NUREG-1300

.~~~~~~~a a . . ";I....................................................................

Envi *on ydOw for the review of a fibenm. application for a

Low-LevaI Radioactive Waste

Disposal FacilityEnvironmenta! RSepbrt

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Coimmission

'Offico of Nuclear Matiaial Safe tyand, Safeguards

April 1987 7 . I

I . .

.. I. ,- :'

.. .- .
.. IMlUJa--

NOTICE

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

Most documents.cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082,

Washington, DC 20013-7082

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications,

it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection

and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices;

Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and

licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales

Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and

NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of

Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series

reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic

Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items,

such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and

state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference

proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request

to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process

are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available

there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be

purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the

American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
NUREG-1300

Environmental Standard Review Plan

for the review of a license application for a

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility

Environmental Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

April 1987

* .. .
CONTENTS AND STATUS SHEET

Issued

ESRP Revision month/year

ABSTRACT ................... .0 4/87

CONTENTS AND STATUS SHEET . .0 4/87

PREFACE. 0 4/87

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . 4/87

1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Purpose and Need .......................... 0 4/87

1.2 Scoping Process .......... ................. 0 4/87

1.3 Status of Required Permits and Approvals 0.. 4/87

2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Description of the Proposed Action .... 0.... 4/87

2.1.1 Location .................................... 0 4/87

2.1.2 Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal

Units, and Design Features ...... .......... 0 4/87

2.1.3 Waste Disposal Operations ...... ........... 0 4/87

2.1.4 Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance 0 4/87

2.1.5 Site Closure and Stabilization ..... ....... 0 4/87

2.1.6 Institutional Controls ....... ............. 0 4/87

2.1.7 Financial Assurances ....... ................ 0 4/87

2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 0....... 4/87

2.2.1 Alternative of No Action ................. 0. 0 4/87

2.2.2 Alternative Sites ......... ................ 0 4/87

2.2.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal

Units, and Design Features ................ 0 4/87

2.2.4 Alternative Plans for Site Closure and

Stabilization . ......... 0.......... 0 4/87

2.2.5 Summary Alternatives for-Detailed

Consideration . 0 4/87

2.3 Staff Assessment of Alternatives and

Recommendations.. 0 4/87

Rev. 0 - April 1987
:lif

Issued

ESRP Revision month/year

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Land ...................................... 0 4/87

3.1.1 Population Distribution and Characteristics 0 4/87 3.1.2 Current and Projected Land Use ..... ....... 0 4/87

3.2 Meteorology and Air Quality ..... .......... 0 4/87

3.2.1 Meteorology ............ ................... 0 4/87 3.2.2 Ambient Air Quality ....... ................ 0 4/87

3.3 Ambient Radiation Levels ...... ............ a 4/87 3.4 Hydrology ............... .................. 0 4/87

3.4.1 Surface Water ........... .................. 0 4/87

3.4.1.1 Surface Water Regime ....... ............... 0 4/87 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality ....... .............. 0 4/87 3.4.1.3 Surface Water Use ........ ................. 0 4/87

3.4.2 Groundwater ............ ................... 0 4/87

3.4.2.1 Groundwater Regime ........ ................ 0 4/87 3.4.2.2. Groundwater Quality ................. ;0 4/87 3.4.2.3 Groundwater Use ......... .................. 0 4/87

3.5 Geology . .................................. 0 4/87

3.5.1 Geology . .................................. 0 4/87 3.5.2 Soils ..................................... 0 4/87 3.5.3 Seismic Characteristics ...... ............. 0 4/87 3.5.4 Mineral Resources ........ ................. 0 4/87

3.6 Ecology . .................................. 0 4/87

3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology ....... ................ 0 4/87 3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology ......... .................. 0 4/87

3.7 Socioeconomics .......... .................. 0 4/87

3.7.1 Labor Force and Employment ..... ........... 0 4/87. 3.7.2 Infrastructure Characteristics ..... ....... 0 4/87 3.7.3 Tax Base and Revenues ....... .............. 0 4/87 3.7.4 Sociocultural Characteristics ..... ........ 0 4/87

3.8 Cultural Resources ..... .......... 0........ 4/87

I:

I

Ii7

I

i

i

I!

I!

I

vi Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.3.1

4.3.2

4.4

4.4.1

4.4.2

4.5

4.5.1

4.5.2

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.8.1

4.8.2

4.8.3

4.9

4.9.1

4.9.2

4.9.3

4.9.4

4.9.5

4.10

4.11

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING

ACTIONS

Land .............. Meteorology and Air Quality ...............

Hydrology .................................

Surface Water Hydrology ...................

Groundwater Hydrology .....................

Geology ...................................

Soils .....................................

Mineral Resources ..........................

Ecology ...................................

Terrestrial Ecosystem .....................

Appendix A - Construction Activities of

Recognized Good Practice ..................

Aquatic Ecosystem .........................

Socioeconomics ............................ Cultural Resources ........................

Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment ..

Pathways Analysis .........................

Appendix A - Generic Release and Transport

Scenarios .................................

Dose to Man ...............................

Dose to Biota Other Than Man ..............

Impacts of Accidents .......................

Waste Spillage ............................

Fire and/or Chemical Reactions ............

Transportation Accidents ..................

Nuclear Criticality .......................

Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents .......

Relationships to Land-Use Plans, Policies,

and Controls ..............................

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental

Impacts ....................................

Revision

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Issued

month/year

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87.

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

4/87

vii Rev. 0 - April 1987
Inn

- .416_

Issued

ESRP Revision month/year

4.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources ............ .................. 0 4/87

4.13 Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the

Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement

of Long-Term Productivity ...... ........... 0 4/87

. .i. Rev. 0 - April 1987
PREFACE

This document,'_Environmental Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License

Application for-a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," was prepared

by the staff of the U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory'Commission'(NRC), Office of

Nuclear'Material'Safety and Safeguards, Division' of Waste'Management. :.The

individual environmental standard review plans.(ESRPs)I'that.imake up this'

document constitute a series of instructions for the'staff to utilize in'.the

conductbof environmental reviews of-'applications for'new low-level,.radioactive

wasthe'dis'posal:facilities (LLRWDFs)>' The composite ESRP is intended to serve

three purposes:'' ' '*'

(1) 'to provide guidance ttothe NRC staff

(2)''to ensure-that.licensing decisions made by-NRC conform to the'National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

(3) to meet NRC's responsibilities under'Section 9 of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Pblicy'Ame idmerits Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA)

The preparation of this document is especially timely. Because of.the passage

of'the LLRWPAA and its pr'edecessor' the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy'Act

of 1980,' the 'States and regional'compacts formed by the'.States have undertaken

considerable activity aimed at the development and eventual operation of new

low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. An applicant for a license is

required by Part 51 of TitleI10 of the'"Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 51)

to submit an environmental report (ER). This ER will serve as,-the basis'for an

environmental statement to be prepared by'NRC as part of the licensing process.

Use of the ESRPs in this document by the NRC staff will ensure the following:

(1) Data essential to a 'specific'environmental review and subsequent decisionmaking process will be supplied'and reviewed.

(2) Appropriate consideration',including coordination and consultationi, will

be given'to otheriFeder-al and State requirements applicable to a particular environmental review.

(3) The analysis and evaluation'"procedures for review of a given area are

standardized, thus achieving uniformity of approach.

*(4) Each impact assessment will`concentiatedon the review of those potential

environmental'imfpacts of significance, and analysis of irrelevant data or

of insignificant-imnacts will 'be minimized.-

(5) The analysis methods ?tb bbeused`-and staff judgments ''a're objective and

based on sound analytical 'procedures. The ESRPs ha ve been prepared for

an'environmental statement thaVwill embrace the range of environmental

factors and conditions expected for'the majority of LLRWMFapplications.

ix Rev. 0 - April 1987
III

It is recognized that conditions will occur from time to time that will

not fall within the ESRPs that are included in this document. The plans

have been prepared to permit the inclusion of such conditions in the environmental review.

This document has been prepared with due regard for the NRC's obligations

under NEPA and any applicable interpretations ofthat Act, including the Commission's Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions under 10 CFR 51. These regulations were revised

in 1984 to reflect the Commission's adoption of the Council. on Environmental

Quality's (CEQ's) 1978 regulations implementing NEPA. -The CEQ regulations and

NRC's conforming 10 CFR 51 reflect a significant departure from past agency

practice in the content and preparation of environmental statements. The organization of this document closely follows the. format for an environmental

statement (shown at the end of this preface) included in the revised 10 CFR 51.

Each ESRP includes applicable references to related Federal agency regula-

'tions, guidelines, or acts that will affect the staff's environmental review.

Provisions have been made for periodic revisions of these plans to respond

to future regulations', guidelines', or acts 'affecting NRC's environmental review procedures. Comments and suggestions for improving this document, as

well as notices of errors or omissions, should he sent to George C. Pangburn,

Division of Waste Management, Office'of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Each ESRP includes a section describing the data or information required to

complete the environmental review specified by that plan. The contents of

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental Reports

for Near-Surface Disposal'of Radioactive Waste," were considered in the preparation of each ESRP, but were not a constraint in developing the data or information requirements. Thus, the'overall data and information requirements

of these ESRPs are not necessarily consistent with the guidance provided in

Regulatory Guide 4.18.

The NRC staff anticipates the preparation of a revised version of Regulatory

Guide 4.18 that will accurately reflect the ESRP requirements for data and

information to be supplied in an applicant's ER. During the period before the

preparation of this revision, the review procedures outlined in each ESRP will

be followed. Some latitude in the form of data and information requirements

will be allowed, reflecting NRC's understanding of the need for a transition

period.

