow Intake suructure
1.1.1 FIsh001.2 Passage through or retention in coolingSystems1.2.1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton
1.2.2 Fish1.3 DIscharge area and thernml plume1.3.1 Water quality, exces heat1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen availability
1.3.3 Aquatic organisms
1.3.4 Wildlife lincluding birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.3.5 Fish, migratory
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4.2 Aquatic organisms
4wCOST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
BIOCIDE SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A 1 8 1 C I DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page1.4.3 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mezrunalso and reptiles)
1.4A People1.6 Consumptiv use (evaporative losse)1.6.1 People1.62
1.7 Plant conainction (including sitepreparation)
1.7.1 Water quality, physical1.7.2 Watw quality, dchmlcal1.8 Other impacts1.9 Combined or effects1.10 Net effects2. Ground Water2.1 RaisinglowJering of ground watr levls2.1:1 People2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical contamination of ground water(excluding walt)2.2.1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3 Not appllcable
2A Other impacts on ground watr3I Air3.1 Fogging and Icing (caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
BIOCIDE SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A e C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page3.1,3 Water transportation
3.1.4 Plants3.2 Chemical discharge to ambient air3.2.1 Air quality, chemical3.2.2 Air quality, odor3.3 Not applicable
3.4 Other Impacts on air4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land. amount4.2 Construction activities (Including site4.2.1 People (emenities)
4.2.2 People (aaceubillty of historical sit")4.2.3 People (accessibility of archeological sites)4.2.4 Wildlife4.2h5 Land (erosion)
4.3 Plant opration (Including site preparation)
4.3.1 People (emenities)
4.3.2 People (aesthetics)
4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land, flood m-ntvo4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals4.4.3 Property resources COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
BIOCIDE SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page4.8 Other land impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net effects-.J
COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SANITARY
WASTE SYSTEMALTERNATIVES
A 8 C 0Present WorthINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COSTAnnualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude j Page Magnitude I PageCHEMICAL
SPECIES DISCHARGED
(LISTBELOW) (indicate concentrations at point ofdischarg)
1. Natural Surface Water Body1.1 Inipingement or entrapinent by cooling~vater intake structure
1.1.1 Fish1.2 Passage through or retention in coolingsysterM1.2.1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton
1.2.2 Fish1.3 Discharve area and thermal plume1.3.1 Water quality.
excess heat1.3.2 Water quality, oxygen availability
1.3,3 Aquatic organiuss
1.34 Wildlife (including birds. aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.3.5 Fis
h. migratory
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4,2 Aquatic organisms COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SANITARY
WASTE SYSTEM (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page1.4.3 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals.
and reptiles)
1.4.4 People1.6 Consumptive use (evaporative losses)1.6.1 People1.6.2 Property1.7 Plant construction (including sitepreparation)
1.7.1 Water quality, physical1.7.2 Water quality.
chemical1.8 Other impacts1.9 Combined or interactive effects1.10 Net effects2. Ground Water2.1 Raising/lowering of ground water levels2.1:1 People2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical contamination of ground water(excluding salt)2.2 1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3 Not applicable
2.4 Other impacts on ground water3. Air3.1 Fogging and icing (caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SANITARY
WASTE SYSTEM (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A ____ j C ___ 0 __DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page3.1.3 .Water transportation
3.1.4 Plants3.2 Chemical discuarge to ambient air3.2.1 Air quality, chemical3.2.2 Air quality, odor3.3 Not applicable
3.4 Other impacts on air4. Lad4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land, amount4.2 Construction activities (including site
4.2.1 Pe:op (amenities)
4.2.2 People (acasaubility of historical sites)4.2.3 People (accessiblllty of archeological sites)4.2.4 Wildlife4.2.5 Land (erosion)
4.3 Plant operation lincluding site preparation)
4.3.1 People (amenities)
4.3.2 People (aesthetics)
4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land, flood control4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals4A.3 Property resources COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SANITARY
WASTE SYSTEM (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page4.8 Other land impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net eftectm COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
GASEOUS RADWASTE
SYSTEMSALTERNATIVES
A B C oINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COST Present WorthAnnualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Paegnitude
-Magnitude PageRADIONUCLIDES
EMITTED (List on separatesheet for each alternative)
1. Natural Surface Water Body1.5 Radionuclides Discharged to Water Body1.5.1 Aquatic Organisms
1.5.2 People, external1.5.3 People, ingestion
1,8 Other Impacts1.9 Combined or interactive effects1.10 Net effects2. Ground Water2.3 Radionuclide ontemination of groundwaterC' 2.3.1 People2.3:2 Plants and animals2.4 Other impacts on ground water3. Air3.3 Radionuclides discharged to ambient air3.3.1 People. external3.3.2 People, ingestion
3.3.3 Plants and animals3.4 Other impacts on air4. Land4.8 Other land impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net effects5 5 1" i S .4 .4 .5 COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
LIQUID RADWASTE
SYSTEMSALTERNATIVES
A B CPresent Worth 1INCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COST -_Annualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnizude
= Page Magnitude Page Magnitude PageRADIONUCLIDES
EMrT'ED (List onseparate sheet for each alternative)
1. Natural Surface Water Body1.5 Radionuclides Discharged to Water Body1.5.1 Aquatic Organisms
1.5.2 People, external1.5.3 Peopl
e. ingestion
1.8 Other impacts1.9 Combined or interactive effects1.10 Net effects2. Ground Water2.3 Radionuclide contamination of ground-4 water2.3.1 People2.3.2 Plants and animals2.4 Other impacts on ground water3. Air3.3 Radionuclides discharged to ambient air3.3.1 People. external3.3.2 Peopl
e. ingestion
3.3.3 Plants and animals3.4 Other impacts on air4. Land4 8 Other land impacts4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net effects COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
TRANSMISSION
ROUTESALTERNATIVES
A B C DPresent WorthINCREM61ENTAL
GENERATING
COST Annualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS. UNITS Magnilude Pge Magnitude P9e Magnitude I Page Magnitude POW1. Land Use(R;xnk alternative routes in terms of amountof conflict with present and planned land usel2. Property Values(Rank alternative rou.es in terms of total lossin property values)3. Multiple Use(Rank alternative routes in terms of envisioned multiple use of land preempted by rights-of- way)4. Length of rew rights-of.way required-J5. Number end length.0f new access and serviceroads required6. Number of major road crossings in vicinity ofintersection or interchanges
7. Number of major waterway crossings
8. Number of crest, ridge, or other high pointcrossings
9. Number of -long views" or tran*.tission linesperpendicular to highways and waterways
10. Length of above transmission line in orthrough the following visually sensitive areas10.1 Natural water body shoreline
10.2 Marshland
10.3 Wildlife refuges10.4 ParksM
COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
TRANSMISSION
ROUTES (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page10.5 National and state monuments
10.6 Scenic areas10.7 Recreation areas10.8 Historic areas10.9 Residential areas10.10 National forests and/or heavilytimbered areas10.11 Shelter belts10.12 Steep slopes10.13 Wilderness areas10.14 [Other sensitive or critical areas,specify)10.1510.16-- .10.1710.1810.1910.2010.21 Total length through sensitive areas(sum 10.1-10.20)
10.22 Total net length through sensitive areas (sum 10.1-10.20
eliminate duplication)
COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEMSALTERNATIVES
A a C DPresent WorthINCREMENTAL
GENERATING
COSTAnnualized CAPACITY
FACTORENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude P tude age Magnitude Page1. Natural Surface Water Body1.1 Impingement or entrapment by coolingwater intake structure
1.1.1 Fish1.2 Passage through or retention in coolingsystems1.2.1 Phytoplankton and zooplankton
1.2.2 Fish1.3 Discharge area and thermal plume1.3.1 Water quality.
excess heat1.3.2 Water quality.
oxygen availability cc0 1.3.3 Aquatic organisms
1.3.4 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious mammals, and reptiles)
1.3.5 Fish, migratory
1.4 Chemical effluents
1.4.1 Water quality, chemical1.4.2 Aquatic organisms
1.4.3 Wildlife (including birds, aquatic andamphibious rnannals, and repitles)
1.4.4 People1.5 Radionuclides discharged to water body1.5.1 Aquaticorganisus
1.5.2 People, external1.5.3 People, ingestion
1.6 Consumptive use (evaporative losses)1.6.1 People1.6.2 Property COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B _____ ________
D ____ _______ ___ENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Pag. Magnitude Page1.7 Plant construction (including sitepreparation)
1.7.1 Water quality, physical1.7.2 Water quality.
chemical1.8 Other impacts1.9 Combined or interactive effects1.10 Net effects2. Ground Water2.1 Ralsing/iowerlng of ground water levels2.1.1 People2.1.2 Plants2.2 Chemical contamination of ground water00 (including salt)2.2.1 People2.2.2 Plants2.3 Radionuclide contamination of groundwater2.3.1 People2.3.2 Plants and animals2.4 Other impacts on ground water3. Air3.1 Fogging and icing (caused by evaporation and drift)3.1.1 Ground transportation
3.1.2 Air transportation
3.1.3 Water transportation
3.1.4 Plants3.2 Chemical discharge to ambient air3.2.1 Air quality, chemical COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnilude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page3.3.2 Air quality, odor3.3 Radlonuclides discharged to ambient air anddirect radiation from radioactive materials (in-plant or being transported)
3.3.1 People. external3.3.2 People, ingestion
3.3.3 Plants and animals3.4 Other Impacts on air4. Land4.1 Site selection
4.1.1 Land, amount4.2 Construction activities (including sitepreparation)
4.2.1 People (amenities)
00 4.2.2 People (accoesibility of historical site)4.2.3 People (accessibility of archeological sites)4.2.4 Wildlife4.2.5 Land (erosion)
4.3 Plant operation
4.3.1 People (amenities)
4.3.2 People (aesthetics)
4.3.3 Wildlife4.3.4 Land. flood control4.4 Salts discharged from cooling towers4.4.1 People4.4.2 Plants and animals4.4.3 Property resources COST DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEMS (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES
A B C DENVIRONMENTAL
COSTS UNITS Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page Magnitude Page4.5 Transmission route selection
4.5.1 Land, amount4.5.2 Land use and land value4.5.3 People (aesthetics)
4.6 Transmission facilities construction
4.6.1 Land adjacent to right-of-way
4.6.2 Land, erosion4.6.3 Wildlife4.7. Transmission tine operation
4.7.1 Land use4.7.2 Wildlife4.8 Other lend impects4.9 Combined or interactive effects4.10 Net effects Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50Title I1O-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter k-Atomic EnergyCommission PART 50-LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental-flicy Act of 1969 l i971, .lcq,J- -lucr, , /Ii. )* !.ectiorn'-I
i..uc:-APrzENtix D--lNTsrrM
STATEMENT
Or OE.?-rRtrL4 POLICy AND PROCDURE:
IMPLZMtNTA-
TION O(F THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT or 19630 .PclILIC
LAW 91-100)INTRODUC'ION
On July 2.1. 1971, the U.S. Court of Appealsfor tile District of Columbia Circuit renderedIts decision in Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee.
Inc., et ao. v. United StatesAtomic Ensrgy CommLission.
et al.. Nos, 24.839and 24,871. holding that Atomic Energy Com-mlssion regulations for the Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act ofIU69 iNEPA) in AEC licensing proceedings
,did not comply In several specified respectswith the dictates of that Act, and remanding the proceedings to the Commission for rulemaking consistent with the court's opinion.The Court of Appeals'
decision required.
Insummary, that the Commisslon's rules makeprovision for the following:
I. Independent substantive review of en-vironmental matters in uncontested as wellrau contested cases by presidinit Atomic Safetysnd Licensing Boards.2. Consideration of NEPA environmental lirues In connection with all nuclear powerreactor licensing actions which took placeafter January 1, 1970 (the effective date ofN EPA).3. Independent evaluation and balancing of certain environmental factors, such asthermal effects, notwithstanding the factthat other Federal or State agencies havealready certified that their own environ-mental standards are satisfied by the pro-posed licensing action. In each individual cas.e, the benefits of the licensing actionmust be assessed and weighed against en-vironmental costs; and alternatives mustbe considered which wouinld affect the l)ai-Iiile i: Of vale Jis.4. NEPA review, and apprmpriate actionafter such revle
w. fur cotnstructlitU
pieriLtsissued prior to Januiary I. 1070, iln caseswhere an ittratinlig liecnuse htis not its yetbeen iissued.
The coort's opluion lso sutstcsthatO. in order that this review be us circe-tlie 1its possibile.
the COltIInKioIu rhittild con-!;Ider the of it telloritriy hialtInI conirtrtic tiol peldidln1f Ithi review nlid tihebatikiittilig of lechinological iiiitVlition.i.
As Sitirnnuilry hal-k td, the Niutlollitl En-virniniental Policy Art of 19`9 i'unblic Law91. 190) became effectii'e oil JaiLtuury
1.11,70. The Commitsion published on April 2.1970. in Its initial Iniplementutitol of thelAct, an Appendix D to Part 50 stailiig geU-eral Coinnillsloti p.'licy and procedure fur ex-ercisinul AEC responsibiiltles inder the ActIi its licensinr proceedinirs
(35 F.R. 546i3).Substantial ainendments to Appendilx Dwere publLshed on December
4. 1970 135 P.R.lR4ri9ti.
and further minor amendmentts onJuly 7, 1071 (30 F.R. 127311.The amenidments to Appendix D isSetidherewith have been adopted by the Com-nli.ýq1oil to make interim changes in Its reg-ulations for implement atiloll of NEPA inAEC licensilng proceedings in light of theCourt of Appeals'
decision.
A. Bcsic procedures.
1. Each applicant I fora permit to constnict a nuclear power reac-tor. testing facility, or fuel repricesI-ing plant, or such other production or utiliza-tion facility whosie constructloli or opera-tion may be determined by the ComnIssioni to have a signilfCicat impact on the environ-nieait, shall submit with Ils application threehundred (3001 copies. in the case of a nu-clear power reactor.
testing facility, or fuelreprocessing plant. or two hundred (200)copies, In the ca-se of such other produc-tion or uti'lization facility, of a separate doc-uiment, entitled
"Applicant's Environmental Report-Constriction Permit Stage." whichdi;cuIese the following environmental con-siderations:
(a) The environmental impact of theproposed action.(b) Any adverse environmental effectswhich Cannot be avoided should the proposalbe Implemented, (CI Alternatives to the proposed action,(d) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and themaintentace and enhancement of long-term productivity, and(el Any Irreversible and irretrievable com-mitments of resources which would be in-volved in the propesed action should It beImplemented.
2. The discu.eson of alternatives to theproposed action in the Environmental Reportrequired by paragraph I shall be sufficiently complete to aid the Commission In develop-ing and exploring.
pursuant to section 102(2) (D) of the National Environmental PolicyAct. "appropriate alternatives I
- I in anyproposal which Involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources."
3. the EnvIronmental Report required byparagrmph I shall Include a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances theenvironmentai effects of the fac:1lity endthe alternativcs available for reducing oravoiding adveybo environmental effects, aswell.as the environmental, economic, tech-nilol and other benefits of the facility.
Thecost-beneflt analysis shall, to the fullest'Where the "applicant",
as used in thisappendix, is a Federal agency, different ar-rangements for Implementing the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act may be made, pur-suant to the guidelines established by theCouncil on Environmental Quality.exteliL practicable.
ilatlitify tie various ra;c-trur.Li cun'itlderd.
'I'0 the extent that Suchfactors cinlsot be lturuiut1lied.
they siall bodisc tlisiu.d inr qu:illtaIt ve iternm. Ilie E.:nviron- nmental rt,'po-t shouild contali usllicileit dutato alti thie lual lio I developmtlenit iofuit I tidepentieiet cost-beinelt anuly',l-j cover-LugL tile farLoii s5peclifd Lit tlhis p.uragrapuh.
- 1. ih- lEnivironmenhtal Report requtired bypartgr.tagah i li ll Incliide aI Let'su.iui of0h1 IsLtllt L Of Coill pl a of til e fiLtlit)'
withalipillc tlch eivirolsohctli nl t
u. l itky italtitdrdS
iand requilremenlt
- ll i lri;(,dir.i but ' otl 1iIIlilte'd tU). thcrniiti unid ot, her water q lla li' .titnt Ui'dsprwirniillarc'ti c t inder Lite Federatl Witter lol-htitihll Coirlrol Act) whlicih have been Irniptied by Fedrtral.
Stlae. tutid rloIIiiil aRg-iicles huav-lng re.uponsibility fur envirwitcnmeilil priitec-thlia. il addihtitn.
the en'vi rotinenital InipactOf the facillty be fuilly dlicusced withrespect tx, .uilttcrs covered by such ntatndards uLid reqltirewenis irrep4,vctivo of wiethlier acertitlelation, frotni the appropriato authority has been obUlined (Iniclding.
but not Imi-t1. any cerillr.ation obtained puruiant.
to ts<ctIon
21Wib of the Federal Water Vol-ltlion Control Act '). Such dizacusion hallbe reliected In the csut-beiucflt analysis pre-serltxitd ti paragraph
3. Wille ofAEC tanda.rdn and criterla pertaining toend loiohleal elff ctA will be necessary wo meiectthe ticeuwuig requirements of the AtomicEnergy Act. the ca,ýt-bcleeflt au'tlyiAs pro- In paragrph
3 shall, for the purposesof N'&tionul Elivironmenteal Policy Act,con.sider the radiological effocta.
togetherwith the therumal effects and the other on-viroinietitnl elfects.
of the Licllity.
5. Fitch aiplicalnt for ai !I,-,.--I!
"'T rt'e Aproduction or utitleattioin fitcý:l"
- i- i, ' .b' e IIIparagraph i. shall submit wlhh hn :,l)iica- tIon three hundred (300) copies. In tinc casoof a nuclear power reactor, testing furility, or fuel reprocessing plant, or two hundred(2001 copies, In the case of any other pro-duction or utilization facility described Inparagraph
1. of a separate document, to beentitled
"Applicant's Environmental Re-port-Operating License Stage." whichdiscusses the same environmental considera- tions described iU paragraphs
1-4. but only tothe extent that they differ from those dis-cussed In the Applicant's Environmental Report previously submitted In accordance with paragraph
1. The "Applicant's Environ-mental Report--Operating License Stage-may Incorporate by reference any Informa-tion contained In the Applicant's Environ-mental Report previously submitted inaccordance with paragraph
1. With respectto the operation of nuclear power reactors, the applicant, unless otherwise required bythe Commission, shall submit the "Appll-cant's Environmental Report--Operating License Stage" only In connection with thefirst licensing action that would authorize full-power operation of the facility.'
exceptthat such report shall be submitted In con-.nection with the conversion of a provisional operating license to a full-term license.6. After receipt of any Applicant's Environ-mental Report. the Director of Regulation or his designee will cause to be published Inthe F=CML, RsCtS'"xa a summary notice ofthe availability of the report, end the reportwill be placed In the AEC's Public DocumentRooms at 1717 H Street ;crw., Washington.
DC. and In the vicinity of the proposed site.and will be made available to the public ats No permit cc license wili. of course, beIssued with respect to an actilvtty for whicha certification required by section 21(b) ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act hasnot been obtained.
'This report Is In addition to the reportrequired at the construction permit stage.85 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
the appropriate State, regional, and metro-politan clearinghouses.-
In addition, a publicannouncement of the avallability of the re-port will be made. Any comments by inter-ested persons on the report will be considered by the Commission's regulatory staff, andthere will be further opportunity for publiccomment in accordance with paragralpb
7.The Director of Regulation or hia designeewill analyze the report and prepare a draftdetailed statement of environmental con-siderations.
The draft detailed statement willcontain an assessment of the matters speci-fbed In paragraph
1: a preliminary cost-benefit analysis based on the factors specified in paroagrph
3: and an analysis, pursuant tosection 102(2) (D) of the National Environ-mental Policy Act, of appropriate alternatives to the proposed licensing acLion in any casewhich involves unresolved conflicts concern-iog alternative uses of available resources (i.e., an analysis of alternatives which wouldalter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance).
The Commasston will thentransmlt a copy of the report and of the draftdetailed statement to such Federal agenciesdesignated by the Council on Environmental Quality as having "jurisdiction by law orspecial expertise with respect to any envIron-mental Impact involved"
or as "authorized todevelop and enforce environmental stand-ards" as the Commission determines are ap-propriate.-
and to the Oovernor or appropri- ate State and local oficials, who are author-ized to develop and enforce environmental standards, of any affected State. The trans-mittal will request comment on the reportand the draft detailed statement withinforty-five
(45) days in the case of Federalagencies and severnty-five
(75) days in theease of State and local officials, or withinsuch longer time as the Commission maydeem appropriate.
(In accordance with 1 2.101(b) of Part 2. the Commission will also senda copy of the application to the Governoror other appropriate official of the State inwhich the facility is to be located and willpublish In the Fxiat. Itot'rrm a notice ofreceipt of the application, stating the pur-pose of the application and specifying thelocation at which the proposed activity willbe conducted.)
Comments on an "Applicant's Environmental Report--Operating LicenseStage" and on theidraft detailed statement prepared In connection therewith will be re-quested only as to environmental mattersthat differ from those previously considered at the construction permit stage. If any suchFederal agency or State or local official fallsto provide the Commission with commentswithin the time specified by the Commission.
'Such ctearinghouses have been etaob-lished pursuant to Office of Management andBudget Circular A-95 to provide Iliason andcoordination between Federal and State,regional or local agencies with respect toFederal programs.
'he documents will bemade available at appropriate State, regionaland metropolitan cliaringhouses only withrespect to proceedings in which the draftdetailed statement is circulated afterJune 30, 1971. in accordance with the"Guidelines on Statements on Proposed Fed.oral Actions Affecting the Environment"'
ofthe Council on Environmental Quality (38P.R. 7724).'Requests for comments on Environ-mental Reports and draft detailed statemente from the Environmental Protection Agencywill include a request for comments with re-spect to water quality aspects of the pro-posed action for which a certification pursu-ant to section 21 (b) of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act has been issued, andwith respect to aspects of the proposed actionto which section 309 of the Clean ALr Act Isapplicable.
It will be presumed that the agency ur officialhas no comment to make. unlers a specific of time has been requested.
7. In addition, upon preparation of a draftdetailed statement, the Commiateon willcause to be published In the FiEL.iL nleels-Tim a summary notice of the avaU.ibility ofthe Applicant's Environmental Report andthe draft detailed statement, The summarynotice to be published pursuant to this para-graph will request, within sventy-five
(75)days or such longer period as the Commission may determine to be practicahle.
commentfrom interested persons on the propoeedaction and on the draft statement.
The sum-mary notice will Coutaln a statement tothe effect that the comments of Federalagencles and State and local officials thereonwill be available when received.'
8. After receipt of the comments requested pursuant to paragraphs
6 and 7, the Directorof Regulation or his designee.
will preparea final detailed statement on the environ-mental considerations specified In paragraph
1. Including a discustion of problems and ob-jections rais.d by Federal, State, and localagencies or officials and private and Individuals and the disposition thereof.The detailed statement will contain a finalcost-benefit analysis which considers andbalances the environmental effects of thefacility and the alternatives available for re-ducing or avoiding adverse environmental ef-fects, as well as the environmental, economic.
technical, and other benefits of the facility.
The cost-benefit analysis will, to the fullestextent practicable, quantify the various fac-tors considered.
lb the extent that such fac-tors cannot be quantified, they will be dis-cussed tn qualitative terms, In the case ofany proposed licensing action that Involvesunresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, the DetailedStatement will contain an analysis, pursuantto section 102(2) (D) of the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act, of alternatives to theproposed licensing action which would alterthe environmental impact and the coat-benefit balance.
Compliance of facility con-structlon or operation with environmental quality standards and requirements (Includ-Ing. but not limited to. thermal and otherwater quality standards promulgated underthe Federal Water Pollutuon Control Act)which have been imposed by Federal.
Stateand regional agencies having responsibility for environmental protection will receive dueconsideration.
In addition, the environmental Impact of the facility will be considered inthe coat-benefit analysis with respect tomatters covered by such standards and re-quirements.
Irrespective of whether a certi.fication from the appropriate authority hasbeen obtained (including.
but not limited to,any certification obtained pursuant to sec-tion 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act'). While satisfaction of AECstandards and criteria pertaining to radlo-logical effects will be necessary to meet thelicensing requirements of the Atomic EnergyAct, the cost-benefit analysis will, for thepurposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. consider the radiological effects,together with the thermal effects and theother environmental effect-.
'f the facility,
$This paragraph applies only with respeotto proceedilng In which the draft detailedstatement is circulated after June 30. 1971, inaccordance with the "Guidelines on State-meats on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Eny"onment"
of the Council on Environ-mental 'uallty (380 FJ. 7724).'No permit or license will, of course, beIssued with respect to an activity for whicha certification required by section 21(b) ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act hasnot been obtained, On the basis of the foreil.oni ev andanalyses, the detailed stalement
.will incltidea conclusion by the Director of Reg:lkalion
,rhis designee ts to whether, after wei!:i~iu the envlronmnental, eConom11c',
tech CCal a :I ldother becwflis agalnst environmental costniFind considering avnitihble alternatives.
theaction called for is isn.laoce or tillal tif theproposed piermit or iIcettse or Its appr:'priate conditioning to protect etuviro::nmental vatlues.Detailed statements preparcl in ron:'e-.tion With unl app~lication for nn operstilni:
license will cover only envirn rosi-Ilideratlots whIchR differ fromn. twrl: d.e Uie.dIn the detal.led
- tatement prevlou.iy lrep'iar'td In con
- necticon wllth the npplIcation for a con -structliol permit land nu"y i::corl'wrrte byrfterence any Infurinaticon cnoltalinf- I tiedetailed statement prvvlounly prepared Inconnection with that applieatil:n for a co::-structlon permit. Witt% respect to the opera-tion of nuclear power reactors It Is expettedthat in most cases the detailed btatement willbe prepared only In connection with the firstlicensing action that authorlies full-power operation of the facility.
except tlhat sucha detailed statement will be prepared in coal-nection with the converaion of a provisional operating license t-o a full-term license.9. The Commission will traltunit to tIleCouncil on Environmental Quality copies of(a) each Applicant's Envlronmental Report,(b) each draft detailed statement, (ci coin-ments thereon received from Federal, State,and local agencies and officials and privateorganizations aind Individumas.
and tid cadchdetailed statement prepared pursuant toparagraph
8. Copies of such report, draftatatements, comments and statements willbe made available to the public as providedt in this appendix and as provided In 10 CFPtPart 9 and will accompany the application through, and will be considered In, the Conm-mission's review processes.
After each detailedstatement becomes available, a notice of Itsavailability will be published In the PFsrIssi.
Rxors'ra.
and copies will be made available to appropriate Federal.
State and local agen-cles and State, regional, and metropolitan clearinghouses.-
To the maximum extentpracticable, no construction permit or operat-ing lloenae in connection with which a de-tailed statement is required by paragraph
8will be issued until ninety (90) days afterthe draft detailed statement so required ha&been circulated for comment, furnished tothe Counoi on Environmental Quality, andmade available to the public, and until thirty(30) days after the final detailed statement therefor has been made available to theCouncil and the public. If the filial detailedstatement is filed within ninety (901 dnyRafter a draft statement has been circulated for comment, furnished to the Council andmade available to the public, the thirty (30)dsy period and ninety (O0) day perlod mayrun concurrently to the extent that theyoverlap.
In addition, to the maximum extentpractlcable.
the final detailed statement willbe publicly ovailable at least thirty (30) daysbefore the commencement of any relatedevidentlary hearing that may be held.10. In a proceeding for the issuance of aconstruction permit or an operating licen.sefor a production or utilization facility de-scribed In paragraph I In which a hearing isheld, the Applicant's Environmental Report,comments thereon, and the detailed state-ment will he offered In evidence.
Any partyto the proceeding may take a position andoffer evidence on environmental aspects of' This statement lain addition to the state.ment prepared at the construction permitstage.'10 CPR Part 0 Implements the Freedomof Information Act, section 668 of title 6 ofthe United States Code.II86 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
the proposed licensing Action in accordance with the provisions of Subpart 0 of 10 CFR'tart 2.it. In a proceeding for the Issuance of Itconstruction permit for a production or uti-lt?.ttoti facility described in paragraph
1,and itn a proceeding for the Issuance of alloperating license in which a hearing is heldand maatters covered by this appendix areit Issue, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will (a) determine whether the re-quirements of section 102(2) IC) and (D)of the National Environmental Policy Actand this appendix have been complied within the proceeding.
(ti decide any matters InIcontroversy among the parties, (c) deter-inile. in uncontested proceedings.
whetherthe NEPA review conducted by the Comnis-sinna regulatory staff hx., been adequate, and(d) independentiy consider the final balancentnung conflicting flactors contailned In therecord of the proceeding for the permit orlicense with a view to determining the ap-propriate action to be taken.The Atomic 9afety and Licensing Board.on the brais of its eunelsusions on the abovenmttcrs.
shall determine whether the permitor license should be granted, denied, or ap-propriately conditioned to protect environ-mental valutes.
The Atomic Safety and Li-c-risng Board's initial decision will Includefindinl;s And conclusions which may aifirmor modify the contents of the detailed state-nlent described in paragraph
8. To the ex-tent that findings and conclusions diffevrent from those li the dectalled statement arereached, the detailed statement shall bedeemed modiliied to that extent and, as modi-fied. transmitted to the Council on Environ-ment,.I Quality and nmade available to thepthllc pursuant to paragraph
0. 1V the Com-mtsslon or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. In a decision on review of theinitial decision, reaches conclusions different from the Atomic Safety and Licentsing Boardwith respect to environmnental aspects.
thedetailed statement shall be deemed modifiedto that e.tent and, as modified, transmitted to the Council oil Eivironmeistat Qualityand made available to tile public pursuanttU parnu:ratph
9.12, The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, during tile course of the hearing onAn application a license to operate a pro-ductoien or utiliatlion facility deserbthed inpsratzraph
1, niny authorize, pursuant toI 50.57(c).
the loeding of nuclear futel in thereactor core and limited operation withinthe scope of 1 50 57 (c i. tpon compliance with tile procedures described therein.Where any party to the proceeding opposes;nueh attithirtzaitotn ott the bi6si.s of msatterscovered by thls appendix, the provisions ofparngraph It shall apply In regard to theAtmlc Safety and Btlad'A deter-nl tat.lonl of sulcl satters.
Any 7lcetn.e soIs.itild will be without prejudice to nsobe-qtlent licensini:
action which may be takenby tile Cmlmlssion with regard to the en-vironmental asvpecta of the facility, and anyl leetse i:svud will he cnnld lltned to tIiatc:tct.1M. The Comrnislont will incorporate In allCO ls:trocilon Iperntolts anid operating licensesfor production and utiiliutlous faclities de-scribed in paragraph I. A condition, In addi-tlon to Any conditions Imposed pursuant toparagraph I1. to the effect that tile licenseeshall observe such standards and require-rnentn for the protection of the environment nut are validly imposed pursuant to authority e.stahllshed under Federal and State lawantd as are determined by the Commli-son toie applicable to Uie facility that is subjectto the lientlsling action Involved.
This con-ditios will not apply to radiological effectssince radiological effects are dealt with inother provislons of the'construction permitand operating license.14. The Coinirlssion hasm deteriuined Utatthe fUllowing activities subject t~l tsaterils Itcensing may Also signifieantly affect thequality of the environment:
W (a) Licentses for and use of special nuclear ma-terial for processItlg and fuel fabrication.
scrap recovery rand conversion of uraniumhexaflucrlde;
ibi licenses for possession andUse of source material for trntiilun millingand productiotl of uranium hexalluoride:
and(ci ilcensest authorlzing commercial radio.Active waste di.posal by laJnd burial. Appli-canhts for such l1cesnses tiall aubmlit two hlun-dred 1200) copies of an Environmenttal Re-por". which disctusses the environmenial con-siderations described in paragraphs I-4. Ex-cept As tile context may otherwise require.procedures aind nieasures sinmilar to thosedescribed Il Seotions A. Bi. D. and E of thisappendix will tie followed in proceedings forthe Issuance of such licenrtc.