The following instructions, applicable to most of the ESRPs, are provided here

to avoid repetition in each plan:

(1) As an initial step in each environmental review, the reviewer is expected

to develop an understanding of the entire project as proposed by the applicant. The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that. reviewers

place their individual reviews in perspective in relation to the overall

project and concentrate their efforts on issues of substance. This general project review is to be conducted as the first step of the overall

environmental review process and is to be completed before requests for

additional information are developed.

i

i

I

I

I

I

I

1

i

if

iI:

I

I .:

i

I

I

x Rev. 0 - April 1987
(2) With very few exceptions, the reviews of a given ER are conducted in parallel, and, therefore, the completed results of reviews performed under

related plans may not be available to a reviewer before that reviewer

initiates the individual environmental review.

(3) Although each ESRP represents a discrete segment of the NRC's overall environmental review, no review can be completed without some interrelation

with related reviews as well as with the entire project. All reviewers

are instructed to maintain close communication with other reviewers

throughout the review procedure. The NRC Environmental Project Manager,

who is the central point of contact for all reviewers, will usually initiate contacts with outside groups and must be informed of all such

contacts.

(4) Each reviewer is expected to seek out and be aware of any related technical analyses and assessments ini areas of concurrent jurisdiction, such as

air and water quality and'aquatic impacts. Particular attention should

be given to those analyses and assessments prepared under provisions of

memoranda of understanding between the NRC and other Federal or State

agencies. When so directed by such memoranda,'the reviewer will participate with Federal and State officials in the development of the impact

assessments under the relevant ESRPs.'-Working through the Environmental

Project Manager, the reviewer will be responsible *for resolving any differences between staff analyses and'analyses of other agencies. When

such resolution is not possible, the reviewer will ensure that all viewpoints are addressed in the environmental statement or that the specific

provisions of the relevant memoranda of understanding have been followed.

(5) Where an analysis procedure, as outlined in an ESRP, has been conducted

by an applicant and reported in'the applicant's'ER,-the reviewer need not

repeat the analysis. However, the applicant's work should be evaluated

in sufficient depth to permit verification of the analysis and its

results.

(6) Each reviewer will maintain complete documentation of contacts with

outside agencies, organizations, and individuals.

(7) The analysis procedure for many of the ESRPs directs the reviewer to

consult with the applicant or request: additional'information in certain

specified circumstances. hAll consultation' or requests will be made

through the NRC Environmental Project Manager, using appropriate NRC

management procedures.

(8) Those sections of the environmental statementithat contain recommendations to the NRC decisionmaker shall reflect the-results of a consensus

among the reviewers, and the Environmental Project Manager shall have the

authority to resolve disagreements between reviewers'so as' to arrive at a

recommendation. Development of recommendations will involve input from

reviewers, the Environmental Project Manager, and those other reviewers

that would be affected by the recommendation:

The environmental statement (ES)'should'contain the 'following elements:

xi Rev. 0 - April 1987
liii. -I'-

Front Matter

* Summary

* Table of Contents

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Purpose and Need

1.2 Scoping Process

1.3 Status of Required Permits and Approvals

2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Description of the Proposed Action

2.1.1 Location

2.1.2 Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal

Units, and Design Features

2.1.3 Waste Disposal Operations

2.1.4 Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance

2.1.5 Site Closure and Stabilization

2.1.6 Institutional Controls

2.1.7 Financial Assurances

2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

2.2.1 Alternative of No Action

2.2.2 Alternative Sites

2.2.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features

2.2.4 Alternative Plans for Site Closure and Stabilization

2.2.5 Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration

2.3 Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Land

3.1.1 Population Distribution and Characteristics

3.1.2 Current and Projected Land Use

3.2 Meteorology and Air Quality

3.2.1 Meteorology

3.2.2 Ambient Air Quality

3.3 Ambient.Radiation Levels

3.4 Hydrology

3.4.1 Surface Water

3.4.1.1 Surface Water Regime

3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

3.4.1.3 Surface Water Use

xii Rev. 0 - April 1987
3.4.2 Groundwater

3.4.2.1 Groundwater Regime

3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality

3.4.2.3 Groundwater Use

3.5 Geology

3.5.1 Geology . 3.5.2 Soils

3.5.3 Seismic Characteristics

3.5.4 Mineral Resources

3.6 Ecology

3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology

3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology

3.7 Socioeconomics

3.7.1 Labor Force and Employment

3.7.2 Infrastructure Characteristics

3.7.3 Tax Base and Revenues

3.7.4 Sociocultural Characteristics

3.8 Cultural Resources

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS

4.1 Land

4.2 Meteorology and Air Quality

4.3 Hydrology

4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

4.4 Geology

4.4.1 Soils

4.4.2 Mineral Resources

4.5 Ecology

4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

4.5.2 Aquatic Ecosystem

4.6 Socioeconomics

4.7 Cultural Resources

4.8 Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment

4.8.1 Pathways Analysis

4.8.2 Dose to Man

4.8.3 Dose to Biota Other Than Man

I .ii. Rev. 0 - April 1987
I ITTE J... l

4.9 Impacts of Accidents

4.9.1 Waste Spillage

4.9.2 Fire and/or Chemical Reactions

4.9.3 Transportation Accidents

4.9.4 Nuclear Criticality

4.9.5 Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents

4.10 Relationships to Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

4.11 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

4.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

4.13 Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

5 LIST OF PREPARERS

6 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE

STATEMENT ARE SENT (final ES only)

7 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED AND STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (final ES

only)

Appendices (if any)

xiv Rev. 0 - April 1987
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Environmental Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1300) for the review of license

applications for low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities was prepared

by the staff of the Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, under the direction of George Pangburn. The following

members of the staff and management were contributors to the document:

Engineering Branch Geotechnical Branch

Joel Hunt

Banad Jagannath

Joseph Kane

Robert Neel

LeRoy Person

Gary Roles

Michael Tokar

Li Yang

Charlotte Abrams

Paul Bembia

Lynn Deering

Myron Fliegel

Jonathan Forstrom

Joel Grimm

Abou-Bakr Ibrahim

Keith McConnell

John Trapp

Low-Level Waste and Uranium

Recovery Projects Branch

George Pangburn

R. John Starmer

Jeffrey Tuttle

Special thanks are due to the Editorial Section, specifically Mary Mejac who

edited this document, the Electronics Text Processing Branch, and the

secretarial staff of the Division of Waste Management.

xv Rev. 0 - April 1987
ABSTRACT

The Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NUREG-1300) provides guidance

to staff reviewers in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards who

perform environmental reviews of environmental reports prepared by applicants

in support of license applications to construct and operate new low-level

radioactive waste disposal facilities. The individual ESRPs that constitute

this document identify the information considered necessary to conduct the review, the purpose and scope of the review, the analysis procedure and evaluation, the formal input to the environmental statement, and the references considered appropriate for each review. The ESRP is intended to ensure quality

and uniformity of approach in individual reviews as well as compliance with

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In addition, the ESRP will

make information about the environmental component of the licensing process

more readily available and thereby will serve to improve the understanding of

this process among the public, States and regional compacts, and the regulated

community.

iii Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulato Commission

< Office of Nuclear Matera Safety and Safeguards

-LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING.PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 1.1

PURPOSE AND NEED , I. , ' _

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s). -

* 10, "Purpose of and Need for Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with regional compacts and State agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant regarding the proposed action, its purpose, and the

need that led the applicant to apply for a license to dispose of low-level

radioactive waste. The staff will review the information on the types,

sources, and quantities of radioactive waste to be disposed of; current waste

disposal methods; continued availability of current waste disposal methods;

and any other information deemed important.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will (1) verify that the information adequately describes the purpose of and need for the proposed action; (2) confirm the applicant's data on

projected sources, volumes, and types of waste; and (3) verify any additional

information that supports the case for the proposed action.

4. EVALUATION

On the basis of the analysis of the information, the staff will be able to

independently confirm the purpose of and need for the proposed near-surface

disposal facility. This evaluation will be critical to the staff assessment

of alternatives to be provided in Section 2 of the ES.

' 1. 1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
14.

ESRP 1.1 Purpose And Need

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 1.1, "Purpose and Need," of the ES. In addition, the staff will provide pertinent information to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

* 2.2.1, "Alternative of No Action"

* 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

* 4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

1. 1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
It A NUREG-13D0

I -, i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

%,v Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 1.2

SCOPING PROCESS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to'perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* None

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Staff summary of determinations and conclusions of the scoping process

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the scoping process in accordance with 10 CFR 51.28. and 51.29. In this section of the ES,

the staff will set forth the scope of the ES, the significant issues to be

analyzed in depth in the ES, and other information that will bound the Commission's environmental review of the proposed action.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The material to be reviewed is informational in nature, and a detailed technical analysis is not required. The staff will use the information in the

staff summary of determinations and conclusions of the scoping process to

provide a focus for the ES.

4. EVALUATION

This section is largely descriptive in n'ature, and, therefore, it is the

staff's responsibility to ensure that the results of the scoping process as

identified in the aforementioned staff summary are accurately reflected in

the ES.

1.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I WE

.. qp

ESRP 1.2 Scoping Process

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 1.2, "Scoping Process," of the ES. This section will describe the depth of analysis and degree of emphasis for various

subject areas and will directly affect the contents and structure of the remainder of the ES.

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

1.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
/Oftl NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN'1.3

STATUS OF REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review, under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

v 9.0, "Statusof Compliance"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Stand rd(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Control of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal'of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The'purpose of this' ESRP is to direct the staff's identification and assessment of'environmentally 'related authorizations required by local, regional,

State, and Federal agencies as a prerequisite to licensingor.granting of a

permit for a near-surface disposal. facility.. The scope'of the review will

consist of the identification of those agencies and authorizations that deal

with environmental issues. This will include (1) determination of status,

(2) identification of environmental concerns, and (3) potential administrative

problems that could delay or prevent agency authorization. The results of.

this environmental review will. be' used by' the staff reviewers responsible',for

the remainder of the ES to help identify areas of., environmental concern and

determine applicant compliance with-existing standards'and regulations.

Information needed for the staff's' review will u's'ually- include the f6llowing:

(1) name of each related authorization, including the responsible agency and

the applicable law,,ordinance,,orregulation.(from the ER)

(2) principal''environmental factors to be covered by the authorization (from

the ER)

1. 3^1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
fi TT

ESRP 1.3 Status of Required Permits and Approvals

(3) date of application/initiation and scheduled date of issuance of each

authorization (from the ER and consultation with local, State, and

Federal agencies)

(4) current status of each authorization (from consultation with local,

State, and Federal agencies)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The basic listing and status of authorizations can be obtained from the applicant's ER. The staff reviewers responsible for other sections of the ES will

be consulted to determine if there are other authorizations not listed in the

applicant's ER that should be added to this list. As part of this consultation, the staff will determine which authorizations pertain to environmental

concerns. For each environmentally related authorization, the staff will

establish the following:

(1) current status of each authorization

(2) environmental concerns of the authorizing agency that are to be addressed

by the staff reviewers responsible for the relevant ES sections

(3) potential problems that may affect granting of the authorization

(4) administrative requirements of the authorizing agencies

4. EVALUATION

The staff will evaluate the list of authorizations to ensure that (1) it is

correct, (2) the environmental concerns of the authorizing agency have been

identified, (3) the potential problems that may affect granting of the authorization have been identified, and (4) these concerns and potential problems

are being considered by the staff'reviewers responsible for the relevant ES

sections. The staff will ensure that the status of each environmentally related authorization is current, and will contact the responsible agency for

this information when it has not been determined by other staff reviewers.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 1.3, "Status of Required Permits and

Approvals," of the ES. In addition, the staff will provide descriptions of

those authorizations-that pertain to environmental issues to the staff reviewers responsible for other ES sections and will identify any potential

problems that should be considered by those staff reviewers.

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

1.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
w.....

NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 2.1.1

ESRP 2.1.2

ESRP

ESRP

ESRP

ESRP

ESRP

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

2.1.6

2.1.7

Location

Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features

Waste Disposal Operations

Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance

Site Closure and Stabilization

Institutional Controls

Financial Assurances

2. 1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
i. " NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclar Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.1.1

LOCATION

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1, "Geography and Demography"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to request for additional information

* Site visit

2.; PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's description of the geographical location of the applicant's preferred site. The scope of the review will

consist of a description of the geography in sufficient detail in order to

orient the reader and to establish a geographical point of reference for other

descriptive material (e.g., land and water use and ecology).

Information needed for the staff's review will usually include the following:

(1) site location: State, county, latitude and longitude, and universal

transverse Mercator coordinates (from the ER)

(2) area of the site (from the ER)

(3) distance and direction from the nearest major city, nearby towns and

readily recognized landmarks, and nearby major highways, rivers, and

other bodies of water (from the ER and.site visit)

2.1.1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I-_11_

ESRP 2.1.1 Location

(4) for geographical orientation, simplified maps centered on the site: one

general map with a radius of approximately 50 kilometers and a second map with a radius of approximately 10 kilometers (from the ER)

(5) a topographic map of the site and environs (from the ER)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Because this section will be used primarily for orientation purposes, the

necessary information usually can be obtained from the applicant's ER. The

staff will visit the site to verify that important features have been noted.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will establish whether the descriptive information clearly and concisely orients the reader with regard to the location of the preferred site.

The staff will verify both by site visit and by independent review of geo- graphical information that the descriptive information is correct and

complete.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.1.1, "Location," of the ES. This section will briefly and clearly orient the reader with regard to the site location

and will be a source of background information for the staff reviewers respon- sible for Section 3 of the ES.

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2.1i.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
id > NUREG-13D . U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.1.2

DESCRIPTION OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES, DISPOSAL UNITS,

AND DESIGN FEATURES

1. REVIEW INPUT -

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 4.2,1"Facility Description"

4.3, "Support Facilities"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s) ;

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's concise description of disposal facilities, disposal units, 'and design features at the applicaht's preferred site. The scope of the review will consist of (1) the general layout

of the applicant's preferred site; (2)' the type, number, and location of disposal units; (3) the design features that are designed to provide long-term

isolation of disposed waste; (4) improvement of the site'sinatural characteristics for achieving the goal of prbtecting public health and safety; and

(5) utility systems,'access roads, railroads, and'auxiliary buildings. The

staff may reference applicable`sections of the staff's safety'evaluation report (SER), which will provide more detail.

Information needed for-the-staff's review'will usually include the following

and should be accompanied by-an appropriate scaled map or drawings and submitted with other references:

(1) description of site boundary, buffer zones, disposal units, location of

buildings, surface features, and restricted area

2. 1. 2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
[Ilia

-m_

ESRP 2.1.2 Facilities, Disposal Units, Design Features

(1) description and location of site boundary, buffer zones, disposal units,

buildings, surface features, and restricted area

(2) description of site utility supplies and systems

(3) description of equipment to be used for construction and for the placement of waste into the disposal units

(4) description of the design features that are required to ensure the longterm performance objective

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will verify that the information is sufficient to support the assessment in the EIS. The detailed analysis and evaluation of the design and

construction of the proposed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility and

the capability of the facility to meet the performance objectives of Subpart C

to 10 CFR 61 will be presented in the staff's SER.

The staff will ensure that the applicant's description of facilities, buildings, and equipment to be used for construction and for the placement of waste

into the disposal units is adequate. The site boundary, buffer zones, disposal units, buildings, surface features, restricted area, and site utility

supplies and systems as well as roadways and parking area should be shown on

an appropriate scaled map or drawings.

The staff will ensure that the applicant's descriptions of the design features

of the land disposal facility and disposal units related to the following

functions are sufficient for the purposes of the ES:

(1) minimize infiltration of water into disposal units

(2) ensure the integrity of disposal unit covers

(3) ensure the structural stability of backfill wastes and covers

(4) minimize contact of waste with standing water

(5) provide adequate site drainage during operations and after closure

(6) facilitate site closure and stabilization

(7) minimize the need for long-term maintenance

(8) provide a barrier against inadvertent intrusion

(9) maintain occupational exposures as low as is reasonably achievable

(10) provide adequate monitoring of the disposal site

(11) provide an adequate buffer zone for monitoring and carrying out potential

mitigative actions, in accordance with 10 CFR 61.12(c).

The staff will ensure that the applicant's construction plans, including excavation, backfilling, and compaction methods and procedures, measures for directing water away from the disposal areas and waterproof techniques required

to enhance and improve the ability of the natural site characteristics to confine the waste after disposal, are complete.

Finally, the staff will review and evaluate the applicant's description of

auxiliary buildings and facilities, such as the administration building,

2.1. 2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 2. 1.2 Facilities, Disposal Units, Design Features

storage and waste handling building, decontamination area for equipment, and

surface storage and protection of excavated materials.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will verify that sufficient information pertaining to disposal facilities, disposal units, and design features has been provided in the ER to

satisfy the requirements and guidance of Regulatory Guide 4.18. The information should be adequate so that it can serve as the basis for assessing and

determining potential visual and esthetic effects on the surrounding environment. The staff then will determine the extent to which esthetics were considered in integrating the proposed disposal facility with the surrounding

environment.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.1.2, "Description of Disposal Facilities,

Disposal Units, and Design Features," of the ES. In addition, the staff will

provide pertinent information to the staff reviewers responsible for the

following ES sections:

2.2.3, "Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

* 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2. 1. 2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
: NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.1.3

WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 4.2, "Facility Description"

* 4.3, "Support Facilities"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard&Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpo'se of this ESRP is to direct'the staff's concise.description of the

waste disposal 'operaations to be carried out at the applicant's preferred site.

The scope of the review will consist 'of'(1) the receipt, handling, inspection,

and emplacement of the low-level waste into the disposal unit excavation;

(2) the operations to minimize the development of void spaces between waste

containers; (3) the procedures for.filling the void spaces between placed

waste packages; (4) the procedures for-placing and compacting fill cover and

engineering material s.over the waste during the operational phase; (5) the

procedures for'locating and'marking disposal unit boundaries;' and (6) the

provision of a buffer zone around the disposal facility to reserve an area if

it should be necessary to take mitigative measures.;.

Information needed for the `staff'sreview 'will include the following:

(1) description of measures` for exam'ining", surveying, 'and inspecting arriving

waste shipments for compliance 'with applicable regulations on transporta

tion and proper labeling and classification of waste'contents

2. 1.3-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
"IT.M -IL_

ESRP 2.1.3 Waste Disposal Operations

(2) description of procedures for handling, segregating, and temporarily

storing the waste

(3) description of waste emplacement equipment and operations that allow

waste package integrity to be maintained and worker exposure to be

minimized

(4) description of operations to minimize and of materials to backfill void

spaces between waste containers (e.g., stacking arrangement for containers; engineering properties of backfill material such as quality,

durability, gradation, placement moisture, density, permeability, compressibility, and thermal, chemical, and radiological effects on backfill

materials resulting from environmental conditions existing in disposal

unit)

(5) description of materials to be placed as shielding over the emplaced

waste up to the top of the individual disposal unit excavations (type(s)

of materials, quality, durability, thickness(es), strength, placement

moisture and compaction density requirements, permeability, compressibility, erosion resistance, and radiation attenuation properties, and

thermal, chemical, and radiological effects on proposed materials)

(6) description of the procedures for locating, marking, surveying, and

accurately recording the locations and boundaries of backfilled disposal

units

(7) description of the plans for reserving a sufficiently sized buffer zone

within the facility areal boundary that would permit mitigative measures

(e.g., elimination or control of contaminated leachate) to be taken, if

required

The applicant should provide the above information in Section 2.0 of the ER;

however, Section 4.0 of the applicant's safety analysis report (SAR) would

provide similar information in greater detail, which the staff may refer to in

its environmental review when assessing the completeness and acceptability of

this information. NUREG-1200 provides guidance on the information to be provided in the SAR on waste disposal operations.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will verify that the information adequately describes the waste disposal operations for the proposed low-level waste disposal facility. This information will be used by the staff in its assessment of the environmental

effects of the proposed disposal facility described in Section 5.0 of the ER.