The procedures and me1alures to be followed with respect tOmIaterials licenses will, of course, reflect tilefact that. utnlke the Ilicen.ing of productluli and utllLxUtlon facilIUes,.
the ofmaterials does not require separatw autlhorl- Zritlons for conrstructLion and operation.
Ordi-narily, therefore, there will be only unr Ap-plicant,'s Elvirorntental Report requiredi andonly ane detailed statement prepared ii con-nection wlt~h an application for a materlials licensee.
If a proposed subsequent licensiug action Involves environmental constderaUons which differ significantly from t.hose dig-cussed In the Envirotinental Report filed andthe detailed statement prevlously preparedin connection with the original licensing action, a supplementary detailed statement will be prepared.
In a proceeding for the Is-anuanice of a materials license within the pur-view of this paragraph where tile require-mcitz of paragraphs
1-9 have not as yet beenmet. the activIty for which the license Issought may be authorized with appropriate limitUtIons.
upon a showing that the conductof the activity.
so limited, will not have asignificant, adverse impact on the quality ofthe environment.
In addition, the Commis-SMon recogntiizes thalt there may be other cir-cuto:ta~cc, where, conistent with appropri- ate reTgard for environmental values, the con-duct of such acliviltes nsay be warranted dur-Ing the period of the ongoing NEPA environ-men'al revvew. Accordingly.
the activity forwhich the license Is sought may be autlbor-Ied with appropriate limitations after con.sideratoin and balanctnt:
of the factorsdecritbed below: Protidrd, howCrcr.,
Thatstch activity may not be authorized for aperiod In excess of four (4) months exceptupon specific prior approval of the Com-nilsslon.
Such approval will be extended onlyfor cs,0,wc cauise shown.FAC'TOR.S
(a) ".hetiher It Is likely that tile act.ivlty conducled during the provpectuve revlewperiod will gIve rice to a signfilcant, adverseImpact on the environment:
the nature andextent of such impact. if any. and whetherredr.ss of ally such Adverse enuvirnnmentAl Impnet cats reaionlably he efitected shouldmodification or termination of the license re-stilt from the ongoltW NEPA environtsenttal review.lb)i Whether the Actlvlty conducted dur-Ing the prospective review perio] would fore.cicve subsequent Adoption of altertlahvtes Inthe conduct of the acUvity of the type Utatcould result from the ongoing NEPA environ-menial review.(c) The effect of delay In the conduct ofthe activity upon the public Interest, Of1* Additional activities subject to materials licensing may be determined to signilfcantly elect the quality of the environment andthus be suhject to the provisions of this para-graph.primary importanve under this criterion arethe needs to be served by the conduct of theactirlty;
the availability of alternative sources.
If any. to meet those needs on atimely basts: and delay cc-.;ta tO the licenseeand to consumerm.
Aliv license so Wmsed will be without preJ-tldice to) sii.usequent licensing action whichInay be iNken by Use Comlmisslion with re-anird to the aspects of theactivity.
amnd any livense tamed will be cotl-dtitined to Ihat efcu-i.B3. Procedures for rct'(ew of Cthlfaln It-ocnise fo cowrtrut or operale productwon orutilizaifon facities and certain forrcnrcc matcrtial.
speclo2 nuclear material andbyproduct material issued in the periodJartuary
1, 1970-Septfcmb"
9. 1971.I. All holders of (a) construe- linn permt4i or operatine licenses for pro-duetlon or utltl?'ttlon facilities of the typedescribed In sectlion A.1, (ib) licenses for ptn-Aesslon aind use of Ypvclal nuclear materialfor and fuel fabrication, scraprelcovery slid conversion of uranilumn hexat-fluoride.
{c) ilcenseA
for pnssesston and of source mnateritl for uraniurm milling andproduction of uranium hexafluorlde.
And Id)licetset"n authorizituur cotmiercial radioactive waste disposal by land burial. Issued durintthe period Januarv I, 197I--Spti...wu;vt V1. 1971., shall submit.ast soon aspossiible.
but tin later than (d!xtv(60) days aitet September
9. 1971.or such later date Ms may boapproved by the Cbmmls.sion upon good cauiseshown. the appropriate number of copies ofan Environmental Report as specified in sec-tiot A I-5.If an Environmenttal Report had been nsth-milted prior to the issuance of the permitor ltcenae.
a supplement to that report. coer-Ing the matters described in sectlon A 1 5to the extent not prevtounly covered.
may besilbnsltted In lieu of a new Envirotmentai Report.2. After receipt of Any Environmental Re-port or ally x-upplement to An Environtmental Report submitted pursuant to paragraph Iof this section, the procedures ret out nitsection A 6-9 will be. followed, except thatcomnments will he reqetertd.
and must bareceived, within thirty (30i days from Federal State And local officlals and Inter-ested persons on Enironmetal Reports asiddraft detnaled statements.
If no commentsare submitted within thirty (301 days bysuch agencles, offlclalan.
or persons, it will bepresumed that slich agencies, officials or per-sons have no comnments to make. The detailedstatement (or supplemental detailed
1tate-neitit, As appropriate)
ir,,pnred by the Direr-tur of Ilegillation or his desIgntee pursuant tosection A 8 mill. on thc basis of tile analysesand evalluations deieriried therein.
Incluscie itconclusion by the Director of Regulation orhis deslenee an to whether, after weighitnthe envlronmental.
ecotntMic.
techniclc nadother benefit.
alinaint environimental costsand coosisderiliR
nvailstle alternatives, theaction called for is contituation, ruodificr- tion or terminatiotn of the pernilt or llcniseor Its appropriate condltintiltg to protectenvironmental vatlnes.3. The Dtreotor of Rcg,,iation will, In theease of a oonstruction permit foe a nuclearpower or test reaotor or a fuel ropceingplant, publish Itn the F-zmrAL
anotice of hearing, In accordaflee with I 2.103of this rtapter, on NEPA onvironztientid tIsues as defined itn sstion A.11. which hemr-bIg notloo may be iscluded ns the nottce re-quired by paragraph
2. With respect to anlyother permit or licerme for a facility of a typedescrtbed In section A.l. the Director ofriaulatioon wUl publish a notice in the Fn-rRLt. .11GI1Th5.
WuIcn5 nMsy be Ircluded In thenotice required by paragriph
2, providing X7 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
tMart. within thirty (30) days from the dateof publication of the notice, the holder ofthe permit or license may Mle a roque"t fora hearing Mid any peram stmise Intereut maybe alfocted by the proceeding may. in acord-alice With i 2.714 of this chapter, file a petl-tion for leave to intervene and request aelarlig.
In uny hearing heold puruiant to tjilparagraph.
the provislonsA
of sectiont A.10and 1I will apply. The Comnmission Ce' thepresiding Atomic Safety and Llor-slng Boaed.aS ApwoprtatOe, mWay pruicrIbe the time wltt inwhich prooeedings, or any portions thereof.conducted puruant to th; parugraph wrlt beconleted.
C. Procedures
/or revicw of certain con-sirtctfon per"mits
/or production or ion facilities issued prior to January 1. 1970.for which operating licenses or notice of op-portunity for hearing on the operating licenseOpplicafitns have not been issued. I. Eachliolder of a permit to conrtruct a production or utlllTAstion facility of the type described in section A.1 lrnfued prior to January 1. 1970.for which neither an operating license nor anotice of opportunity for hearing on the op-erating license application had been lssuedprior to October 31, 1971. shall wilhmit theappropriate number of copies of an Environs- mental report as specified in sections A.1-4of this appendix as soon as possible, but nolater than sixty (160) days after September
9,1971. or such later date as may be approvedby the Commission upon good cause shown.It an environmental report had been sub-mitted prior to September
0, 1971, a supple-ment to that report. covering the mattersdescribed In sections A.1-4 to the extent notpreviously covered.
may be submitted In lieuof a new environmental report.2. Upon reoeipt of an Envirornmental Re-port or supplemental EzvIronmental Reportsubmitted pursuant to paragraph
1. the pro-cedures set out in section A. 0-9 will befollowed.
except that comments will be re-quested, and must be received, withinthirty (30) days from Federal agencies.
Slateand local and Interested persons onEnvironmental Reports and draft detailedetatements.
If no comments are submitted within thirty (30) days by such agencIes, officials or perlsons it will be presumed thatsuch agencies, officials or persons have nooomment to make. The detailed statement (or supplemental detailed statement, as ap-prepriate)
prepared by the Director of Reu-lation or his designee pursuant to sectionA.8 will, on the basis of the analyses andevaluations described therein, include a con-clusion as to whether, after weighing theenvironmental.
economic, technical and otherbenefits against environmental coaste andconsidering avrallable alternatives, the actioncalled for is the continuation, modification or termination of the construction permit orits appropriate conditlonng to protect en-vironnental values. Upon preparation of thedetailed statement, the Director of Regulas-tion will publish in the FtzaAL s, Ricsri anotice, which may be included In the noticerequired by section A.9. setting forth his, Orhbi deeignee's, conclusion as respects thecontinuatlon, modification or termination of the construction permit or Its appropriate ondIltioning tc protect " envlornmontal values. 7be Direotor of Regulation willAlso p"4 ta in tie PWDMAL EZoasm a notiee,which ussy be included in the notice settingfoth his or his deasne' cooclsioc as re-specta the *Oonuo.tiot, modtiJbatn ortermlnation at the oosrctitm permit or itseipproprIate condiUoning to protect environ-mantal values, providing that wMhin thirty(30) dlays from the date of Ito publication.
any peewi-un wlhixe Interest may be taffcoted bytheo proceeding may. In accoraxrne with1 2.714 of thWi chapter.
file a fnrleave to intervene and request a hear-bw. In anyhiearing.
the provIsions of section A. 10 Ald itwill apply to the extent pertinent.
Tlc Om.mIsrlon or the pre.,ldlng Atornic SILfly andLIcensIng Boerd, ai appropriate.
may pre.ccrihe the time within which proceedingq, orany portions thereof, conducted purstiait tothis paragraph will be conducted.
3. The review of environmental m;Lttersconducted in aoccrdanice with thlr. ,ectilon Cwill not be duplicated at the operating lihurnsestage, abient view NIgnificant Informattioll relevant to these maU,O. Proreduires applicabile to pr put i;a he ar.or pyoceediag.,
to be rotniecd in the nearfuture. I. In proceedings In which hearinr.:
are pending as of September
9, 1971, or Ilnwhich a draft or fial detailed statement ofenvtronmental considerations prepared bythe Director of Regulation or hill dengneehas been circulated prior to said date :1 inthe rave of all applicatiol]
fur a coniLtruction permit, or its which a notice of opportunity for hearing on tht application has been issuedprior to Octotber
31. 1971. In the case of anapplication for an operating license, thepresiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Boardwill. if the requirements of paragraphs
1-9of soctIon A have not as yet be-en mot, pro-toed expeditlotus.ly with the w-pects of theapplication related to the licensing requirements under the AtomicEnergy Act pending the submisalon of en-vironmentWl
.Veports and detailed str-tements as specified In section A and compliance withother appltiable requirements of vection A.A supplement to the environmental report,covering the matters described in sectionsA.1-4 to the extent not previously covered.may be submitted in lieu of a new environ-mental report. Upon receipt of the supple-mental environmental report, the procedures set out in sections A,6-9 will be followed.
except that comments will be requested, andmust be received, within thirty (30) daysfrom Federal agencies, State and local offi-cIals, and interested persons on .environ- mental reports and draft detailed It no commenta are submitted within thirty(30) days by such agencies, officials, or per-sons, It will be presumed that such agencies, offleials, or persons have no comment tomake. In any subsequent session of the hear-ing held on the matters covered by thin ap-pendix, the provisions of sections A.l0 andIt will apply to the extent pertinent.
TheCommission or the presiding Atomic Itdotyand Licensing Board, as appropriate, mayprescribe the time within which the proceed-ing, or any portion thereof, will be completed.
2. In a proceeding for the Issuance of anoperating license where the requirements ofparagraphs
1-9 of section A have not as yetbeen met and the matter Is pending beforean Atomio Safety and Lcensing Board, theapplicant may make. pursuant to I 50.57(c),
a motion in writing for the Issuance of alicense authorizing the loeading of fuel in thereactor core and limited operation within thescope of I 50.57(c).
Upon a showing on therecord that the proposed Ilceniang actionwill not have a significant, adverse impacton the quality of the environment and uponsatisfaction of the requirements of I 50.57(c).
the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board may grant the applicant's motion. Inaddition, the Oommlsslon recognizes thatthere may be other circumstances where,consistent with appropriate regard for envi-ronmental values, limited operation may bewarranted during the period of the ongoingNEPA environmental review. 'Such circum-stances Include testing and verification ofplant performance and other limited actIvi.ties where operation can be Justified withoutprejudice to the ends of environmental pro-tection.
Accordingly, the presiding Atomio88Safety and Licensing Board may. upon natIs-faction of the requIrements of I1 .571cl.grant a motion, pursutant to that after consideration and balancing oil tilerecord of the factors deacrlbedl lic;ow: Pr.-Hidrd. Itowe'l cr. that operailon beyoud tuent:percent (20':,) or full power nu"y niut'be it:.thorized cxcept upon :ipt-olic Ipr.ur upprrv;a.
ol the (al Whether it Iz, Iktly hli;it liiltcd ;-,eratIon d uringi the ptrr-p'ctive rev:cw ,r ..tdwill give rise ti it a iaJv,'r:A.- fin the nuv rou, line the o li itti r, ani e it,!t,,f sulch Itnipact, If any: and w.lhether redt!:.of tny5 Lsuc is dversLe v ovI ninnin stL1 I nln.sLcan ;ea.5onably be effected should nlkpdilht.-
tion t'r termlination of the lIHnm ted lhn:;ern'siult, fromn the Mlngolng NEPA erievIroniiniii- tl review.(b) Whether limited operation duelrin:
theprco-pectlve revIew period would fomcl-o.e sub.bccluent avdop)tIon of alteruiiatt I ln I -cility design or operatlinu of the type thatcould result from the ougolrrn NVI'IA envtroll- mental review.(c) 'he effect of delay In flcrllty opera-lion ilpioo the public Inter.-.t.
O i plrinLryIm-portance under this eriCeilon are thepower neede to be ierved iy the acililty:
theavailability of altersuttlive iitrce e t. tomeet thnee needs on a timely .tui; dtridelay costs to the lIcensec and to consuiml'r.i.
If any party, Including the staff. ,,poiimithe recluest, the provisions of 5 50.57 (ci willapply with respect to) the re:-,Wtlouth- tfi lheobjections of such party and the makilig offindings required by 1 50.57 c) afnd this puara-graph. 'The Comlnision Air the pre:iligAtoric S.Tfety and Licensing Board. A.v aplpIo.prtate, fav-y prescribe the tima within whichthe procecding, or any portion thereof.
willbe completed.
Any license so will lewithout prejudice to subaequent licerntgaction which may be taken by the Connini-q slon with regard to the envirolunmelrltl wspectA of the facility.
and any licen-e issuedWill be conditioned to that effect.3. This paragraph applies tl proceeding!
on an application for an operating licentiefor which a notice of opportunity for hear-ing was Issued prior to October 31, 1971. andno hearing has been requested.
In such pr.-ceedings an envlronmental report or a supple-ment to the envlIronmental report, coveringthe matters descrlbed In actlons A.1-4 tothe extent not previously covered, shall 1esubmitted.
Upon receipt of the supplemental environmental report, the procedures aet outin sections A.6-9 will be followed, exceptthat comments will be requested, and 1n0umbe received, within thirty (30) days fromFederal agencies, State and local offilelhi.
andinterested persons on environmental reportsand draft detailed statements.
If no com-ments are submitted within thirty (30) daysby such ageneles.,
efllals, or persons, It willbe presumed that such agencies, oifrlliht.
orpersons have no comment to make.In additIon Wo the pert'innt pro-vlakuns off pJxignspbs
1-9 of amctton A. theprovisiona of eectSWU Dq will be f101lowa,. If In such proceedinf,.
the require-menta of paragraphs,
1-9 of ýectton A havenot as yet been met, the Coinmisslon mayissue a license authoriAng tho loafdIng offuei in the reactor core and limited operation within the Scope of 150.57 (cl, upon a show-Ing that such licensing actlon will not havea Slgnificant.
adverse Impact on tile qualityof the environment And upon inaking theappropriate findings on the matters specified in 1 50.57(a).
In addition, the Commi-sIon recogntres that there may be other circuin-stances where, consistent with approprIate regard for environmental values, limitedoperation may be warranted during the pe-riod of the ongoing NEPA envlronmental re-A1 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
view. Such circurnstances include testingand vertifIcation of plant performance andother limited activities whoere operation canbe Justified without prejudice to the ends ofenvironmental protection, Accordingly.
thieCommission may Issue a license for limited,peratlon after consideration and balancing of the factors described in paragraph
2. ofthis section and upon making the appro-priate findlngs on the matters specified in1 50.57(a);
Provided, however.
That opera-tion beyond twenty percent (20%.) of fullpower will not be authorized except in emer-gency situations or other situations wherethe public Interest so requires.
Any licenseso Issued will be without prejudice to sub-sequent licensing action which may be takenby the Commission with regard to the en-vironsmental aspects of the facility, and anylicense Issued will be conditioned to thateffect.I;. Consfdcratfou of suspension of certainpermit.?
and licenses pending NEP.4 Enriron-tri'ntal Reinew.1. In regard to (a) proceedings sutJect toSection D other than those in which a hear-lug on an operating license appllcwion hascommenced, ib) proceedings subject to see-tion C Involving nuclear power reactors andltsting facllities.u and 4c) proceedlusjs liwhich the Commission cetimAtes that con-tructLion under a permit will not be cam--picLed by January 1. the Comnmissio will consider and determine.
in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs
3 and 4of this section E, whether the permit or ii-cerise should be suspended, in whole or inpart, pending completion of the NAEPA envi-rotunentail review apeclned In thi g mctlons.2. In MnakInr tVe d'eunlnntnion catled forin para..raph
1. the Cbm-nnuzion will con.sider ard balatnce tile following factorn:(a) Whether it ini likely that continued COn-trnctlon or operation during the pru-rnpectlve review period will gtive rise to aeignlflncat adverse hnp-w, on the environ-Inent; the natu,-e and extent of such .m-pact. if any: and whether redruax of any suchadverse environn;ental impact can reasonably be eflected should modification.
eatpension or termination of the pernUt or ltcetae re-suit from the ongoing NEPA envIronmental review.(b) Whether continued coontructicn oroperation during the proapectlse review pe-rnod would foreclose snbsequent adoption ofatlterntatives In facility design or operntIon ofthe type that coud reault from the ongoingXNPA environmental review.(c) The effect of delay In facility con-struction or operation upon the public In-terest. Of prlnary Importance under thiscriterion are the power needs to be servedby the facility:
the availability of alterna-tire sources.
If any, to meet thoe needs ona timely basis: and delay costs to the li-censee and to consumers.
3. Each holder of a permit or license sub-ject to paragraph I at this section E shallturnLLsh to the Conlmission.
before 40 claysafter September
9, 1971 or such later dateAs may be approved by the Comxnrsslon.
upongood cause Shown, & wrItte statement or anyreasons, with supporting factual submtsslon.
why, with reference to tho criteria In para-graph 2. the permit or license should not besuspended, In whole or It. part. pending com-pletion of the environmental reviewspeclfled in sectionA
B, C, or D. Such docu-ments will be publicly available and anyInterested person may submIt commentsthereon to the Comm'ssion.
4. The Commlasson will thereafter deter-mine whether the permit or license shall besuspended pending NEPA envlronmental re-view and will publish that determination In the P=MAt A public announce- ment cf that determination will Also bemade.(a) It the Corimmtsion determines thatthe permit or license shall be suspended, anorder to show cause pursuant to 12.202 ofthis chapter shall be served upon the II-centme ar~l the provisions of that sectiontolowediJr (b) Any person whose Interest may beaftected by the proceeding, other than the may ifle a request for a hearingwithin thirty (30) days after publIcation of the Commlalon's determination on thismatter in the l=zDwAL Rttclirxt.
Such re-quest shall set forth the matters, with ref-erence to the criteria set out in paragraph
2, alleged to warrant a suspension determl-naUon other than that made by the Com-mission, and shall set forth the factual basifor the requestL
I the Co-mlaeon deter-ailnes that the mattars stated In such re-quest warrant a herlng, a notice of hesa-Ing vill be published In the ftmn.c) IThe Comns.a.lon or the prersding Atomic Safety and Licensinf.
Bolard. a-1 ap-propriate, may prencribe the time withinwhielh a proceedin,.
or uny portion thereof.conducted puriuant to this paragraph bliallbe completed.
it In proceedings In which an applicant's enviroillnethtal report, rather than a draftdetailed statcmnent, was circulated by theCotnntll%%lol.
that environmental report shallbe deemed a draft detailed statement for thepurpoies of this paragraph.
- ~PUsi reProcesailog plaists;
bare been ex-cluded since only one such plant is subject tosection C and Its construction is complete,
130O GiCP 2202 "Wmong other things. pro-vides for Institution of a prooeeding to mod-ify, suspend, or revoke a iloenat by timsaneeof an order to show cause iad provides anopportunity for hearing.
Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL. 36, NO. 175-THURSDAY,
SEPIEMBIER
9, 1971Title I1O-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter I-Atomic EnergyCommission PART 50-LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION'AND
UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of Nationalenvironmental Policy Act of 1969On July 23. 1971. the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit rendered its decision in CalvertCliffsý Coordinating Committee.
Inc.,et al. v. United States Atomic EnergyCommission, et al. Nos. 24,839 and 24,871,holding that Atomic Energy Commission regulations for the Implementation ofthe National Environmental Policy Actof 1969 (NEPA) in AEC licensing pro-ceedings did not comply in several sped-fled respects with the dictates of thatAct, and remanding the proceedings tothe Commission for rule making con-sistent with the Court's opinion.Revised Appendix D set forth belowis an interim statement of Commission policy and procedure for the Implemen- tation of NEPA in accordance with thedecision of the Court of Appeals.The effect of the revised regulations will be to make the Atomic Energy Com-mission directly responsible for evalu-ating the total environmental Impact,including thermal effects, of ndclearpower plants, and for assessing this Im-pact in terms of the available alterna-tives and the need for electrLi power.The Commisdon Intends to be respon-sive to the conservation and environ-mental concerns of the public. At thesame time the Commission Is also exam-ining steps that can be taken to reconcile a proper regard for the environment with the necessity for meeting the Na-tion's growing requirements for electricpower on a timely basis.The procedures In Appendix
0 ripplyto licentsing proceedings for nuclearpower reactors:
testing facilities:
fuelreprocessing plants: and other produc-tion and utillzation facilities whrseconrstruction or operation may be deter-mined by the Commission to have a sic-niflcant Impact on the environment.
Theprocedures also apply to proceedines in-volhing certain specified activitics sub-ject to materials licensing.
ReL-sed Appendix D Is divided Intofive sections.
Section A deals with thebasic procedures for implementinm, NEPA. including an identification of theinformation required of applicants.
thecirculation of environmental reports anddetailed statements for comment, andthe role of Atomic Safety and Licensino Boards in the environmental reviewprocess.Section B deals with procedures ap-plicable to the specified facility and ma-terials licenses Issued during the periodfrom January 1. 2970. the date of enact-ment of NEPA, to the effective date ofthis revision.
SOction C deals with the procedure;
applicable to oonstructlon permitL forthe specified facilities issued prior toJanuary 1, 1970, for which operating licenses have not been issued.Section D deals with the procedures applicable to pending hearings and hear-ings to be conducted in the near future.It makes provision for NEPA review andhearing opportunity on NEPA mattersfollowing such review and also providesfor possible auhorization of fuel loadlinand limited operation of nuclear powerreactors, consistent with appropriate re-gard for environmental values, duringthe period of ongoing NEPA environ-mental review. Operation beyond twentypercent (20%) of full power would ie-quire the specific prior approval of theCommission and would not be authorized except in emergency situations or othersituations where the public Interest sorequires.
(Counterart provisions forcertain materials licensing actions arecontained in section A.)Section E sets forth the factors whichwill be considered by the Commission indetermining whether to suspend, pend-ing the required NEPA environmental review, permits or licenses of the speci-fied types issued during the period fromJanuary 1, 1970, and the effective dateof this revision and construction permitsfor the specified facilities Issued prior toJanuary 1, 1970, for which operating Uloenses have not been issued.Sections B, C, and D provide that theCommission or the presiding AtomicSafety and Licensing Board. as appro-priate, may prescribe the times withinwhich the proceedings subject to thosesections will be completed.
These provi-alons amre In keeping with the Commis-alon's continuing objective of mintlrz-Ing undue delay In the conduct of itslicensing proceedings.
They would IlotImpinge upon the basic requiretictnLs fora fair arid orderly hiearing on the NE1'Aissues.Because the revision of Appendix Dwhich follows is to comply withCourt of Appeals'
decision ill the CalvertCliffs case. tile Com0UiJ&Mlo lhas foundthat good cause exists for omitting no-tice of proposed rule inakinh and publivprocedure thereon as tnnecessary andImpracticable and for making the revi-sion effective upon publication in tileFEDERAL REGISTER
%kithout the c
u. stomary
30-day notice.Accordingly, pursuant to thie N:t.nonwil Environmental Policy Act of 1969, theAtomic Energy Act of 1954. as amende
d. and sections
552 wid 553 of title 5 of theUnited States Code, the following rc-vision of Appendix D of 10 CIO'R Part 50 ispubli!.ned ws a document subject tocodification, to be effective upon publi-cation in the FliEPAL RECISTER
09-9-71).
The Commision Invites all interestcd per.-ns who dcsire to sulmnit wriLttincomments or suggestions for considera- tion in comnection with the revision tosend them to the Secretary of the Corn-mission.
U.S. Atomic Enerry Commission.
Washington, D.C. 205.15. Attention:
Chief. Public Proceedings Branch, within60 days after publication of this noticein the FEDERAL REGIsTER.
Consideration will be given to such submission with theview to possible further nmendments.
Copies of comment,,
received by theCommission may be examined
[at tileCommission's Public Document Room.1717 H Street NWV., Washington.
DC.Appendix D 1.' revi.ed to read asfollows;IL"90
Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL. 36, NO. 190-THURSDAY.
SEPTEMBER
30, 1971Title IO0-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter I-Alomic EnergyCommission PART 50-LICENSING
OF PRODUJC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of the NotionalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969On September
9, 1971. the Atomicl.tl".:y Colllni..ýSlon publiished ill tileRcItSTrE.
'36 F.R. 18071, a revi-sion of Ap)penihx D of its regulation in10 CF'1 Part 50. effective oil publication.Appendix D as published is aninterim stat1tItienlt of Commission policyantd procedure tor the implementation of the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 'NEPAI in accordance withthe deci.isioi of tile U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia Circuit inCalvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee.
Inc., et al. v. United States Atomiclnerry Commision.
et al.. Nos. 24.839and 24,871. The procedures in AppendixL) apply to licensing proceedin':s for nlu-clear power reactors:
testing facilities:
fuel reprocessing plants; and other pro-ductiun and utilization facilities whoseconstructioln or operation may be deter-inined by tile Commission to have a sig-iifiicant impact on the environment.
Theprocedures also apply to proceedings in-volving certain specified activities subjectto materials ihcensing.
Revised Appendix D is divided into fivescetions.
Section A deals with the basicprocedtues for implemenLing NEPA,while sections
13, C. and D deal with pro-oedurets applhicable to certain categories of permits or licenses already issued orfor which applications are pending.
See-tion E defines the categories of proceed-ings in which the Commission will con-sider and determine whether a permitor license already issued should be sus-pended pending completion of tile NEPAenvironmental review and sets out thefactors to be considered by the Commis-sion In maniing its determinations.
The Commniission has adopted Utelunendinients to revised Appendix Dwhich follow to correct revised AppendixD and clarify the intent of the Commts-slot, with respect to proceedins subjectto sectlons C, D. and E.Section C. Procedures for revh'w ofcertai con wtruction pcrinils for produc-tion or utilization facilities issued priorto January 1. 1970. /or which optratingf licenses har'e not been issued, has beenamended to cover such Ipermit.,
is4suedprior to ,)antuary
1, 1970 for facilities forwhich iieither an. operating license nora notice of opporltutity (or hearing onthe operating license had been issuedprior to September
9. 1971 ithe effective date of revised AppendLx W'. The exclu-sloft of holders of construction permitu;subject to section D. which is applicable to proceediugs in which lharings werepending as of September
9. 1971, or inwhich a draft or final detailed statement of environental conbiderations hadbeen circulated prior to that date. hasbcen deleted.
This has the effect of mak-ing proceedings such as the Calvert Cliffsproceeding.
Dockeu; Nos. 50-317 atud 50-318. subject to sections C and E, as theCommission originally intended.
In section D.I.. a fooLuote has bvvenadded to provide that in proceedings inwhich an applicant's environnlental re-port, rather tiutn a draft detailed state-ment. was circulated by the Commission that environmental report shall bedeemed a draft detailed statement forthe purposes of that paragraph.
Section E. which presently applies toproceedings subject to sections B and C.has been amended to apply to (a) pro-ceedin!s subject to section B other thanthoaw in whlch a hearing on an operating license application has commenced, tb)proceedings subject to section C involving nuclear power reactors and testing facil-ities. and ic. proceedings in which theCommission estimates that construction under a permit will not be completed byJanuary 1, 1972. This amendment willexclude one fuel reprocessing plant fromconsideration of suspension pendingcompletion of NEPA environmental re-view. Since that plant has already beencompleted.
and will be subject to sectionC procedures before the Issuance of anoperating license w,1ll be considered, nouseful purpose would be served by sus-pension of the construction permit. Theamendment will, on the other hand, sub-ject to consideration of suspension.
Wn,addition to cases involving nuclear powerreactors and testing facilities for whichconstruction permits were issued prior toJanuary 1. 1970. for which operating li-censes or notice of opportunity for hear-log on the operating license application have not been issued proceedings inwhich the Commission estimates thatconstruction will not be completed byJanuary 1. 1972, even though a notice ofopportunity for hearing on the operating license application or a draft or final de-tailed statement of environmental con-siderations has been issued.Because these amendments relatesolely to correction and clarification, theCommission has found that good causeexists for omitting notice of proposed rulemaking and public procedure thereon asunnecessary.
The Commission has alsofound that since the amendments correctand clarify previous amendments whichhave already become effective, good causeexi.sts for inakning the amenlihlents effec-live without the custontart,
30-day notice.Ac.rodlingly.
pursuant to tile NationalEnvironmnental Policy Act of 1969, Ill(!Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amende
d. and sections
552 and 553 of Title 5 of theUlited States Code. tile following amnend-nuents to Title 10, Chapter 1, Code ofFederal Regulitions.
Part 50, are pub-lishced I!; a (documeInt subbject to cxdifica- tion to be effletive upon publication intile FrDiRAI.
l11itsrr.n.
(9-30-71):
1. Iln Alipetnlix I1. tile Dhlras3e,
"evlcetivc date of this amended Appendix D- illS'ctiOrnS
B and 1) is change:-c to read"Slepteuber
9. 1971" wherr it appealrs.