The staff's analysis of the information on waste disposal operations will be

closely coordinated with that of the information provided by the applicant in

Sections 2.1 and 3.0 of the ER. The purpose of this coordination is to verify

that the applicant's descriptions of the waste disposal operations reviewed

under this ESRP are consistent with the information provided in the following

ER sections: (1) Section 2.1.2 with respect to the layout and design features

of the disposal units; (2) Section 2.1.4 with respect to the instrumentation

2. 1.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 2.1.3 

Waste Disposal Operations

2.1.3 Waste Disposal Operations

and procedures to be used in surveillance and monitoring for surface water infiltration, groundwater movement, and settlement.of the disposal units that

would reflect the performance of the cover materials placed over the waste;

(3) Section 2.1.5 with respect to the cover materials placed over the waste

containers and the satisfactory performance of these materials in relation

to the long-term stability aspects of the site closure plan; and (4) Sections 3.4 and 3.5 with regard to the information on site characteristics and

the description of disposal unit excavations, backfill materials, and groundwater conditions.

On the basis of its review of the information in the ER and SAR, the staff may

request that the applicant supply additional information if the information

provided by the applicant is not adequate.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will verify and ensure that sufficient descriptive information on

the waste disposal operations has been provided to permit an assessment of the

environmental effects of the proposed disposal facility (Section 5.0 of the

ER).

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.1.3, "Waste Disposal Operations," of the ES.

In addition, the staff will verify the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 2.1.4,

2.1.5, and 3 as it pertains to proposed waste disposal operations and their

effect on design features, environmental monitoring and surveillance requirements, site closure and stabilization plans, and hydrologic and geologic

considerations of the disposal unit excavations.

6. REFERENCES

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1200, "Standard Review Plan for the

Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Facility," January 1987.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

2.1.3-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.f hI N UREG-1300.

U. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

f ice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.1.4

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 8.1, "Preoperationai Environmental Programs"

8.2, "Operational Monitoring"

* 8.3, "Postoperational Monitoring"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.2, "Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* NUREG-1200, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application

for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Sections 4.1 and

4.2 of Standard Review Plan 2.9

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultations with State (or regional) compacts and State agencies

* "Draft Technical Position Paper - Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level

Waste Disposal Facilities," Division of Waste Management, to be published

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the design of the

applicant's environmental monitoring and surveillance program. The scope of

the review will consist of the instrumentation,-schedules,.techniques, and

procedures for environmental monitoring and surveillance of the preferred site

and its environs. Special care must be.taken.to critically examine potential

exposure pathways on the basis of the baseline data (ecological, meteorological, climatic, hydrological; geological, geochemical, and seismic) obtained

from the applicant's field measurements during the.'preoperational-phase.

Information needed for the staff's review will usually include the following:

2. 1. 4-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
HIMT -_II

ESRP 2.1.4 Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance

(1) kinds of samples collected, frequency of collection, and locations of

each sample (a map that identifies each location as a function of direction, elevation, and distance from the proposed site is required)

(2) description of the types of equipment used for sample collection, the

methods used for calibration, and the frequency of calibration

(3) kinds of analyses to be performed on each sample, the lower limit of detection for each type of analysis, the frequency of analysis for each

sample, and the quality assurance program for the assay program

(4) statistical basis to be used for comparing the baseline measurements with

the corresponding measurements during the operational, closure, and postclosure observation periods of the site

(5) summary of information regarding background radiological and nonradiological characteristics of the site considered in the design of the

monitoring program in a format acceptable to the NRC staff

(6) descriptive program of the proposed surveillance of the disposal site

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will determine if the statistical techniques proposed by the applicant are sufficiently sensitive so that significant differences can be detected between values monitored during the preoperational phase and their

corresponding values measured during the operational and postoperational

phases.

To ensure that significant environmental effects can readily be detected, the

design of the applicant's proposed environmental monitoring program will

be reviewed against the design criteria given in "Draft Technical Position

Paper - Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities" prepared by the Division of Waste Management. The staff will coordinate this

review with that of the staff reviewer responsible for assessing the plan in

the SER.

The staff will ensure that the program will include both radiological and nonradiological constituents to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance

with existing local, State, and Federal standards.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will evaluate the proposed environmental monitoring and surveillance

program to ensure that the applicant has provided sufficient data for the

evaluation of significant future environmental effects resulting from the

shallow-land burial of waste at the proposed site. The staff will also compare the program with the guidance contained in "Draft Technical Position

Paper - Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities."

2. 1.4-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 2.1.4 Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance

ESRP 2.1.4 Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance," of the ES. This section will contain a concise description of the

environmental monitoring and surveillance program proposed by the applicant

for the site construction, operational, and postoperational periods.

6. REFERENCES

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1200, "Standard Review Plan for the

Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Facility," January 1987.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

.2. 1.4-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
\ N UREG-1300. Ls!I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commison fOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

- LOW-LEVEL-WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.1.5

SITE CLOSURE AND STABILIZATION

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to'perform its-review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1.2, "Site Description"

* 4.2.1, "Principal Features"

* 4.2.2, "Site Utilization Plan"

* 4.3.2, "Excavated Materials Area"

* 5.1.3, "Facility.Closure Activities Effects"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Followina ESRP(s)

.2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

10 CFR 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste" s

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of-Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposali of Radioactive.Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State,:and Federal agencies

Responses to requests for additional information

Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of.this ESRP is to direct the staff'.s review.and description of

the site closure and stabilization aspects of the low-level waste disposal

facility proposed by.the applicant., .The scope.of this review will consist of

a determination that the information provided is sufficiently detailed to

enable an evaluation of the-environmental consequences resulting from the.

proposed action.

Information needed for thestaff's review will.usually include the-following:

(1) details on decommissioning, decontamination, and dismantling proposed as

part of site closure

2. 1.5-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I1TEM

ESRP 2.1.5 Site Closure and Stabilization

(2) details on the site stabilization aspects of site closure such as trench

caps, overall site cover and its grading, stability of all natural and

engineered slopes of dikes and ditches at the site, surface drainage, and

erosion protection features

(3) details on proposals for postclosure environmental monitoring and surveillance program

The applicant should provide the above information in Section 2.0 of the ER.

However, Section 5.0 of the safety analysis report (SAR) will contain the site

closure and stabilization information for the proposed facility. The-staff

may refer to this information, although it may be more detailed than is necessary for the environmental review.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will verify that the information adequately describes the site closure and stabilization aspects of the proposed facility. This information

will be used to perform the environmental consequences analyses addressed in

ESRP 4. The information needed to describe the site closure and stabilization

aspects of a facility consists of (1) a description of the decommissioning,

decontamination, and dismantling operations associated with site closure,

(2) a description of the engineering details of site closure and stabilization, and (3) a description of the environmental monitoring and surveillance

associated with site closure.

The description of the decommissioning, decontamination, and dismantling

aspects of site closure should include information on how the applicant intends to decommission the facility - moth balling, inplace entombment, removal

and disposal off site, or a combination of these. Although the decommissioning plan is a dynamic document that is likely to be revised on the basis of

operational experience, the plan presented with the ER should provide information on the final method of decontaminating and decommissioning the disposal

facility and disposal site, the decontamination survey of the facility and

site, estimates of the decontamination waste and plans for final disposal of

decontamination waste, soil contamination survey at the site, estimate of

radiation exposure during the decommissioning phase, and other detailed information needed for the environmental consequences analyses.

The description of the engineering details of the site closure and stabilization plan should provide the following information: (1) details of cap or

cover for individual disposal excavation units; (2) overall cover on all disposal excavations at the site; (3) engineering details of overall site grading

and vegetative or rubble cover; (4) engineering details of ditches, drains,

embankments, engineered or natural slopes, and slope protection features

(riprap or revetment, etc.) that are permanent features of the site; and

(5) fence and other intruder barrier features that have been proposed as permanent features of site closure and site stabilization. The level of detail

should be adequate so that the staff can perform an environmental consequences

analysis.

2. 1.5-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.ESRP 2.1. 5 Site Closure and Stabilization

ESRP 2.1.5 Site Closure and Stabilization

The procedure to verify the adequacy of the description of the environmental

monitoring and surveillance program features of the site closure operations

is given in ESRP.2.1.4.

If the information on the above items in the ER and the SAR is not adequate,

the staff will request that the applicant provide appropriate additional

information.

4. EVALUATION

On the basis of the analysis of the information conducted under this ESRP, the

staff should be able to independently confirm that the description in the ER

of the site closure and stabilization plan proposed for the facility is adequate to enable an analysis of. the environmental consequences of the proposed

action.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.1.5, "Site Closure and Stabilization," of the

ES. The information in this section will be used to assess the environmental

consequences of the proposed action.

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and

Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2. 1.5-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- - -

r NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\Y -Ofice 6f Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PLAN 2.1.6

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this SRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

.7.3, "Relationship.Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity

of Man's Environment"

8.3, "Postoperational Monitoring"

* 9.0, "Status of Compliance"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.1.5, "Site Closure and Stabilization"

* 2.1.7, "Financial Assurances"'

* 2.2.4, "Alternative Plans for-Site Closure and Stabilization"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Branch Technical Position, -"Funding Assurances for Closure, Post-Closure

and Long-Term Care"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State, or Federal.agencies controlling land

ownership .

Responses to requests for additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct thestaff's,,review and description of

current plans for the eventual institutional control of-the disposal site.

Institutional control of a "closed"-disposal site is required for up to

100 years following license transfer (10 CFR 61.7(b)(4)). It is necessary,

therefore, that the licensee's closure arrangements provide assurance that

2. 1. 6-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
MMIt 1. ..I"

ESRP 2.1.6 Institutional Controls

agreements are in place between the licensee and the government landowner who

will ensure long-term custodial care of the low-level waste disposal site.