2. Section C.l. of Appendix D is"imnended to read as follows:
3. A footnote
11 is:udded tosul ion D.1of Appendix
) followin,:.,
tile word "date"to read follows:4. Sections E.I. ald E.3. of Appendix Dare ateueded to read as Iolloa;91 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL 36, NO. 21E-.THUIRSOAY,
NOVEMIU 11, 1971Title IO-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter I-Atomic EnergyCommission PART 50--LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969On September
9. 1971, the Atomic En-ergy CommLsslon published in the FSD-ERAL REGISTER
(38 P.R. 18071) a revisionof Appendix D of itz regulation in 10 CFRPart 50. effective on publication.
RevisedAppendix D as published is an interimstatement of Commission policy and pro-cedure for the implemenitation of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA) In accordance with the de-cision of the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia Circuit In "Cal-vwrt Cliffs 'Coordinating Committee, Inc.,et al. v. United States Atomic EnergyCommission.
et al.," Nos. 24.839 and24.871. The procedures In Appendix Dapply to licensing proceedings for nu-clear power reactors:
testing facilities:
fuel reproceming plants:;
and other pro-duction and utilization facilities whoseconstruction or operation may be deter-mined by the Commission to have a sig-nificant impact on the environment.
Theprocedures also apply to proceedings In-volving certain specified activities sub-ject to materials licensing.
The Commission adopted certain minoramendments to revised Appendix D, pub-lshed in the FEDERAL REcIsTEa on Sep-tember 30, 1971.The Commission- has adopted addi-tional amendnsents to revised AppendixD that clarify the intent of the Commis-Sion with respect to proceedings subjectto section D.In section 4, Procedures Applicable toPending Hea-ings or Proceedings to beNoticed in the Near Future, p
e. agraph
1has been amended to make the provi-sions of paragraphs
1 and 2 of that sec-tion applicable to proceedings In which'hearings are pending as of September
9,1971. or in which a draft or final detailedstatement of environmental considera- tions prepared by the Director of Regula-tIon or his designee hna been circulated prior to sadd date, in the case of an ap-plication for a construcion permit, or inwhich a notice of opportunity for hearingon the application has been isbuea priorto October 31, 1971, in the Case of aulapplication for an operating license.
Aconforming amendment has been madeto section C.A of Appendix D.Paragraph
3 of section D of AppendixD has been amended to make clear that.In cases where a notice of opportunity for hearing on an operating license ap-plication was issued prior to October 31.1971, and no hearing has been requosted.
the environmental review procedures setout In section A of Appendix D will,withi respect to such proceedings, be sub-ject to the limitation that comnment,,
willbe requested.
and must be received.
within 30 days from Fedeml agencies.
State and local oficials and Interested persons on environmental reports -anddraft detailed statements.
This changeconforms paragraph
3 of section D toparagraph I of section D In this respect.Because these amendments relatesolely to correction and clarification, theCommission has found that good causeexists for omitting notice of proposedrule making and public procedure thereon as unnecessary.
The Commission has also found that since the amend-ments correct and clarify previousamendments which have already becomeeffective, good cause exists for makingthe amendments effective without thecustomary
30 day notice.Accordingly, pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amende
d. and sections
552 and 553 of title 5 of thetUntted States Code, the following amend-ments to Title )0, Chapter I, Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 50, are pub-lished as a document subject to codifica- tion to be effective upon publication inthe FEDERAL REGISTER
(11-11-71).
in Appendix D. sections C.1, D.1, anudD.3 are amended to read as follows:(Sec. 102. 83 Stat. 853; secs. 3. 161; 08 Stat.922. 948. as amended:
42 U.S.C. 2013. 2201)Dated at Gennantown, Md.. this 29thday of October 1971.For the Atomic Energy Commisslon.
W. B. McCOOL.SecretarV
of the Commission.
[I( Doc.71-104a9 Filed 11-10-71:8:48 aM1FEDERAt REGISTER.
VOL. 36, NI., 742-THURSDAY,
DEcEMO13
16. 1971PART 50-LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementations of the Notional En-vironmental Policy Act of 1969;Correction Onl November
11, 1971, F.R, Doe. 71-16469, amending Appendix D of 10 CFRPart 50, wias published in the FEDERALREGzSTRn at ip{.e 21579. The foUowingcorrection Is made to tie amendneni..
to10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D:In paragraph
3 in the second colunuhon page 21580, the reference to "9 50.57'a)" in the 30th line should read
."(See. IGI, 68 Stat. 948; 42 U.S.C. 2201)Dated at Washington D.C.. tills Dthday of December
1971.For tile Atomic Energy Commission.
W. B. McCOOL.Sccretary of the Commission.
FWR Doc.71-10402 Flied 12-16-71:8:5i amiII92 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
FEDERAL REOISTEI,
VOL 36, 1O. 218--*THUIRSOAY,
NOVEMBR 11, 1971Title IO-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter I-Atomic EnergyCommission PART SO--LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969On September
9, 1971. the Atomic En-ergy Commission published in the PFD-ERAL REOxsTrR
(36 P.R. 18071) a revisionof Appendix D of it- regulation in 10 CPRPart 50, effective on publication.
RevisedAppendix D as published is an interimstatement of Commission policy and pro-cedure for the implementbi.tion of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA) in accordance with the de-cision of the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia Circuit in "Cal-vert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc.,et el. v. United States Atomic EnergyCommission.
et al.." Nos. 24,839 and24.871. The procedu'es in Appendix Dapply to licensing proceedings for nu-clear power reactors:
testing facilities:
fuel reprocessing plants; and other pro.duction and utilization facilities whoseconstruction or operation may be deter-mined by the Commission to have a sig-niflcant impect on the environment.
Theprocedures also apply to proceedings in-volving certain specified vxtivitles sub-ject to materials licensing.
The Commission adopted certain minoramendments to revised Appendix D, pub-liahed in the FEDERAL RzoxSTZR
on Sep-tember 30. 1971.The Commisalor- has adopted addl-tional amendments to revised AppendixD that clarify the intent of the Commis-sion with respect to proceedings subjectto section D.In section 4, Procedures Applicable toPending Hearings or Proceedings to beNoticed in the Near Futur
e. paragraph
1has been amended to make the provi-sions of paragraphs I and 2 of that sec-tion applicable to Proceedings in whiclhhearingg are pending as of September
9.1971, or In which a draft or final detailedstatement of environmental conddera- tions prepared by the Director of Regula-tdon or hris designee hms been circulated prior to said date, in the caze of an ap-plication for a comstructIon permit, or Inwhich a notice of opportunity for hearingon the application has been isLuea priorto October 31, 1971, in the case of anapplication for an operating license.
Aconforming amendment has been madeto section C.- of Appendix D.Paragraph
3 of section D of AppendixD has been amended to make clear Vhnt.in cases where a notice of opportunity for hearing on an operating license ap-plication was issued prior to October 31.1971. and no hearing has been reqtueted, the environmental review procedures setout In section A of Appendix D. will,with respect to such proceedings, be sub-Ject to the limitation that comments willbe requested, and must be received.
within 30 days from Federal agencies.
State and local offIcials and interested persons on environmental reports -anddraft detailed statements.
This changeconforms paragraph
3 of section D toparagraph
1 of section D in this respect.Because these amendments relatesolely to correction and clarification, theCommission has found that good causeexists for omitting notice of proposedrule making and public procedure thereon as unnecessary.
The Commission has also found that since the amend-ments correct and clarify previousamendments which have already becomeeffective, good cause exists for makingthe amendments effective without thecustomary
30 day notice.Accordingly, pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,and sections
552 and 553 of title 5 of theUited States Code. the following amend-ments to Title 10. Chapter I, Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 50, are pub-lished as a document subject to codifica- tion to be effective upon publication inthe FEDrRAL REGISTER
(11-11-71).
In Appendix D, sections C.1, D.1, andD,3 are amended to read as follows:(Sec. 102, 83 Stat. 853; secs. 3, 161: 6a Stat.922, 948. as
42 U.S.C. 2013. 22011Dated at Germantown.
Md.. this 29t11day of October 1971.For the Atomic Energy Commission.
W. B. McCoOL.Secretary of the Commissfon.
IFR Doc.71-18489 Flied 11-10-71:8:48 am)FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL. 36, Nf.. 242-THURSDAY.
DECEMBER
16, 1971PART 50-LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implerr.entations of the National En-vironmental Policy Act of 1969;Correction On November II, 1W71, FR. Doc. 71-16469. amending Appendix D of 10 CFRPart 50, wvs Iublished in the FEDERALREISTERa (It pae 21579. The following correction is mnatdle to the amendments to10 CFR Part 50. Appendix D:In paragraph
3 in the second colunmion page 21580. the reference to "§ 50.57ia'" in the 30th line should read" 50.57(c)."
(Sec. 161. 68 Stat. 948; 42 U.S.C. 2201)Dated at Washington DC., this 9thdiay of December
1971.For the Atomic Energy Corrmmission.
W. B. McCoot.,Sccretary of the Commission.
IFFR Doc.71-18402 Plied 12-15-71:8:51 am)492 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)RfoaMIm, Vet. I7, No. 13-NUS"YAy, JrMuAX7 2C, 1972Title 10--ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter I--Atomic EnergyCommission PART 50--UCENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of the NationalEnwironmentvl Policy Act of 1969Ol, September
9. 1971, the Atomicnerg., Commission published in theFrnBAL. RZoMisrn
(36 F.R. 18011) a revi-sion of ippendix D of its regulation in10 CFR Part 50. effective on publication.
Revised Appendix D as published Is antatori statement of Commission policyand procedure for the implementation of the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (NEPA) In aocordance withthe decision of the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia Circuit in"Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc., et al. v. United States AtomicEnergy Commission.
et al.". Nos. 24,839and 24,871. The procedures in AppendixD apply to licensing proceedings fornuclear power reacors:
testing facUlItes:
fuel reprocessing plants; and other pro-ductIon and utilimatlon facilities whoseeoostrutUon or operation may be deter-mined by the Commission to have 'asignificant Impact on the environment.
The procedures also apply to proceedings Ianvving certain specified activities msbject to materials licemsing.
The Commissio adopted certain minoramendments to revised Appendix D, pub-lished in the FEDLRAL REzrsR on Sep-tember 30. 197
1. and November
11, 1971.The Conunisaion has adopted addi-tional amendments to revised AppendixD relating to the procedures for publish-ing notices of hearing or opportunity forhearing with respect to proceedings sub-lec to sections B. C, and D.Those sections deal respectively
%1Luprocedures applicable to certain facilityand materials licenses Issued during theperiod from January 1, 1970. the dateof enactment of NEPA, to September
0.1971, with the procedures applicable toconstruction permits for certain facilities issued prior to January 1. 1970. for whichoperating licenses or notice of oppor-tunity for hearing on operating licenseapplications have not been issued, andwith procedures applkcaWe to pendinghearings and hearings to be noticed inthe near future.Under section B, section C, and sectionD.3 presently in effect, notices of hearingor opportunity for hearing in the li-censing proceedings subject to those sec-tions could not be published until thefinal detailed statement or supplemental detailed statement had been prepared bythe Commission's Director of Regulation or his designee.
The basic procedures forimplementing NEPA in section A of Ap-pendix D. on the other band. contain nosuch restriction.
Furthermore, the re-striction is inconsistent with the Com-mission's practice of giving early noticeof hearing or opportunity for heriingin facility licensing cases-before com-pletion of the reviews of the application by the AEC staff and the Advisory Com-mittee on Reactor Safeguards.
Thatpractice results in extra time betweenthe admission of intervening parties andthe beginning of the hearing, thus af-fording a longer period for the prepara-tion of intervenors'
cases and avoidingunnecessary delays. Accordingly, theamendments which follow permit, but donot require, the Commission to issue no-tices of hearing or opportunity for hear-ing, an appropriate, for the consideration of NEPA environmental issues in suchproceedings, before the final detailedstatement has been prepared.
Pursuant to the National Environmen- tal Policy Act of 1969. the Atomic EnergyAct of 1954, as amended, and sections
552and 553 of title 5 of the United StatesCode, the following amendments to Title10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regula-tions, Part 50, are published as a docu-ment subject to codification to be eff ec-tive upon publication In the Flusta.RZITSTER.
In Appendix D. the sxLn sentence insection C.2 is deleted, and section B.3. thefifth sentence in section C. and the fifthsentence in section D.3 are amended toread as follows:93 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL 37, NO. 94-SATURDAY,
MAY 13, 1972Title 1 O-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter l-Atomic Ene;gy.Commission PART 50--LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969On September
9. 1971. the Atomic En-ergy Commission published in the FED-BRAL REGISTER
(36 F.R. 18071) a revisionof Appendix D of its regulation In 10 CFRPart 50, effective on publication.
RevisedAppendix D as published is an interimstatement of Commission policy and pro-cedure for the Implementation of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA) in light of the decision ofthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit in Calvert Cliffs'Coordinating Committee.
Inc., et al. v.United States Atomic Energy Commis-sion. et al., Nos. 24.839 and 24.871. Theprocedures in Appendix D apply to li-ceasing proceedings for nuclear powerreactors:
testing facilities;
fuel reproc-essing plants; and other production andutilization facilities whose construction or operation may be determined by theCommission to have a significant impacton the environment.
The procedures aloapply to proceedings involving certainspecified activities subject to materials licensing.
Paragraph
13 of section A of Appen-'dix D of Part 50 provides that:The Commission Will Incorporate in all con-struction permits and operating licenses forproduction and utilization facilities de-scribed in paragraph
1. a condition.
in addi-tion to Say conditions imposed pursunflt toparagraph
11, to the effect that the licenseeshell observe such standards and requtrements for the protection of the environment as are validly imposed pursuant to authority established under Federal and Stat: law andas are determined by the Coaroxission to beapplicabie to the facility that is subject tothe licensing action involved.
This condition will not apply to radiological effects sinceradiological effects ae dealt with In otherprovisions of the construction permit andoperating license.The central premise of Appendix DVprior to its revision in light of the earlierreferenced Calvert Cliffs' decision, wasthe concept that the preservation of en-vironmental values could best be ac-complished through the establishment ofenvironmental quality standards and re-quirements by appropriate Federal,State, and regional agencies hi'iAng re-sponsibility for environmental protec-tion. The condition referred to was anaspect of NEPA Implementation by theCommlssion reflecting that concept.Since the decision in the Calvert Cliffs'case, the Commission, In compliance with the mandate of the Court of Ap-peals, has revised its NEPA regulations to provide for an Independent review ofthe environmental Impact of the matterscovered by such standards and require-ments. Accordingly, the condition nolonger serves the purpose intended.
Anylicense conditions resulting from theCommission's independent review will betailored to the particular facility.
TheCommission has, therefore, revokedparagraph
13 of section A of AppendixD of Part 50 since it Is no longer neces-sary or appropriate.
This amendment does not, of course, relieve holders ofAEC licenses of any obligation whichthey otherwise have in regard to appli-cable standards and requirements Im-posed by other agencies under Federalor State law,Because this amendment relates solelyto elimination of an obsolete require-ment, the Commission has found thatgood cause exists for omitting notice ofproposed rule making and public proce-dure thereon as unnecessary and formaking the amendment effective with-out the customary
30-day notice,Accordingly, pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, theAtomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended,and sections
552 and 553 of title 5 of theUnited. States Code. the following amendment to TItle 10, Chapter 1, Codeof Federal Regulations, Part 50, is pub-lished as a document subject to codifi-cation to be effective upon publication in the FEoRALt.
REGsmITR
(5-13-72).
In Appendix D, paragraph
13 of sec-tion A is revoked.(Sec. 102. 83 Stat, 853; sees. 3. 161: 68 Stat.922. D48. ns amended;
42 U.S.C. 2013, 2201)Dated at Oermantown, Md., this 8thday of May 1972.For the Atomic Energy Commission.
VW. B. MCCooL,Secretory of the Commission.
[FR Doc.72-7344 Filed 5-12-72;8:51 amI94 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL 37, NO. 96--WEDNESDAY,
MAY 17, 1972Title 10-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter I--Atomic EnergyCommission PART 50-LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969The Atomic Energy Commission hasadopted an amendment to Appendix Dof 10 CFR Part 50, an Interim statement of Commission policy and procedure forthe implementation of the National En-vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)in accordance with the decision of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit In Calvert Cliffs' Co-ordinating Committee, Thc., et al v.United States Atomic Energy Commis-sion, et al., Nos; 24,839 end 24.871. Theprocedures in Appendix D apply to 11-censing proceedings for nuclear reac-tors; testing facilities;
fuel reprocessing plants; and other production and utillza-tiop facilities whose construction or op-eration may be determined by the Com-mission to have a significant impact onthe environment.
The procedures alsoapply to proceedings involving ceftalnspecified activities subject to materials licensing.
In Appendix D, the last sentence ofparagraph A.9 provides that, to the max-imum extent practicable.
the final de-tailed statement required by NEPA willbe publicly available at least thirty (30)days before the commencement of any re-lated evidentiary hearing that may beheld. In contrast, the guidelines of theCouncil on Environmental Quality(CEQ), in paragraph
10(e) of its"Guidelines on Statements on ProposedFederal Actions Affecting the Environ-ment' published April 23, 1971 (36 FLR.7724). provide that the draft environ-mental statement should be publiclyavailable at least fifteen (15) days priorto the time of any relevant hearing.The sentence In paragraph A.9 of Ap-pendix D has been amended to conformmore closely to the applicable CEQ guide-line. This amendment does not, of course,preclude an applicant for a facility con-struction permit or operating licensefrom presenting Its case on environmen- tal matters as well as on radliologIcal health and safety matters prior to theend of the 15-day period. The positionof the Commission's regulatory staff willnot be presented at any hearing untilthe final detailed statement is madeavailable.
This amendment is another in a seriesof amendments which the Commission has adopted or iL contemplating in Its ef-'forts to establish an effective environ-mental protection program in the con-text of a timely declsiornaklng process.Recent examples of such amendments arethe amendments to Part 50, effective onMarch 21. 1972 (37 F.R. 5745). limitingsite preparation activities that may beperformed prior to Issuance of a con-struction permit, and proposed amend-ments which would restructure the li-censing and hearing process published on May 9. 1972 (37 P.R. 9331), The latteramendments would, among other things,provide for earlier and more meaningful participation by the parties to a licens-ing proceeding.
Since the amendment which followsrelates to agency procedures, notice ofproposed rule making and public pro-cedure thereon are not required.
Accordingly, pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amende
d. and sections
552 and 553 of title 5 ofthe United States Code, the following amendment to Title 10, Chapter 1, Codeof Pederal Regulations.
Part 50, is pub-lished as a document subject to codifica- tion to be effective upon publication inthe FEDERAL RECISTER
(5-17-72).
The last sentence of paragraph A.9 ofAppendix D is amended to read asfollows:
O---vTzrRIM
S.rA, MHENT OF OzNSxmALPOLeCy AND PaocunMfSL:
OF THlE NATIONAL
ENVRo £NrTAL PoLicyAcT or 1969 (PUfLuc LAW 91-190)A. BarlL, procedures.
9. *
- In addition.
the draft detailedstatement will be made available to the pub-lic at least fifteen (18) days prior to thetime of any relevant hearing.
At any suchhearing, the position of the Commisslon's regulatory staff will not be presented untUthe final detailed statement Is made avail.able to the public. The foregoing provisions will not preclude an applicant for a facilityconstruction permit or operating licensefrom presenting Its case on environmental matters as well as on radiological health andsafety matters prior to the end of the fifteenday period.(See. 102, 83 Stat. 853: sees. 3. 161: 88 Stat.922, 948, as amended;
42 U.S.C. 2013, 2201)Dated at Germantown, Md., this 15thday of May 1972.For the Atomic Energy Commission.
W. B. McCoOL,Secretary of the Commission.
IFR Doe.72-7t51 Fled 5-15-72;12:40
pmI95 Appendix
1. Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL 37, NO. 96-WEDNESDAY,
MAY 17, 1972Title 1 O-ATOMIC
ENERGYChapter I-Atomic EnergyCommission PART 50-LICENSING
OF PRODUC-TION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
Implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969The Atomic Energy Commission hasadopted an amendment to Appendix Dof 10 CFR Part 50, an Interim statement of Commission policy and procedure forthe implementation of the National En-vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)in accordance with the decision of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit in Calvert Cliffs' Co-ordinating Committee, Mc., et aL v.United States Atomic Energy Commis-sion, et aL. Nos. 24,839 and 24.871. Theprocedures In Appendix D apply to li-censing proceedings for nuclear reac-tors; testing facilities;
fuel reprocessing plants: and other production and utillza-tiop facilities whose construction or op-eration may be determined by the Com-mission to have a significant impact onthe environment.
The procedures alsoapply to proceedings involving ceftainspecified activities subject to materials licensing.
In Appendix D, the last sentence ofparagraph A.9 provides that, to the max-imum extent practicable;
the final de-tailed statement required by NEPA willbe publicly available at least thirty (30)days before the commencement of any re-lated evidentlary hearing that may beheld. In contrast, the guidelines of theCouncil on Environmental Quality(CEQ). in paragraph
10(e) of its"Guidelines on Statements on ProposedFederal Actions Affecting the Environ-ment" published April 23, 1971 (36 P.R.7724), provide that the draft environ-mental statement should be publiclyavailable at least fifteen (15) days priorto the time of any relevant hearing.The sentence In paragraph A.9 of Ap-pendix D has been amended to conformmore closely to the applicable CEQ guide-line. This amendment does not of course,preclude an applicant for a facility con-struction permit or operating licensefrom presenting Its case on environmen- tal matters as well as on radiological health and safety matters prior to theend of the 15-day period. The positionof the Commission's regulatory staff willnot be presented at any hearing untilthe final detailed statement is madeavailable.
This amendment is another in a seriesof amendments which the Commission has adopted or Is contemplating in Its ef-forts to establish an effective environ-mental protection program in the con-text of a timely decislonmaking process.Recent examples of such amendments arethe amendments to Part 50, effective onMarch 21. 1972 (3 F.R. 5745), lImJtingsite preparation activities that may beperformed prior to Issuance of a con-struction permit, and proposed amend-ments which would restructure the l-censing and hearing process published on May 9, 1972 (37 F.R. 9331). The latteramendments would, among other things.provide for earlier and more meaningful participation by the parties to a licens-ing proceeding.
Since the amendment which followsrelates to agency procedures, notice ofproposed rule making and public pro-cedure thereon ore not required.
Accordingly, pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amende
d. and sections
552 and 553 of title 5 ofthe United States Code. the following amendment to Title 10, Chapter 1, Codeof Federal Regulations.
Part 50. is pub-lished as a document subject to codiflca- tion to be effective upon publication inthe PFSDRAL RzMrSTER
(5-17-72).
The last sentence of paragraph A.9 ofAppendix D is amended to read asfollows:APPrmrx fl.--lwrEzIM
F rrZMENT OFP O MAE LPOLrY AND Psoc=noaK:
IMPLZMENTATION
O THUE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMEZTAL
POUCTAcT or 1913 (PuaLic Law 91-190)A. Basic procedures.
9. 1 1 0 In addition, the draft detailedstatement will be made available to the pub.lic at least fifteen (15) days prior to thetime of any relevant hearing.
At any suchhearing, the position of the Commission's regulatory staff will not be presented untilthe final detailed statement is made avail.able to the public. The foregoing provisions will not preclude an applicant for a facilityconstruction permit or operating licensefrom presenting its case on environmental matters as well as on radiological health'and safety matters prior to the end of the fifteenday period.(See. 102, 83 Stat. 853: sees. 3. 101: 88 Stat.922, 948. as amended;
42 U.8.C. 2013, 2201)Dated at Germantown, Md., this 15thday of May 1972.For the Atomic Energy Commission.
W. B. McCooL,Secretary of the Commission.
IPR Doc.72-.7551 Fied 5-15-42;
12:4 pm]95 FAnnendix
2. Questionnaire for Elicitina Data For Radioactive Source-Term Calculation Pressurized Water ReactorsBasic Data for Source Term Calculation I. Reactor power (MWt) at which impact is to beanalyzed.
2. Weight of U loaded (first loading and equilibrium cycle),3. isotopic ratio ir fresh fuel (first loading andequilibrium cycle).4. Expected percentage of leaking fuel.5. Escape rate coefficients used (or reference).
6. Plant capacity factor (%).7. Number of steam generators.
8. Type of steam generators (recirculating, oncethrough).
9. Mass of primary coolant in system total (lb) andmass of primary coolant in reactor (lb).10. Primary coolant flow rate (lb/hr).II. Mass of steam and mass of liquid in each generator (Ib).12. Total active mass of secondary coolant (Ib)(excluding condensate storage tanks).13. Steam generator operating conditions (temperaturc OF, pressure psi, flow rate, lb/hr),14. The number, type and size of condensate demineralizer and total flow rate (lb/hr).15, What is the containment free volume (ft3 )?16. Whtat is the expected leak rate of primary coolant tothe containment atmosphere (lb/hr)?17. Is there an internal air cleanup system for iodine inthe containment?
If so, what volume per unit timeis circulated through it? What decontamination factor is expected?
How long will the system beoperated prior to purging?18. How often is the containment purged? Is it filteredprior to release?
Type of iodine clean up systemprovided?
What decontamination factor isexpected?
19. Give the total expected annual average letdown rateduring power operation (lb/hr).a. What fraction of the letdown is returned to theprimary system? How is it treated?
What arethe expected decontamination factors forremoval of principal isotopes?
b. How is the Li and Cs normally controlled?
c. What fraction of this goes to boron controlsystem? How is this treated, demineralization, evaporation, filtration?
d. Is plant design for load follow or base load?What fraction of the letdown stream is divertedto the radwaste system for boron control.
Howis this treated (demineralization, evaporation, filtration, etc.) and what fraction will bedischarged from the plant?20. What fraction of the letdown stream is stripped ofnoble gases & iodines'?
How are these gasescollected?
What decay do they receive prior torelease'?
Indicate si ripping fracl in?21. How are the noble gases and iodines stripped fromthat portion of the letdown stream which is sent tothe boron control system? How are these gasescollected?
What decay do they receive prior torelease?22. Are the releases from the gaseous waste storagetanks passed through a charcoal absorber?
Whatdecontamination factor is expected'
23. How frequently is the system shut down anddegassed and by what method? How many volumesof the primary coolant system are degassed in thisway each year? What fraction of the gases presentare removed?
What fraction of other principal nuclides are removed, and by what means? Whatdecay time is provided?
24. Are there any other methods of degassing (i.e.,through pressurizer, etc.)? If so describe.
How is ittreated?25. What is the expected leak rate ofprimary coolant tothe secondary system (lb/hr)?
4*26. What is the expected rate of steam generator blowdown (lb/hr) during power operation with theexpected leak rate noted in 25. above? Where arethe gases from the blowdown vent discharged?
Arethere charcoal absorbers and/or condensers on theblowduwn tank vent? If so, what decontamination factor is expected?
How will the blowdown liquidbe treated?27. What is the expected leak rate of steam to theturbine building (lb/hr)?
What is the ventik.tion airflow through the turbine building
"(cfm)? Where isit discharged?
Is the air filtered or treated beforedischarge?
If so, provide expected performance.
28. What is the flow rate (cfm) of gaseous effluentfrom the main condenser ejector?
What treatment isprovided?
Where is it released?
29. What is the origin of the steam used in the glandseals (i.e., is it primary steam, condensate, ordemineralized water from a separate source, etc.)?How is the effluent steam from the gland sealstreated and disposed of?30. What is the expected leak rate of primary coolant tothe auxiliary building (lb/hr)?
What is theventilation air flow through the auxiliary building(cfm)?? Where is it discharged?
Is the air filtered or96 otherwise treated before discharged?
If so, provideexpected performance.
31. Provide average gallons/day and MACi/cc for following categories of liquid effluents.
Use currently observed data in the industry where different fromthe SAR or Environmental Report (indicate whichis used).a. High-level wastes (for example, primary coolantlet down, "clean" or low conductivity waste,equipment drains and deaerated wastes):b. "Dirty" wastes (for example, floor drainwastes, high-conductivity wastes, aeratedwastes, and laboratory wastes);c. Laundry, decontamination, and wash-down wastes;d. Steam generator blowdown-give average flowrate and maximum short-term flows and theirduration;
e. Drains from turbine building;
f. Frequency of regenerating condensate demineralizers and expected volume ofregenerant solutions.
For these wastes (a-f) provide:I. Number and capacity of collector tanks.2. Fraction of water to be recycled and factorscontrolling decision.
3. Treatment steps-include number, capacity, andprocess decontamination factor for eachprincipal nuclide for each step. If step isoptional, state factors controlling decision.
4. Decay time from primary loop to discharge.
32. Dilution flow rate for liquid effluents, minimumand normal gpm and total gallons per year.33. How is waste concentrate (filter cake, demineralizer resin, evaporator bottoms)
handled?
Give totalvolume, weight and curies per day or year.34. Include the expected annual volume of dry wasteand curie content of each drum.Boiling water reactorsBasic Data for Source Term Calculation I. Reactor power (MWt) and plant capacity factor (%)at which Impact is to be analyzed.
2. Weight of U loaded (first loading and equilibrium cycle).3. Isotopic ratio in fresh fuel (first loading andequilibrium cycle).4. Expected offgas rate after 30 minutes delay.5. Escape rate coefficients used (or reference).
6. Primary coolant in system (lb).a. Mass of primary coolant in reactor;
mass water,mass steam (Ib).b. Mass of primary coolant in recirculating system(Ib).c. Fraction of primary coolant in main condenser (Ib).7. Steam conditions at turbine (temp 'F. press. psi.flow lb/hr.)8. Normal recirculation flow rate (lblhr).9. Normal clean-up system flow rate (lb/hr).
What typeof resins are used? What decontamination factorsare expected for each principal nuclide?
What is thefrequency of regeneration and volume ofregenerants?
10. Describe and provide the expected performance ofthe expanded gaseous radwaste treatment systemfrom the main condenser air ejector?
Give theexpected air in leakage.
Is the condenser ejector oneor two stage? Where is it discharged'!
Howmany condenser shells'?
(If applicable-Pounds ofchafrcol and operating temperature of)I1. Whvat is the expected leak rate of primary coolant to..iJ dry well (lb/hr)?
How frequently is the dry wellpuiged? What treatment is given to .his purge andwhere is it released?
12. Waat is tile expecteC
leak rate of primary coolant(lb/hr) to the reactor building'?
What is theventilation air flow through the reactor building(cfm)?Where is it discharged?
Is the air filtered orotherwise treated before discharge?
If so provideexpected performance.
13. What is the expected leak rate of steam (lb/hr) tothe turbine building?
What is the ventilation air flow,through the turbine building (cfm)? Where is itdischarged?
Is the air filtered or treated beforedischarge?
If so, provide expected performance.
14. Describe the treatment of the exhaust stream fromthe turbine seal glands.a. What is the oiigin of the steam used in tihegland seals? (i.e., is it primary steamcondensate, or demineralized water from aseparate source, etc.?)b. How is the waste stream from the gland sealstreated and disposed of ?c. Indicate how often the mechanical vacuum willbe operated and the expected range of activityreleased.
15. Provide average gallons/day and pCi/cc prior totreatment for the following categories of liquidwaste. Use currently observed data in the industrywhere different from the SAR or Environmental Report (indicate which is used).a. High-purity wastes (for example,
"clean" orlow conductivity waste and equipment drains).Give range of activity expected.
b. "Dirty" wastes (for example, floor drainwastes, high-conductivity wastes, andlaboratory wastes).
Give range of activityexpected.
c. Chemical wastes. Give range of activityexpected.
d. Laundry, decontamination, and wash-down wastes. Give range of activity expected.
97 For these wastes (a-d), provide:a. Number and capacity of collector tanks.b. Fraction of water to be recycled or factorscontrolling decision.
c. Treatment steps-include number, capacity, andprocess D.F. for each princi'.il nuclide for eachstep. If step is optional, stW.e factors controlling decision.
d. Decay time from primary loop to discharge.