The applicant will submit certification that the proposed facility is on land

owned by the Federal or State Government and that said entity is prepared to

provide custodial care when the license is transferred. Additionally, the

applicant will describe its responsibilities to authorities other than the

primary custodial agency (i.e., NRC, Federal, State, or local authorities).

It is anticipated that much of the information relevant to an evaluation of

institutional control arrangements will already have been provided by the

applicant in the safety analysis report. If such is the case, the information

may be incorporated by reference in the ES.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The material to be reviewed is primarily informational in nature, and a detailed technical analysis is not required. The applicant, however, should

provide a concise and complete documentable summary of institutional control

arrangements for the postclosure period. The applicant should clearly acknowledge its responsibilities under the various codes, statutes, and regulations

of both State and Federal authorities. Certification of such responsibilities

should be verifiable and legally binding.

The staff will review material of a legal nature for completeness and then

forward it to the Office of General Counsel for detailed legal interpretation.

Authorities referenced in the ER will be contacted and asked to verify information pertinent to their legal control of the applicant.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will verify all information pertaining to institutional control of

the disposal site. The information must be sufficient to allow the staff to

prepare an adequate description of institutional controls and time frames for

inclusion in the ES.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.1.6, "Institutional Controls," of the ES. In

addition, the staff will provide pertinent information to the staff reviewer

responsible for the following ES section:

* 2.1.7, "Financial Assurances"

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Branch Technical Position, "Funding Assurances for Closure, Post-Closure and Long-Term Care," December 1982.

2. 1.6-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 2. 1.6 Institutional Controls

ESRP 2.1.6 Institutional Controls

---, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

2.1.6-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- \ NUREG-1300

a ) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commlsson

\'!E/ Office of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.1.7

FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 1.0, "Purpose of and Need for Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard-Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal-of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Responses to requests for additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and concise description of the financial assurance mechanism proposed by the applicant for disposal site closure, stabilization, and institutional care. The scope of this

review will be limited to a description of the mechanism as reviewed by the

staff for the safety evaluation report (SER).

Information needed for the staff's review will be affected by site-specific

factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following information will

usually be needed:

(1) description of the mechanism proposed by the applicant as financial

assurance (i.e., surety bonds, cash deposits, certificates of deposit,

deposits of government securities, escrow accounts, irrevocable letters

or lines of credit, trust funds, or other combinations of the above or

such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the Commission)

(2) description of the basis for the amounts in the proposed financial assurance mechanism

2.1.7-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
"Ii.M _-R

ESRP 2.1.7 Financial Assurances

(3) identification of the term of the surety mechanism and provisions for review and increase by the applicant to reflect inflation, changes in site

engineering plans, etc.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will consult with the Project Manager responsible for the SER review

to determine if the staff found that the financial assurance mechanism is adequate, and if not, what modifications have been discussed or proposed by the

staff. The staff will not conduct a separate analysis or finding, but will

ensure that the financial assurance discussion in the ES agrees with the review findings of the SER.

4. EVALUATION

This section is largely descriptive in nature, and, therefore, it is the

staff's responsibility to ensure that the description of the financial assurance mechanism as reviewed by the staff during the SER review process is

accurate.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.1.7, "Financial Assurances," of the ES. This

section will describe the financial assurance mechanism proposed by the applicant for site closure, stabilization, and institutional care.

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2. 1.7-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
', NUREG3-1300 , W") U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\ / Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.2

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP

ESRP

ESRP

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.2.3

Alternative of No Action

Alternative Sites

Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features

Alternative Plans for Site Closure and Stabilization

Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration

ESRP 2.2.4

ESRP 2.2.5

2. 2- l Rev. 0 - April 1987
. N UREG-1300

U.S.NuclearRegulator Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 222.1

ALTERNATIVE OF NO ACTION

1. REVIEW. INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 1.0, "Purpose of and Need for _Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 1.1, "Purpose and Need"

* 1.2, "Scoping Process"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface .Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Staff summary of determinations and conclusions of the scoping process

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the alternative of

no action. The scope of this review will consist of the identification of the

no action alternative and the consequences of that alternative. In addition

to the information generated in Section 1.2, "Purpose and Need," and Section 1.2, "Scoping Process," of the ES, the staff will consider the following

types and kinds of information:

(1) legal and/or other constraints on the continued use of existing disposal

facilities

(2) volume reduction or waste-minimization techniques that might eliminate

the need for a new low-level waste disposal facility

(3) options for low-level waste disposal absent the availability of new disposal capacity including the impacts associated with such options

I -; 2. 2. I- 1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I ITTE

ESRP 2.2.1 Alternative of No Action

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

In addition to the analyses documented in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the ES, the

staff will independently verify the information provided by the applicant relevant to this alternative. Additionally, the staff will explore the consequences of no action in sufficient depth to ensure that the requirements of

10 CFR 51 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are met. The

analysis will be more informational than technical in nature and should assist

in bounding the no action alternative for consideration by the decisionmaker.

4. EVALUATION

On the basis of the analysis of the information conducted under this ESRP,

the staff should be able to demonstrate that the requirements of 10 CFR 51 and

NEPA with respect to the no action alternative are met. This evaluation will

be critical to the assessments in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.3 as well as subsequent

sections of the ES.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.2.1, "Alternative of No Action," of the ES.

In addition, the staff will provide pertinent information to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

* 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2. 2.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
t - X INUREGD 1300 -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.2.2

i ALTERNATIVE SITES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.1, "Siting Alternatives"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 1.1, "Purpose and Need"

2.1.1, "Location"

2.2.1, "Alternative of No Action"!.

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Draft Regulatory Guide, "Guidance for Selecting Sites for Near-Surface

Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste"

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and assessment of the

applicant's evaluation of alternative sites in selecting a proposed site for

near-surface disposal of radioactive waste. The scope of the review will

consist of the following considerations:

(1) whether the region of interest was of sufficient size to allow an evaluation of a reasonable number of candidate areas with the potential for

different environmental impacts

(2) whether the candidate areas selected in the region of interest reflect a

sufficiently broad range of environmental characteristics to ensure that

* sites identified from within the candidate areas provide an acceptable

range of potential environmental impacts

2.2. 2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
HTTE

ESRP 2.2.2 Alternative Sites

(3) whether the candidate sites are among the best that could reasonably be

found and whether they meet the site suitability requirements of

10 CFR 61

By taking into account the considerations noted above, the staff will be able

to ensure that the alternative sites that will be given detailed consideration

in the ES (including the applicant's preferred site) are environmentally

acceptable and potentially licenseable.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by casespecific factors, and the degree of detail may be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential

impacts. Information needed for the staff's review will usually include the

following:

(1) basis for the selection of the region of interest

(2) description and maps of the region of interest

(3) description of the methodology for selecting candidate areas within the

region of interest as well as identification of the areas themselves

(4) description of the methodology for selecting candidate sites from the

candidate areas as well as identification of the candidate sites

themselves

(5) basis for the applicant's selection of a preferred site from among the

candidate sites

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The objective of the analysis procedure is to ensure that the candidate sites

(from which the applicant has selected a preferred site) are among the best

that could reasonably be found. The staff will examine the process, the factors, and the criteria that the applicant used to select the candidate sites

and will use the following general procedure:

(1) Identify the region of interest, within which the site selection process

was conducted.

(2) Within the region of interest, identify major diverse environmental qualities that would lead to consideration of sites with differing environmental impacts. Such qualities would include

(a) major physiographic units

(b) hydrologic regime

(c) climatic regime

(d) general land cover or ecosystem

(3) Identify any constraints on the applicant's siting options with respect

to the region of interest (i.e., regional compact agreements; host-State

designation; and other legal, political, institutional, or economic

constraints).

2. 2.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 2.2.2 Alternative Sites

ESRP 2.2.2 Alternative Sites

(4) Review the candidate areas identified by the applicant within the region

of interest to ensure that they reflect-a sufficiently broad range of

environmental characteristics and that there-are no fatal flaws'associated with them.

(5) Review the applicant's process for identifying, within the candidate

areas, candidate sites that are potentially licenseable, capable of being

developed, and otherwise appropriate for evaluation by the staff. The

staff will ensure that the applicant has considered the site suitability

criteria of 10 CFR 61.50 as well as environmental factors such as compliance with existing standards, land use, critical habitats, cultural resources, and socioeconomics.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will make the following findings based on the procedure identified

above:

(1) The region of interest selected by the applicant is of sufficent size and

environmental diversity so.that candidate areas selected from within it

will reflect a thorough consideration of alternatives.

(2) The candidate areas selected reflect the diversity of the region of interest (i.e., act as a representative cross-section of environmental

characteristics) and have no fatal flaws associated with them.

(3) The candidate sites selected from the candidate areas are potentially

licenseable, capable of being developed, and otherwise appropriate for

evaluation by the staff.

On the basis of the above findings, the staff will be able to determine

whether the candidate sites are among the best that could reasonably be found.

If the staff is able to make this determination, it will use these candidate

sites in the process described in ESRP 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for

Detailed Consideration."

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites," of the ES. This

section will contain an analysis of the process used by the applicant in

selecting candidate or alternative sites (including the applicant's preferred

site) to ensure that the alternative sites, which the staff will assess, are

among the best that could be found. The staff will prepare a summary documenting the analysis, supported by maps and tables as appropriate.

In addition, the staff will provide the following information or ensure that

it has been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES

section:

2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration" - the alternative sites that will be used in constructing the summary alternatives or

cases for analysis in the ES

2. 2.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

V

ESRP 2.2.2 Alternative Sites

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Regulatory Guide, "Guidance for

Selecting Sites for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste," March 1987.

--- , Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

I

I

1!