16. For the condensate demineralizers provide tlie flowrate lb/hr. type of resin used, expected backwashand regeneration frequency, and expected D.F. foreach principal nuclide.17. Dilution flow rate for liquid effluents, minimumand normal gpm and total gallons per year.18. How is waste concentrate (filter cake. demineralizer resin, evaporator bottoms)
handled?
Give totalvolume or weight and curies per day or year.Include the expected annual volume of dry wasteand curie content of each drum.4498 Appendix
3. Example of Chart Showing Radiation Exposure PathwaysAITMOSPHERIC
AQUMTARELEASES,,
RELEASES
IEXTERNAL (From the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation ofOconee Nuclear Station Units I. 2, and 3: Docket Nos. 50-269,50-270, 50-287; March 1972. See page 120 of the Statement.)
99 Appendix
4. Proposed Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50FEDERAL REGISTER,
VOL 36, NO. III-WEDNESDAY,
JUNE 9, 1971ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
[10 CFR Part 501LICENSING
OF PRODUCTION
ANDUTILIZATION
FACILMESLight-Water-Cooled Nuclear PowerReactorsThe Atomic Energy Commbalon hasunder consideration amendments to itsregulation.
10 CFR Part 50, "Licensing of Production and Ut/iization Facilities,"
which would supplement the regulation with a new Appendix I to that part toprovide numerical guides for design ob-jectives and technical specification re-quirements for limiting conditions foroperation for light-water
-cooled nuclearpower reactors to keep radioactivity ineffluents as low as practicable.
On December
3. 1970, the AtomicEnergy Commission published in theFzDERA'.
REGISTER
(35 F.R. 18385)amendinents to 10 CFR Part 50 thatspecified design and operating require-ments for nuclear power reactors to keeplevels of radioactivity in efuents to un-restricted areas zs low as practicable.
The amendments provided qualitative guidance, but not numerical criteria, fordetermining when design objectives andoperations meet the requirements forkeeping levels uf radioactivity in eflluents as low as pratucable.
The Commission noted in the State-ment of Considerations published withthe amendments the desirability of de-veloping more definitive guidance in con-nection with the amendments and thatit was initiating discussions with thenuclear power industry and other com-petent groups to achieve that goal.The Commission considers that theproposed numerical guides for designobjectives and technicea specification requirements for limiting conditions foroperation for light-water-cooled nuclearpower reactors set out below would meetthe criterion
"as luw as practicable"
forradioactive material In effluentsreleased to Unrestricted areas. The guidancewould be specifically applicable only tolight-water-cooled nuclear power reac-tors and would not necessarily be appro-priate for other types of nuclear powerreactors and other kinds of nuclearfacilities.
As noted in the Statement of Consid-eraUons accompanying the amendments to Part 50 published in the PAmESAL RZo-ISTER on December
3. 1970, the Com-mission has always subscribed to thegeneral principle t?'Rt. within e(tablished radiation protection guides, .radiatign exposures to the public should be keptas low as practicable.
This general prin-ciple has been a central one in the fieldof radiation protection for many years.Operating licenses include provisions tolimit and control radioactive eMuentsfrom the plants. Experience has shownthat licenseep have generally kept ex-posures to radiation and releases ofradioactivity in effluents to levels wellbelow the limits specified in 1O cpR Part20. Specifically, experience with licensedlight-water-cooled nuclear power reac-tors to date shows that radioactivity inwater and air effluents has been kept atlow levels-for the mest panrt small per-centages of the Part 20 limits. Resultant exposures to the public living In theimmediate vicinity of operating powerreactors have been small percentages ofFederal radiation protection guides.The Commission also noted that, ingeneral, the release of radioactivity ineflluents from nuclear power reactorsnow in operation have been within rangesthat may be considered
"as low as prac-ticable."
and that, as a result of advaTices in reactor technology, further redutUonof those releases can be achieved.
Theamendments to Part 50 published on De-cember 3. 1970, were intended to giveappropriate regulatory effect, with re-spect to radioactivity in effluents fromnuclear power reactors, to the qualitative guidance of the Federal Radiatiod Coun-cil that radiation doses should be kept"'s low as practicable".
The proposedguides set out below are Intended to pro-vide quantitative guidance to that endfor I ght-water-cooled nuclear powerreactors.
The proposed numerical uwdes arebased on present light-water-cooled nu-clear power reactor operating experience and state of technology (including recentimprovements).
In developing the guidesthe Commission has taken Into accountcomments and suggestions by represent- aUves of power reactor suppliers, elec-trical util-tles, architect-engineering firms, environmental and conservation groups and States in which nuclearpower reactors are located on the generalsubject of definitive guidance for nuclearpower reactors.
Meetings were held by theCbmmission with these groups in Janu-ary and February
1971. The participants in these meetings were provided an op-portunity, to express their views on theneed for more definitive guidance fordesign objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to keep radio-activity in effluents as low as prac-ticable:
whether the guidance shouldbe expressed in terms of waste treatment equipment requirements and perform-ance specifications or numerical criteriaon quantities and concentrations releasedto the environment;
and to suggest whatequipment or numerical criteria wouldbe appropriate at this time.Generally.
the participants favorednumerical criteria.
Views were expressed that the criteria should be derived frompotential doses to people or in the formof quantities andbconcentrations of radio-active material emitted to the environ-ment. Some opinions were expressed thatpresent technolog Oincluding recent im-provements)
is such that light-water- cooled nuclear power reactors can bedesigned to keep exposures to the publicin the offsite environment within a fewpercent of exposures from natural back-ground radiation.
The participanta also at'aeed the im-portance of oeperang flexibilty to takeinto account unu l condtions of opera-Lion which may, on a temporary basis.result in exposures higher than the fewpercent of natural backgrotnd radiation, but well within radiation proteotion guides. Recognition of the need for thisoperating flexibility Is currently stated inI 50.3fiatb).
The Commnisalon believes that the pro-posed guides for design objectives andlimiting conditions for operation forlight-water-cooled nuclear power reac-tors set out below provide a reasonable basis at the present time for implement- ing the principle that radioactive mate-rial In effluents released to unrestricted areas should be kept "as low as practi-cable." As noted In the amendments toPart 50 published on December
3, 1970."The term 'as low as practicable'
as usedin this part means as low as is practicably achievable taking into account the stateof technology, and the economies of im-provements in relr.tlon to benefits to thepublic health and safety and in relationto the utilization of atomic energy inthe public interest."
The Commission willcontinue to evaluate the appropriateness of these guides for light-water-cooled nu-clear power reactors in light of furtheroperating experience.
Under the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for establishing generally applicable en-vironmental radiation standards for theprotection of the general environment from radioactive materials.
The AEC isresponsible for the implementation andenforcement of EPA's generally ap-plicable environmental standards.
EPA has under consideration generally applicable environmental standards forthese types of power reactors.
AEC hasconsulted EPA in the development of theguides on design objectives and limitingconditions for operation set forth belowto control radioactivity in effluent re-leases. If the design objectives sod op-erating limits established herein Chouldprove to be incompatible with any gen-erally applicable environmental stand-ard hereafter established by EPA, theAEC will modify these objectives
-andlimits as necessary.
The proposed guides for design obJec-tives and limiting conditions for opera-tion for light-water-wooled nuclear powerreactors are consistpnt with the basicradiation protection standards andguides recommended by the Internatiroal Commission on Radiological Protection (ICIRP).
the National Cotmcil on Ra-diation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), and the Federal Radiation Council (FRC). (The functions of theFRC were transestsd to' the Environ-mental Protection Agency pursuant toReorganizaHion Plan Not 3 of 1970.)These standards form the basis for thef'ommlssion's regulation.
10 CPR Pr rt20, "Standards for Protection AgainstRadLaton,".
ru this regzad the NCRPed an Jpzuuy 26, 1971. the re-esm at NC(P Report Wo. 30, ,%seloRadiation Pioteatko Crktteia'%
TheIOMP noted Uzat a 10-yiar study by the"4100
Appendix
4. Proposed Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
Council has confirmed the validity ofmost of the basic radiation protection criteria presently used by governmental agencies to regulate the exposure of thepopulation and of radiation workers.
Thedose limits for Individual members ofthe public remain at 0.5 rem per yearand the yearly dose limit of 0.17 rem perperson averaged over the population isunchanged.
The.e limits are compatible with the limits and guides recommended by the ICRP and the, FT0 and applyto exposures from all sources otherthan medical procedures and naturalbackground.
The NCRP-1CRP-FRC
recommended limits and guides give appropriate con-sideration to the overall reqilirements ofhealth protection and the Iriieficial useof radiation and atomic energy. Anybiological effects that may occur at thelow levels of the limits and gijdes occurso infrequently that they cannot be de-tected with existing techniques.
Thestandards setting groups have added tothe numerical guidance the generaladmonition that all radiation exposureshould be held to lowest practicable level.This admonition takes into account thatgenerally applicable standnrds or rulesestablL'dted to cover many situations must necessarily be set at a higher levelthan may be justifled in any given indi-vidual situcation.
The acceptability of a given level ofexposure for a particular activity can bedetermined only by giving due regardto the reasons for pet %itting the ex-posure. This means that, within the basicstandards of FRC. NCRP, and ICRP, dif-ferent limitations on exposure levels areappropriato for various types of activities depending upon the circumstances.
Alevel that is practicable for one type ofactivity may not be practicable for a dif-ferent type of activity.
The proposed guides for design objec-tives and limitations on operations setforthebelow
%puld be specifically appli-cable to light-water-cooled nuclear powerreactors.
Light-water-cooled nuclearpower reactors are the only type of powerreactors that are being installed in rela-tively large numbers and on which thereis substantial operating experience In theUnited States, The guides would notnecessarily be appropriate for control-ing levels of radioactivity in effluents fromother. types of nuclear power reactors.
On the basis of present information onthe technology of these other types ofreactors, it is expected that releases ofradioactivity in effluents can generally bekept within the proposed guides forlight-water-cooled nuclear power reac-tors. The Commission plans to developnumerical guides on levels of radioac-tivity in efluents that may be considered as low as practicable for other types ofnuclear power reactors such as gas cooledand fast breeder reactors as adequate de-sign and operating experience is ac-quired. In the meantime, design objec-tives and technical specifications for lim-iting conditions for operation to carryout the purposes of 'keeping levels ofradioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as practicable will be speci-fied for otiher types of nuclear powerreactors on a case-by-case basis.Neither would the guides necessarily be appropriate for controlling levels ofradioactivity in effluents from other kindsof nuclear facilities such as fuel reproc-essing plants, fuel fabrication plants, orradioisotope processing plants where thedesign -haracteristics of the plant andnature of operations Involve different considerations.
The Commission is givingfurther consideration to appropriate amendments to its regulations to specifydesign objectives and limiting conditions for operation to minimize levels of radio-activlty released in the operation ofother types of licensed facilities such asreactor fuel reprocessing plants.E.xpected consequences of guides fordesign objectives.
The proposed guidesfor design objectives for light-water- cooled nuclear power reartors have beenselected primarily on thu basis that ex-isting technclngy makes it feasible todesign and operate light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors within the guides.The design objectives are expressed interms of guides for limiting the numberof quantiaes and for limiting concentra- tions of radioactive materials in effluents, It is expected that conformance with theguides on design objectives would achievethe following results:1. Provide reasonable assurance thatannual exposures to individuals livingnear the boundary of a site where one ormore light-water-cooled nuclear powerreactors are located, from radioactivity released in either liquid or gaseous efflu-ents from all such reactors, will gen-erally be less than about 5 percent ofaverage exposures from natural back-ground radiation.1 This level of exposureis about I percent of Federal radiation protection guides for individual membersof the public.2. Provide reasonable assurance thatannual exposures to sizeable population groups from radioactivity released ineither liquid or gaseous effluents from alllight-water-cooled nuclear power reac-tors on all sites in the United States forthe foreseeable future will generally beless than about I percent of exposures from natural background radiation.
Thislevel of exposure is also less than I per-cent of Federal radiation protection guides for the average population dose.These levels of exposure would be in-distinguishable from exposures due tovariation In natural background radia-tion, would not be measurable with exist-ing techniques.
and would be estimated from effluent data from nuclear powerplants by calculational techniques.
Theselevels of exposure are obviously very lowin comparison with the much higher ex-posures incurred by the public fromniatural background due to cosmic radia-tion, natural radioactivity in the bodyand In all materials with which peopleAverage exposures due to natural back-ground radiation In the United States areIn the range of I00-125 tillilrems per year.come into contact, air travel, and frommany activities commonly engaged in bythe public.Specific provLsons of guides for designobjeciers.
The proposed guides for radi-oactive materials in liquid effluents would specify limitations on annualtotal quantities of radioactive material, except tritium.
"nd annual average con-centrations of radioactive material Ileffluent.
prior to dilution In a naturalbody of water, released by each light-water-cooled nuclear )ower reactor at asite. The release of the concentrations and total quantity of radioactive mate-rial from a site at these levels is not likelyto result in exposures to the whole body3r any organ of an Individual in the off-site environment in excess of 5 millirenis.
In deriving the guides on design objec-tive quantities and concentrations, con-servative assumptions have been madeon dilution factors, physical, and biologi-cal concentration factors in the foodchain, dietary intakes and other per-tinent factors to relate quantities re-leased to exposures offsitc.The proposed guides foi design objec-tives for radioactive materials in gas-eous effluents would limit the total quan-tity of radioactive material relefsed fronta site to the offslte environment so thatannual average exposure rates due tonoble gases at any location on the bound-r.ry of the site or in the offsite environ-ment would not be likely to exceed 10millirems.
Annual average concentra- tions at any location on the boundary ofa site or in the offsite environment fromradioactive lodines or radioactive mate-rial in paxticulate form would be limitedto specified values.The proposed guides for design objec-tive concentrations specified for radio-active iodines or radioactive material Inparticulate form would include a reduc-tion factor of 100,000 for Part 20 con-centration values In air that would allowfor possible exposures from certain radi-oactive materials that may be concen-trated in the food chain. Resultant exposures to individuals offsite would notbe expected to exceed 5 millirems peryear. The reduction factor would includea 1.000 factor by which the maximumpermissible concentration of radioactive iodine in air should be reduced to allowfor the milk exposure pathway.
"'ltlsfactor of 1,000 has been derived for radio-active iodine, taking into account themilk pathway.
However, it has been ar-bitrarily applied to radionuclides ofiodinn and to all radionuclides in partic-ulate form with a half-life greater than8 days. The factor is not appropriate foriodine where milk is not a pathway ofexposure or for other radionuclides un-der any actual conditions of exposure.
The factor is highly conservative forradionuclides other than iodine and isapplied only because it appears feasibleto meet these very low levels. The speci-fied annual average exposure rates of 10millirems from noble gases and specified concentrations of radiolodines and par-ticulates at any location on the boundary101 Appendix
4. Proposed Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
of the site or in the offsite environment provide reasonable awurance that actualannual exposures to the whole body orany organ of an lndividyal member ofthe public will not exceed 5 milllrem..
The proposed guides for design oblec-tives would provide that an applicant for a permit to construct a light-water- cooled nuclear power.reactor at a par-ticular site could propose design obJec-tive quantities and concentrations.
ineffluents higher than Uiose specified inthe guides. The Commission would ap-prove the design objectives If the appli-cant provided reasonable assurance that,taking Into account the environmental characteristics of the site, the concentra- tions and total quantity of radioactive material released by all light-water- cooled nuclear power reactors at the sitein either liquid or gaseous efluents wouldnot result in actual exposures to thewhole body or any organ of an Individual In the offalte environment in excess of 5millireins per year.The proposed guides for design objec-tives. (expressed as quantities and con-centrations in emuents)
for light-water- cooled. nuclear power reactors aresufficiently conservative to provide rea-sonable assurance that, for mostlocations having environmental char-acteristics likely to be considered ac-ceptable by the Commission for a nuclearpower rc -.ctor site. Increases in radiation exposures to individual members of thepublic living- at the site boundary, dueto radioactive material In either liquid orgaseous effluents from operation of lighxt-water-cooled nuclear power reactors atthe site, will generally be less than 5millirems per year and average exposures to sizeable population groups will gen-erally be less than I millirem per year.Nevertheless, the guides provide that theCommission may specify, as design ob-Jectives, quantities and concentrations of radioactive material above backgrotmd In either liquid or gaseous effluents to bereleased to uwzestricted areas that arelower than the specified quantities andconcentrations if it appears that for aparticular site the specified quantities and concentrations are likely to result inannual exposures to an individual thatwould exceed 5 mlli ems.Conformance with the proposed guidesfor design objective quantities and conr-centrations in effluents would providereasonable assurance that the resultant whole body dose to the total populafon exposed would be les than about 400man-rein
' per Year per 1,000 megawatts electrical installed nuclear generating capacity at a site from radioactive mate-rial in liquid and gaseous effluents.