I

1:

1!

i

Ii

iIi

I i:

ti

i

I':

i

I;

i

i

iI:

I;

I':

I

2.2.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
V \ NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.2.3'

ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL FACILITIES,' DISPOSAL UNITS, AND DESIGN FEATURES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

3.1.1, "Site Location"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* .None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* None

Other

None

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's evaluation of alternatives

to the proposed design. The scope of the review will consist-of the identification of possible alternative designs considered by.the applicant and an

evaluation of the suitability.of these-designs for-the proposed site. The

staff -will screen alternative disposal facility designs, alternative disposal

unit designs, and alternative design features to eliminate designs or design

features that would result in adverse environmental effects and therefore are

obviously unsuitable for the proposed site. Alternatives that pass this

level of review will be used for the evaluation under ESRP 2.2.5.

Information needed for.the staff's review.will usually include the following:

(1) identification of alternative disposal facility designs, alternative

disposal unit designs, and/or alternative design features considered by

the applicants -

(2) conceptual descriptions of each alternative

(3) reasons why the alternative designs considered by the applicant were

found to be unsuitable or descriptions of the alternative to the' level

of detail required for the evaluation under ESRP 2.2.5

2.2. 3-1I Rev. 0 - April 1987
I Il 1-W

ESRP 2.2.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will evaluate the alternative designs proposed by the applicant to

ensure that each alternative design contains the essential design features as

stated in ESRP 2.1.2. The staff will also ensure that the applicant has considered the following guidelines in its discussion of alternative designs:

(1) Information pertaining to the proposed alternative designs should be

obtained by means of a formal study that considers all relevant factors

and provides the rationale and documentation for supporting the complex

alternative designs.

(2) Realistic alternative designs should be analyzed in terms of economic,

environmental, and public health and safety factors to show why the proposed alternative designs are compatible with the proposed designs at the

applicant's preferred site.

(3) The applicant's assessment of proposed alternative designs should be

based on the summary of benefits and costs of each alternative pertaining

to disposal facility design, disposal unit design, facility construction,

and waste disposal operation. -

(4) If the applicant determines that the proposed alternative designs are

inferior to the proposed design, the applicant should discuss the reasons

why the considered alternative designs are not suitable.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that each alternative design considered has been

described in sufficient detail to enable the staff to make an effective

assessment and comparison of environmental effects. For those alternative

designs eliminated from consideration, the staff will ensure that the justification for this decision has been adequately documented. Alternative

designs determined to be environmentally preferable or equivalent to the proposed action will be considered in Section 2.2.5 of the ES. This evaluation

will be integrated with the review under ESRPs 2.1.2 and 2.2.5.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.2.3, "Alternative Disposal Facilities, Oisposal Units, and Design Features," of the ES. In addition, the staff will

provide pertinent information to the staff reviewers responsible for the

following ES sections:

2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2. 2.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
* d NUREG-1300

* s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.2.4

ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR SITE CLOSURE AND STABILIZATION

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

3.1.2, "Site Description"

* 4.2.1, "Principal Features"

4.2.2, "Site Utilization Plan"

* 4.3.2, "Excavated Materials Area"

* 5.1.3, "Facility Closure Activities Effects"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.1.5, "Site Closure and Stablization"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* 10 CFR 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive

Waste"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal *of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of alternative site

closure and stabilization plans considered by the applicant in deciding on the

proposed action for the low-level waste disposal facility. The scope of the

review will consist of a determination that the information provided is adequately detailed so that the staff can perform a comparative evaluation of the

environmental consequences resulting from the proposed action. Information

needed for the staff's evaluation of the alternative plans for site closure

and stabilization of the facility is similar to that in ESRP 2.1.5. However,

the level of detail should be sufficient so that the staff can judge the relative merits of the environmental consequences of the alternative plans for

site closure and stabilization of the facility.

2.2.4-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
1II1MI'.-_

ESRP 2.2.4 Alternative Plans for Site Closure

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will verify that the information adequately describes the alternative plans for site closure and stabilization that were considered and evaluated by the applicant for the proposed facility. The information needed to

describe these alternative plans includes (1) a description of alternative

proposals for the decontamination and decommissioning operations associated

with site closure, (2) a description of the engineering details of the alternative concepts for site closure and stabilization, and (3) a description of

the environmental monitoring and surveillance program for the alternative site

closure plans.

The information needed to describe the site closure and stabilization activity

for the preferred alternative is given in ESRP 2.1.5. The information on the

alternative plans for site closure and stabilization is similar to that in

ESRP 2.1.5, but the level of detail may be appropriately simplified so that

the staff can perform a comparative evaluation of the environmental consequences of the proposed action.

If the information on the alternative plans is not adequate to enable a

comparative evaluation, the staff will request that the applicant provide

appropriate additional information.

4. EVALUATION

On the basis of the analysis of the information conducted under this ESRP, the

staff should be able to independently confirm that the description of the alternative site closure and stabilization plans considered by the applicant is

adequate to enable the staff to perform a comparative analysis of the environmental consequences of these alternative plans.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.2.4, "Alternative Plans for Site Closure and

Stabilization," of the ES. The information in this section will be used to

assess the environmental consequences of site closure and stabilization for

these alternative plans.

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2.2.4-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
%\ NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.2.5

SUMMARY ALTERNATIVES:.FOR DETAILED CONSIDERATION

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under-the Following ESRP(s)

* 1.2, "Scoping Process"

* 2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.1.2, "Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

* 2.1.3, "Waste Disposal Operations"

* 2.1.,5, "Site Closure and Stabilization"

* 2.2.1, "Alternative of No Action"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

* 2.2.3, "Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

2.2.4, "Alternative Plans for Site Closure and Stabilization"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Staff summary of determinations'and conclusions of the scoping process

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and selection of alternatives to be given detailed consideration in the ES. The scope of this

2.2.5-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I ItTqp

ESRP 2.2.5 Summary Alternatives

review will consist of the alternatives proposed by the applicant, alternatives identified in the scoping process, and any additional alternatives considered necessary or appropriate by the staff to meet the Commission's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and 10 CFR 51.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by casespecific factors, and the degree of detail may be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. Information needed for the review will usually include the

following:

(1) identification and description of the alternative sites (including

the applicant's preferred site) considered by the applicant (from ES

Section 2.2.2)

(2) identification and description of alternative disposal facilities, disposal units, and design features (from ES Section 2.2.3)

(3) identification and description of alternative plans for site closure and

stabilization (from ES Section 2.2.4)

(4) identification and description of additional alternatives developed as a

result of the scoping process or the staff's initial review of the applicant's proposal.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will evaluate the information identified above and, on the basis of

that information, will develop the alternatives to be given detailed consideration in the ES. At a minimum, the staff, in the ES, will consider the comparative environmental impacts of the alternative of no action, the applicant's preferred alternative, and at least two other site/design alternatives

to ensure that a sufficiently broad range of environmental impacts has been

evaluated. The staff will use the following general procedure in conducting

this review:

(1) Alternatives eliminated from detailed consideration in previous ES sections will be described in summary form, and the reasons for their elimination will be stated.

(2) The staff will construct alternative cases or scenarios based on those

reasonable alternatives remaining, and those cases will form the basis

for environmental descriptions and impact analysis in the ES.

(3) Reasonable alternatives will not be excluded from consideration solely

because they are not within NRC's jurisdiction.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the alternatives to be given detailed consideration

are (1) are technically feasible, (2) are reasonably available, and (3) reflect potentially different environmental impacts. The staff will also ensure

that no alternative that meets these criteria is excluded from consideration.

2. 2.5-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 2.2.5 Summary Alternatives

ESRP 2.2.5 Summary Alternatives

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration," of the ES. This section will set forth the alternative cases or

scenarios to be considered in Sections 3 and 4 of the ES and ultimately evaluated in Section 2.3.

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

2.2.5-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
r*/ \ -NUREG-1300

7 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 2.3

STAFF ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s) ,

* 2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

* 5.0, "Environmental Effects of Proposed Facility"

* 6.0, "Environmental-Effects of Accidents"

* 7.0, "Summary Evaluation of Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.1, "Description of the Proposed Action"

2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed-Action"

* 4, "Environmental Consequences and-Mitigating Actions"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

None

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's summary assessment of the

environmental consequences of alternatives and the development of a preliminary recommendation on the action to be taken. The scope of the review will

consist-of both qualitative-and quantitative impact measures as well as staff

recommendations for environmental license conditions.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by casespecific factors, ard the degree of detaillmay beimodified'according to the

results of the scoping process and-the enticipated magnitude of the potential

impacts. Information needed for the review will usually include thefollowing

for each alternative case:

(1) summary description of direct and indirect unavoidable adverse impacts,

quantified wherever possible (from ES Section 4.11)

2. 3-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I IHE

-W_

ESRP 2.3 Assessment

(2) summary description of direct and indirect, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, quantified wherever possible (from ES

Section 4.12)

(3) description of mitigating measures deemed necessary by the staff

(4) summary costs associated with the alternatives

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will assemble and evaluate the measures of impact associated with

the alternatives subjected to detailed consideration in making a recommendation for licensing action. The staff will focus the analysis on those areas

determined to be of major concern in performing the overall impact analysis.

Minor issues accordingly will be given minor consideration. To the extent

possible, the staff should attempt to summarize the potential impacts and

benefits of the alternatives in tabular form so that they can be compared

easily. In developing the rationale for a licensing recommendation, the staff

will follow the general philosophy stated in the supplementary information for

NRC's Revised 10 CFR 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic

Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions and Related Conforming Amendments,"

published in the Federal Register on March 12, 1984 at pp 9352-56. This

philosophy, although directed primarily at the environmental review of nuclear

power plants, also applies to the environmental review of near-surface radioactive waste disposal facilities. The staff should try to identify first those

alternatives that are environmentally inferior to the applicant's preferred

alternative. Those alternatives may be dismissed with only sufficient narrative to justify why they were found to be inferior to the preferred alternative. Should the remaining alternatives be found to be environmentally equivalent to the preferred alternative, the staff should recommend the latter with

such conditions as it finds necessary.

However, if one or more alternatives are determined to be environmentally

preferable to the preferred alternative, the staff will have to make a detailed and reasoned comparative evaluation of impacts to arrive at a licensing recommendation.

The determination of environmentally inferior, equivalent, or preferable is

highly case specific. However, the following types of adverse impacts can be

used as examples that could result in a particular alternative being found

environmentally inferior to another:

(1) elimination of critical habitat for one or more endangered species

(2) loss of extensive archaeological resources

(3) significantly higher dose levels to the nearest resident

(4) permanent removal from'productivity of prime or unique farmlands

(5) unmitigated project-generated demands on local infrastructure components

These examples are illustrative only and represent extreme impacts in several

environmental categories. The staff may also find that the cumulative effect

of several individually less severe impacts could result in a finding of

environmental inferiority relative to the applicant's preferred alternative.

2. 3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 2. 3 Assessment

ESRP 2.3 Assessment

4. EVALUATION

The staff will consider the individual and cumulative impacts of the alternatives relative to the preferred alternative and will make a finding on the

environmental acceptability of each. In each case the applicant's proposal

with such mitigative measures as are deemed necessary will serve as the basis

for comparison. Alternatives will be classified as either (1) environmentally

inferior, (2) environmentally equivalent, or (3) environmentally preferable to

the applicant's proposal.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and

Recommendations," of the ES. This section will be the focus of the information and analyses presented in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the ES and will result

in a licensing recommendation by the staff.

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Environmental Protection Regulations for

Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions and Related Conforming

Admendments," Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 49, pp. 9352-56, May 12, 1984.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

2. 3-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- - -

,t XNUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.1

LAND

This.ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.1.1 Population Distribution and Characteristics

ESRP 3.1.2 Current and Projected Land Use

3. 1-1 Rev. 0 - April 198.
NUREG-1300

{X2. U.S. Nuclear Regulato CommlISon \ / cOffice of Nuclear MeI Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.1.1

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND CHARACTERISTICS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental.Repol-t Section(s)

3.1.3, "Population.Distribution" 7

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* .Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local,!State,-and Federal agencies

Responses to requests for additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's analysis of population

distribution within a 10-kilometer radius of the applicant's preferred site

and the alternativesiselected fnr;-detaild consideration. This-review should

-be in nydetailed to provide input-to pathway.analyses and accident

nalesor or socioeconomc anayss. The scope o the

review will consist of verificaion tpopulation atsEi1bution and characteristics for each alternative at the time the application was submitted and

projections to date of initial operations and by decennial census over the

facility's estimated operational lifetime..

The information needed for the.staff's review will be affected-,by sitespecific considerations at-eachialternative, and the degree of detail

will be modified according.to:the results of-the.scoping process and the

anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. Population data-should be

based on the current decennial census data and, where available, more recent

census'data and projections. -Information needed for the review for.each

alternative will-usually:ifnclude the following:

(1) On a map of suitable scale that identifies places of significant population grouping, such as cities and towns within a 10-kilometer radius,

-3. 1.1-1 Rev. 0 - April 198;
[ili

ESRP 3.1.1 Population

concentric circles should be drawn (with the site at the center point)

at distances of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 kilometers. The circles should be

divided into 22h1⁄2 sectors with each sector centered on 1 of the 16 compass points (with reference to true north, e.g., north-northeast and

northeast). A table appropriately keyed to the map should provide the

current residential and transient populations within each area for

(a) the expected first year of facility operation and (b) for decennial

census years through the operational lifetime of the facility. The

tables should provide population totals for each sector and annular ring

and a total for the 0- to 10-kilometer enclosed population. The basis

for population projections should be described (from the ER).

(2) Distance and direction to nearest residence (from the ER).

(3) Location and size of towns with populations greater than 10,000 within

a 50-kilometer radius (from the ER).

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will prepare population distribution charts Yor each alternative

that provide population data for both permanent and transient populations as

they exist currently, at the time of facility startup, and for census years

during the operational life of the facility. The staff's analysis of the data

will consist of the following:

(1) a review of all data used to update the basic decennial census data

(2) a review of the methods used to establish population data within a

10-kilometer radius of each alternative

(3) a review of the applicant's methods/sources for population projections

4. EVALUATION

The staff will establish that the population distribution data are adequate to

assess the comparative radiological impacts of alternatives and to support the

assessment of socioeconomic factors and impacts of these alternatives.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.1.1, "Population Distribution and Characteristics," of the ES. This section will summarize the staff's review of the

demographic characteristics of the alternatives and will provide a brief

narrative description of such characteristics including any unique population factors such as high transient population (daily or seasonal) or new

communities.

In addition, the staff will provide the following pertinent information or

ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the

following ES sections:

3.1.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.

ESRP 3.1.1 Population

* 3.7.2, "Infrastructure Characteristics" - population forecast data

* 4.6., "Socioeconomics" - community distribution and population forecast

data

* 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis" - population forecast data

* 4.9, "Impacts of Accidents" - population forecast data

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3.1.1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
N IYNUREG-1300

'~Pg A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\,Z}l/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.1.2

CURRENTVAND.PROJECTED'LAND USE

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1.1, "Site Location"

3.1.2, "Site Description"-

* 3.1.4, "Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by th'e applicant and the staff's-concise description of. current and

future land-use conditions for 'each' alternative identified in Section 2.2.5 of

the ES. The scope of the review will consist of the establishment of current

land uses at the alternative sites' and in their vicinity and projected future

land uses that might be affected or modified as a result of the construction,

operation, and closure of a'low-'level radioactive waste disposal facility.

The information needed for the .staff.'s revie will " be' affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree o--detl-.tift1 g i 1!'t rcurdingto the

results of-te scopqng process and the anticiptpd _magnitude of tie potential impacts.-- Information needed for the review will usually ifliuia-Fthd

fo iT ngR --

. _7 3.1.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
_ _ [IiTE *bESRP 3.1.2 Current and Projected Land Use

(1) Maps showing land use for the various alternatives and within a

10-kilometer radius of each alternative. (These maps should be of the

same scale as maps included in Section 2 for the sake of consistency.)

Land-use categories should be consistent with those defined by Anderson

et al. (1976) and should show both general categories of use, patterns of

ownership, and special-use'areas such as national parks, military reservations, Indian reservations, or wilderness areas (from the ER).

(2) Land areas devoted to major uses within the confines of the alternatives

as well as within a 10-kilometer radius of each (from the ER).

(3) Highway and utility rights of way at each alternative and in its vicinity

(from the ER).

(4) Other-than-major land uses (e.g., recreation) for each alternative that

could be significantly affected by the proposed action (from the ER, the

site visit, and consultation with-resource agencies).

(5) Land-use plans that include the alternative sites within their scope

* '(from consultation with resource agencies).

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of land-use characteristics will be closely coordinated

with the impact assessment review described in the ESRPs under ESRP 4 (specifically ESRP 4.1) to establish the land-use characteristics of the alternatives under consideration. The staff will identify the present land use at

each alternative (including the 10-kilometer radius) according to the categories defined by Anderson et al. (1976). The level of detail in selecting

land-use categories should be based on the potential for impacts and the

staff's conclusions and determinations from the scoping process. The staff

will also identify total area by land-use category.

Among the characteristics to be considered in the review will be the

following:

(1) waterways, higbways roads, nd railroads at each alternative, especially

those that would be closed to public use

(2) natural gas and electrical transmissiog and other utility lines

(3) recreational areas located at each alternative or in its vicinity

(qlZ~visually sensitive areas or view sheds that could be affected by

construction or operation of the proposed facility

(5) residential areas, airports, and industrial or commercial facilities in

the vicinity of each alternative

(6) agricultural and forested areas on or in the vicinity of each alternative

(7) land-use plans that include each alternative within their scope

3. 1. 2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.1.2 Current and Projected Land-Use

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the information is adequate so that it can serve as

a basis for the assessment of the environmental impacts of the alternative

sites identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES. The staff will verify the accuracy of the land-use information by visiting the site and by consulting with

appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use," of

the ES. The depth and extent of the input to the ES will be governed by the

land-use characteristics of the alternatives and the potential land-use impacts of construction, operations, closure, and long-term care of the proposed

facility. The information should be presented in a concise form, and maps and

tables should be used wherever possible.

Section 3.1.2 of the ES should include

(1) a brief description of the land-use characteristics of the alternatives

(2) a tabulation of areas dedicated to each land-use category in the site and

vicinity (the tabulations may be supplemented by land-use maps as necessary for clarity)

The staff will also provide the following pertinent information or ensure

that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

3.6.1, "Terrestrial Ecology" - land-use data as needed to describe

terrestrial ecology

3.7.2, "Infrastructure Characteristics" - land-use data as needed to

describe infrastructure characteristics

3.7.4, "Sociocultural Characteristics" - land-use data as needed to

describe sociocultural characteristics

4.1, "Land" - land-use descriptions to support the assessment of impacts

on land use

* 4.6, "Socioeconomics" - land-use descriptions to support the assessment of

socioeconomic impacts

6. REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer, "A Land-Use and

Land-Cover Classification System for Use With Remote Sensor Data," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, Washington, DC, 1976.

3.1.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
IllM .M1%-

ESRP 3.1.2 Current and Projected Land Use

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 1. 2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
(% C. NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.2

METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.2.1 Meteorology

ESRP 3.2.2 Ambient Air Quality

3.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- - -

'Na NUREG-13D0

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

of Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.2.1

METEOROLOGY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following.to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

3.3.1, " Meteorology"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Draft Regulatory Guide-Task ES 401-4, "Onsite Meteorological Measurement

Program for Uranium Recovery Facilities - Data Acquisition and Reporting"

* .Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultations with National.Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on

site-specific meteorological data and with other local, State, and

Federal agencies

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitabilityj Selection and Characterization"

Randerson, D., "Atmospheric Science and Power Production"

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and description of

the meteorological conditions for each of the alternatives identified in

Section 2.2.5 of the ES. -This will permit the characterization of atmospheric

transport and diffusion,.processes.for the alternative sites and an independent

evaluation of atmospheric diffusion characteristics that may be expected to

prevail during the construction, operational, and-postoperational phases of

the site's lifetime.