Av-I A useful measure of the total exposureof a large number of persons Is the man-rem.The exposure of any group of persons mens-ured in man-re-ms is the product ot the num.ber of persons In the group tim the avr ageexposure In reme of the mamber of theStoIp, Thus, it seeh .mai- at a popul.-tsiON of It M milluon peopl were exposedto 0.001 rem, (i millirem),
the total rma.remexposure would be 1,000 man-rem.erage exposures to large population groups would be less than 1 nllUrem peryear.Guides on technical specification.
lim-iting conditions for operation.
The pro-posed guidance would include provisions for developing technical specifications with respect to limiting conditions foroperation to control radioactivity in ef-fluents from llght-water-cooled nuclearpower reactors during normal operations.
The technical specifications would be In-cluded as conditions in operating li-censes. These provisions are designed toassure that reasonable efforts are madeto keep actual releases of radioactivity ineffluents during operation to levels thatare within the guides on design objective quantities and concentrations.
It is ex-pected that actual levels of radioactivity in efiluents will normally be within thedesign objective levels. It is necessary, however, that nuclear power reactors de-signed for generating electricity have ahigh degree of reliability.
Operating flex-ibility is needed to take into accountsome variation in the small quantities ofradioactivity that leak from fuel ele-ments which may, on a transient basis.result In levels of radioactivity in efflu-ents In excess of the design objective quantities and concentrations.
The proposed guidance would provideoperating flexibility and at the same timeassure a positive system of control, by agraded scale of action by the licensee, toreduce releases of radioactivity if rates ofrelease actually experienced, averagedover any calendar quarter, are such thatthe quantities or concentrations In efflu-ents would be likely to exceed twice thedesign objective quantities and concen-trations.
The proposed Appendix I wouldprovide that the Commission may takeappropriate action to assure that releaserates are reduced if rates of release ofquantities and concentrations in effluents actually experienced, averaged over anycalendar quarter, indicate that annualrates of release are likely to exceed isrange of 4-8 times the design objective quantities and concentrations.
Releaserates within this range would be expectedto keep the annual exposure rate to indi-viduals offsite within a range of 20-40ttnems per year during the quarterly period. In the proposed guidance on tech-nical specifications, provision would bemade for an appropriate period of timefor all licensees of light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to implement theguidance with respect to facilityoperation.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, and section 553 of title5 of the United States Code, nutice ishereby given that adoption of the follow-Ing amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 is con-templated.
All Interested persons whowish to msbmit oanmenta or auggestions in connection with the Proposed amend-ment should send them to the Secretary of the Commrlsslo.
U.S Atomic EnergyCommission, Washington.
D.C., 20545,Attention:
Chief, Public Proceedinag Branch, within 60 days after publication of this notice in the FZZZRAL REGIsTER.
Comments and suggestions received afterthat period will be considered if It is prac-ticable to do so, but assurance of con-sideation cannot be given except as tocomments filed within the period speci-fied, Copies of comments received may beexamined in the Commission's PublicDocument Room at 1717 H Street NW.,Washington.
D.C.1. Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50 Isamended by adding the following sen-tence at the end of paragraph (a) :§ 30.34a Design objeciives fur equip-msnt to control releases of radio-active materiul in e4rluenlo---nuclcur power reactors.
(a) I I
- The guides set out in Ap-pendix I provide numerical guidance ondesign objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the re-quirement that radioactive material Ineffluents released to unrestricted areas bekept "as low as practicable."
2. Section 50.36a of 10 CFR Part 50 isamended by adding the following sen-tence at the end of paragraph (b) :§ 50.36a Technical specifications on er-fluenis from nuclear power reactors.
(b) The guides set out in Ap-pendix I provide numerical guidance onlimiting conditions for operation forlight-water-cooled nuclear power re-actors to meet. the requirement thatradioactive materials in effluents releasedto unrestricted areas be kept "as low aspracticable."
3. A new Appendix I is added to readas follows:Arrsmnax T-NUMUICAL
OVgxoa Von DJraIGNOagZCTntl AND LiirrmNo o(oovmOs wsaiOPZAAATO
H To Mfi=r Tri Car'stom
"As LowAS PRAcnCMILZ"
VOR RIO31oACTSSU
LAM'rSALrN Ltoarr-WAza&-Cooro, NuCmA PowZaRxAcTon ErnLwevra SzcrtoN I. Introduction.
Section 50.34a(a)
provides that an application for a permit toconstruct a nuclear power reactor shall in-clude a description of the preliminary designof equipment to be installed to maintaincontrol over radioactive materials in gaseousand liquid emuents produced during normalreactor operations, including expected op-erational occurrences.
In the case of an ap-plioUtion filed on or After January 2, 1971, theapplication must also identify the designobjectives.
and the means to be employed.
for keeping levels of radioactive materialin effluents to unrestricted areas "as low aspracticable".
Section 50.lO6. contains provisions designedto assure that releases of radioactivity fromnuclear power reactors to unrestriated areasduring normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, are kept"as low as practicable".
This appendix provides numerical guid.ance on design objectives and limiting condi-tions for operation to asaet applicants for.and holders of, licenses for light-water- cooled nuclear power resctors in meeting'the requirement that radioaetive material inefluewt released frmn those fseitlties to un-restrieted Areas be kept "a low as pms.-tiale". This guidance is appropriate onlyfor light-water-eooled nuclear power reactorsand not for other types of nuclear facillties.
'4102 Appendix
4. Proposed Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
SEc. II. Guides on design objectires forlight-water-cooled nuclear power reactorslicensed under 10 CFR Part So. The guidesfor design objectives (expressed as quantities and conoentratlons of radioactve materialin effluents)
for light-water-cooled nuclearpower reactors specified in paragraphs A andIJ of this section are suficlently conservative to provide reasonable assurance that, formost locations having environmental char-acteristlcs likely to be considered acceptable by the Commission for a nuclear power re-actor site, resultant increases In radiation expcsures tn individual members of the pub-lie living at the site boundary, dud to opera-tiont of light-water-cooled nuclear power re-actors at the site, will generally be less than5 percent of exposures due to natural back-ground radiation and average exposures tosilzeible population groups will generally beless than I percent of exposures due to nat-ural background radiation.
The guides ondesign objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors set forth in para-graphs A and B of this section may be Usedby an applicant for a permit to construct a llight-water-cooled ruclear power rewctoras guidance in meeting the requirements ofI 50.34a(a)
that applications filed after Jan-tary 2. 107t. Identity the design objectives, and the means to be employed, for keepinglevels of radioactive material in effluents tounrestricted areas as low as practicable.For radioactive m.-terial above back-ground In liquid effluents to be released tounrestricted areas by each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor at a site:.I. The estimated annual total quantity ofradioactive mterlal, except tritium.
shouldnot exceed 5 curies; and2. The estimated annual average concen-tr&Uon of radioactive material prior to dilu-tion in a natural body of wa.er, except trtt-ism, should not exceed 0.00002 microcrie
(20 ploocturies)
per lilta; andS. The esttloated annual average concen-tratlon of tritium prior to dilution in a nat-ural body of water should not exceed 0.005mlrerocurle (s.0p0 picocuries)
per i:ter.B. For radlo.ictlve material above back-ground In gaseous effluents, the estimated total quantities Of radioactive material to bereleased to unrestricted areas by all light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors at a siteshould not result in:i. An annusl average exposure rate due tonoble goses at any location on the boundaryof the site or in the ofslte environment Inexcess of 10 mllIlrems:;
and2. Annual average concentrations at anylocation on the boundary of the aste or Inthe offAtte environment of radioactive lodines.or ,mddtoaetve material in Prt~culate formwith a half-life greater than 8 dais, in ex-oem of the coneentirsons In air specified inAppendi.x B, Table If, Column I, of 10 CFRPart 20. divided by 100,000.C. Notwithstanding the guidance in Para-graphs A and B above, design objectives, based on quantities and ooncentlatione ofradioactive material shove background ineMuents to be released to Unrestricted areas,a An exposure rate such that a hypothetical individual contlnuously present In the openat any location on the boundary of the siteor In the offslte environment would not In-cur a&enrnual exposure in exc-e of 6 mlli-rems.Thita neglects the reduction in theexposures to & real Individual that wouldbe afforded by the distanCe from the site which the Individual is loeated,shieldg provided by living indoors andpetioda e1 time the tIndtvidual in not prestin the area.higlier than Lhos, rpeclfled In those parn-graphs may be deemed to meet the require-ment for keeping levels of redioactive
=ao-tertal In efltuenit to unrestricted Areas as lowas practicable If the applicant provides rea-sonable asat.ance that:1. pof radioactive material above back-ground in liquid effluents to be released tounrestricted areas by all light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors at a site, the pro-poed higher qunntil.iea or coneentrations8 will not result In annual exposures to tihewhole body or any organ o1 an individual IIexcess of 5 millirems:
-and2. For radLoctlive noble gases and lodlilLes and radloactive kr.aterial in particulate formabove background In gansous eflluents to bereleased to unrestricted areas by all light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors at a site.the proposed higher quantities and concen-trations wtil no!. result tn Annual expokuires to the whole body or any organ of All indi-vldual in excess of 5 niflliremns.
Dr Notwithstanding the guidance in panM-graphs A. B, and C above, for a particular sitethe Commission may specify, as guldance oildesign objectives, lower qu.lttititis and con-centrationa of material abovebackground in effluents to be rele&%ed tl un-restricted areas If it appears that the use ofthe design objectives deecribed in thoGe para-graphs is likely to result In releases of totaln quantities of radioactive material from alllIght-water-cooled nuclear power reactors atthe alte that are eStimated to an An-nual exposure in excess of 5 miliLrems to thewhole body or any organ of an Individual inthe offeite environment from radioactive
" a-terial above background in either llqtti,,
orgaseous effluents.
SEc. III. Guides on technical specifLaftions for limiting conditions for operation forlight-water-cooled nuclear power reactorslicensed under 10 CFR Part 50. The Ftddes onlimiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors set forthbelow may be used by an applicant for alicense to operate a light-water-cooled nu-clear power reactor as guidance in develop-ing technical specifications under I 50.3ia(a)
to keep levels of radioactive materials In'For purposes of the guides in Appendix I.exposure of members of the public should beestimated from distributions In the envIron-ment of radioactive material released In efu-ents, For estimates of external exposure therem may be considered equivalent to the rad;and account should be taken of the aPpro-priate physical paraet-ers (energy of radia-tion, absorption coefficients, etc.. Estimates of internal dose commitment.
In terms ofthe common unit of dose equivalence (rem).should be generally consistent with the con-ventions or assumptions for cslcutlatlonal purposes moat recently pubuahed by the In-tornatlonal Commiesion on Radiological Pro-tectlon which apply directly to intakes ofradioactive material from air and water, andthose appljcable to water may be applied toIntakes from food. These conventiOns or a-gumptdons should be used for calculations ofdose equivalence except for exposures due tostrontium-89, strontfuln-90,
or radionu¢.lldee of Iodine. For those radionuclides the blologi-cal and physical a-umptions of FRC ReportNo. 2 should be used. It is assumed that an-nual average concentrations of radioactive iodine in the environment, as listed in Part20, Appendix B, Table Il, would result Inannual doses of 1.5 rems to the thyTroid aindthe concentration of stront-ium-89 or sirentiurn-90
would result in annual doses of 0.5rem to the bone. Exposure to the whole bodyshould be assessed as exposur.
to the gonadsor red bone marrow.eftluents to unrestricted areas as low asprscticable.
Section 50.30a(b)
provides that licensees shall be guided by cert&tn conalderattons inestablishing an F.tvnnomenting operating procodure"
that take into account the needfor operating flexibility while at the amnietime assure that the licensee will exert hisbest effort to keep levels of radioactive ma-tertal in effluents ts low as practicable.
Theguidance set forth below provides more spe-chfIc guida.nce to iiceiuseeu In this re..pecl.
In using the guides set forth in section'IV It Is expected that it should generally be feasible to keep average annual releasesof radioActive niatcrial il effluents frontIlght-water-cooled nuclear power renclorwithin the levels set forth as numerlcal guides for design objectives In section iiabove. At the saame time, the lirensee is per-mitted the flexlbility of operation, conmpatible with considerAtLions of health And safety, toassure that the public Is provided a depend-able rource of po0wer even under utusu:aloperating conditions which nmay temporarily result In releases higher than such numerical guides for design objectives, but still Withini-veis tentt assure that actual tothe pUblic are small fractions of naltiralbackground radiation.
It is expected that utusing this operational flexibility under tun-usual operating conditions, the Il'ensee willexert his beat efforts to keep levels of rnidl)-active material in effluentst wit' in the nu-merical guides for design objectives.
SEc. TV, Gu:des for limiting conditions foropcration for light-urafer-cooled nuclearpower reactors.
A. If rates of release of radio-Active materials In effluents from liglht-water-cooled nuclear power reactors actuallyexperienced, avernged over any calendarquarter, are such that the estimated anntalquantities or concentrations of radioactive material in effluents are likely to exceedtwice the desIgn objective quantities andconcentrations set forth in section If above,the licernee should:I. make an investigation to Identify thecauses for such release rates; and2. define and Initiate a program of actionto reduce such release rates to the designlevels; and3. report these actions to the Commislson on a timely basis.B. If rates of release of radioactive ma-terial In liquid or gaseous effluents actuallyexperienced, averaged over any calendarquarter, are such that estimated annualquantities or concentrations of radioactive material in effluents are likely to exceed arange of 4-8 times the design objective quantitles and concentrations set forth Insection TI above.6 the Commission will takeappropriate action to assure that such re-lease rates ere reduced.
(Section
50,360(a)
(2) requires the licensee to submit certainreports to the Commission with regard to thequantities of the principal radionuelides r-eleased to unrestricted areas. It also pro-vides that, on the basis of such reports andany additional information the Conuntsslon may obtain from the licenene and others,the commission may from time to timerequire the licensee to take Such ac~lon asthe Commission deems appropriate.)
C. The guides for limiting conditions foroperation described In paragraphs A and Dof this section are applicable to technical
' Release ;%tes within thou range would beexpected to keep the annual exposure rateto individuals offalte within a range of 20-40 mnrems per year during this quarterly period.I103 rAppendix
4. Proposed Appendix Ilof 10 CFR Part 50 (Continued)
epecificatUona Includcd In any license au-thornzing operation of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor constructed pursuantto a construction permit for which applica-tion was fied on or Mter January 2, 1971.Fotr lght-water-cooled nuclear power reactorsL constructed pursuant to a construction per-mit for which application was filed prior toJanuary 2, 1971, appropriate technical
&peel.ficaUtons should be developed to carry outthe purpom of keeping levels of rs~dilontlve material In effluents to unrestricted aremas low as practicable.
In any event, all holdersof licenses authorizing operation of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reoactor ehould,after (36 months from effective date of thisguide). develop technical specifications Inconformity with the guides of this Section.(Sec. 161, 08 Brat. 948: 42 UA.B. 2201)Dated at Weahlngton.
D.C., this 4thday of June 1971.For the Atomic Energy Commission, W. B. MCCOOL,Secrctary of the Commission.
IFit Doc.71-8049 Ilied 0-8-71:8:51 amn141044