The scope of the review will consist of verification of the adequacy of the

site-specific and regional meteorological information provided by the applicant in Section 3.3 of the ER. These data may be used by the staff, and

3. 2. 1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
111W M4, F_-

ESRP 3.2.1 Meteorology

should be used by the applicant, as input to atmospheric transport and diffusion models for the calculation of long-term, time-averaged relative atmospheric (X/Q) and ground deposition (D/Q) concentrations for the alternative

sites. Site-specific measured values are the preferred form of the data;

however, reconnaissance-level values are acceptable if the applicant can show

that they are representative of the alternative sites.

The kinds of data and the types of information needed for the staff's review

are given in Regulatory Guide 4.18 and Draft Regulatory Guide Task ES 401-4

(as they relate to a low-level radioactive waste disposal site). The following categories of site-specific meteorological information (averaged for a

collection period of not less than 1 year) are necessary to perform the

staff's review:

(1) Meteorological parameters (such as joint-frequency distributions of wind

speed/direction) as necessary to characterize the alternative sites.

(2) The locations of the meteorological instruments and the rationale for

their selection. These locations should be identified on a map that

shows detailed topographic features and a plot of maximum elevation

versus distance from the disposal site in each of the sixteen 221⁄20

sectors radiating from the site.

(3) If measured data are submitted by the applicant, they should reflect inspection frequencies (and schedules for calibration and maintenance for

the monitoring stations) that are sufficient to ensure an annual data

recovery of at least 90 percent for each individual parameter measured.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

For routine conditions (such as a steady low-level release of gaseous effluent), the staff will compare the meteorological information submitted by

the applicant with the meteorological criteria in Draft Regulatory Guide

Task ES 401-4 and in NUREG-0902. The data should be reported in a format that

is compatible with computer codes to be used by the NRC staff for the calculation of atmospheric transport and dispersion. The staff will assess the climatic description of regional and local meteorological conditions for completeness and accuracy against standard references (e.g., "Climatic Atlas of

the United States" and "Local Climatological Data - Annual Summary With

Comparative Data," both published by the U.S. Department of Commerce).

4. EVALUATION

The staff will verify that the meteorological information submitted by the

applicant is complete and sufficiently accurate so that the staff can reasonably estimate the atmospheric transport, dispersion, and ground deposition of

contaminants resulting from routine and nonroutine atmospheric releases from

the alternative sites.

3.2. 1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.2.1 

Mete orol ogy

3.2.1 Meteorology

5. INPUT TO THE-ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.2.1, "Meteorology," of the ES. The meteorological information will also be used as part of the determination of the

water budget at a disposal site. The information may also be used by the

staff for the calculations of the indiv an (St sr- XRpu_0in 

borne raaToiT rical and nonradiological contaminants called for in ESRP 4.8.

6. REFERENCES

Randerson, D., ed., "Atmospheric Science and Power Production," DOE/TIC-27601

(DE84005177), Weather Service Nuclear Support Office, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy

Research, Washington, DC, 1984.

U.S. Department of Commerce, "Climatic Atlas of the United States," National

Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Asheville, NC, June 1968.

--- , "Local Climatological Data - Annual Summary With Comparative Data,"

National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC, published annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Regulatory Guide Task ES 401-4,

"Onsite Meteorological Measurement Program for Uranium Recovery Facilities -

Data Acquisition and Reporting," September 1985.

--- , NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization,"

April 1982.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

3.2. 1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
/ * g06,4'*

NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

E W D, -S I ' - .. - ! I . . l ... 

i- LOW-ULEVEL W ASTE DISPOSAL LICEN SIN G PRO G RAM --

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3:2.2

'AMBIENT-AIR QUALITY

1. REVIEW INPUTThe staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s).

2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

* 3.3.1, "Meteorology"

Environmental Review(s) Performed-Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* 40 CFR 50, "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Qua

* 40 CFR 52,. "Protection of the Environment"

* 40 CFR 58,."'Ambient Air.Quality:Surveillance"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content-of Env

Reports for. Near-Surface.Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,

"Natural Background Radiation in the United States"

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Ility, Standards"

ironmental

NCRP Report 45,

The purpose of this ESRP is to.direct the staff's review and description of

the air quality condi tions that-,exist, at each of the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES before-construction and;operation. The..scope

of the review will consist of the identification of site-specific radiological and nonradiological baseline concentrations at receptor locations

during the site characterization (preoperational) phase.

Information neededfor the staff'sreview will usually-including the

following: - ;

(1) Identification of radiological airborne contaminants

atmospheric fallout and those released from the soil

of natural ecological processes.

contributed by

as a consequence

3.2.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I l1ff

-lES

ESRP 3.2.2 Ambient-Air Quality

(2) Identification of nonradiological airborne pollutants generated by

processes such as onsite evaporation or incineration processes, contaminants dispersed to the disposal site as a result of nearby industrial

and/or manufacturing processes, and those resulting from agricultural

applications (such as spray application of fertilizers or pesticides).

(3) Annual average concentration values for naturally occurring nonradiological pollutants that the applicant expects may be associated with the

proposed action. These nonradiological pollutants should be identified

in Section 2.0 of the ER.

(4) Identification of the air quality control region, the air quality

classification for the region, ambient air concentrations in the region,

and air quality ceilings for regulated pollutants in the region. Any

deviations of the site characteristics from those of the region should

be documented.

These data will serve as the baseline concentrations for comparison with the

air quality during subsequent phases of the lifetime of the disposal site.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will determine if the applicant's data are adequate by carefully

reviewing the sources of this information (reconnaissance-level and/or

measured data may be reported by the applicant). Typical atmospheric concentrations of natural radionuclides are given in Chapter 6, "Inhaled Radioactivity," in NCRP Report 45. The concentrations reported for the radiological contaminants should be annual average concentrations obtained from

isotopic analysis by gamma spectroscopy and by gross alpha and gross beta

analyses. The staff will compare the reported nonradiological concentrations

with the corresponding National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality

Standards listed in 40 CFR 50.

If air quality data are missing or reported without an uncertainty limit (a

value that includes the percent uncertainty from the mean at the 95 percent

confidence level and that includes both systematic and random errors is preferred), the staff will request that the applicant provide them. If any

reported values are grossly different from those values given in the references above, the staff will confirm the air quality concentrations with

the appropriate State or Federal agency.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will verify that the information submitted by the applicant is

complete and sufficiently accurate so that it can reasonably estimate the

ambient air quality resulting from a release of radiological and nonradiological contaminants from the alternatives.

3.2. 2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3. 2. 2 Ambient Air Quality

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The-staff will prepare Section 3.2.2, "Ambient Air Quality," of the ES. The

concentration values reported in this section will be compared with the corresponding values reported in Section 4.2 of the ES in order to estimate

the environmental impacts of airborne pollutants.

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, "Protection of Environment," U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report 45,

"Natural Background Radiation in the United States," Washington, DC,

November 1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

3.2.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I ) ~ NUREG-13D0 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\'..f Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW-PLAN 3.3*-

AMBIENT RADIATION LEVELS

1. REVIEW INPUTWil,

The staff will use'the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* O. CFR'6.41. "Protection of-the 'General Population From Releases of

Radioactivity"

* "Draft Technical Position Paper'- Environmental Monitoring'of Low-Level

Waste Disposal Facilities," Division of Waste Management, to be published

* Regulatory Guide.4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface'Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and-Federal agencies'-

* National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP

Report 45, "Natural Background Radiation in the United States"

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this'ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the baseline concentratibns of radionuclides and levels of radiation in the biosphere in the

vicinity-of the 'alternatives' discussed in Section 2.0 of the ER. 'These

values,' in conjunction with 'appropriate statistical'methods, will provide

standards of comparison to assess the'sigiificance of exposures 'of members

of the general population and biota to various 'man-made sources 'of ionizing

radiation.

The scope of'the review will consist of'an evaluation of `the concentrations

of radionuclides in the vicinity of the'site for thedfollowing mediai:-'air,

surface water, 'jroundwater, soil, vegetation, sedimenfs,'and possible 'sources

3. 3- 1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
Itto 1IJLwL

ESRP 3.3 Ambient Radiation Levels

of human food found in the immediate area of the disposal site. Radiation

fields produced by-natural sources will also be evaluated.

The baseline data required from the applicant are long-term annual timeaveraged values. Concentrations should be reported using units given in NCRP

Report 45 for each medium sampled, and radiation field values should be reported in microrem/hour (based on measurement of the photon, beta, and electron components of the radiation fields). Concentration values reported

should be those obtained from isotopic analysis of the samples using gamma

spectroscopy. Water samples and potential food sources should also be

analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activity.

Reconnaissance-level or measured data submitted for the staff's review should

include the following kinds of information (the applicant should present the

rationale for the selections):

(1) the media sampled; the frequency of sample collection; a listing of the

exact location of each sample as a function of elevation, direction, and

distance from the alternative site (identified on a map and/or aerial

photograph); and each medium sampled at that location

(2) a description of the type of equipment used for sample collection

(3) the kinds of analyses performed on each sample, the lower limit of detection for each type of analysis, and the frequency of analysis for each

sample

(4) the statistical basis to be used for comparison of the baseline measurements with the corresponding measurements during the construction,

operational, closure, and postclosure observation periods of the site

If the data necessary for the analysis are missing or reported without an

uncertainty limit (the percent deviation from the mean at the 95 percent confidence level is the preferred value), the staff should request this information from the applicant.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will determine if baseline levels have been reported r all important pathways (determined by the anticipated types and quantities of radionuee4. Typical Aevels-for tle radiation

fields and concentrations to be expected in the media sampled are given in

NCRP Report 45. If any reported values are grossly different from values

given in the reference above, the staff should confirm the data with the

appropriate State or Federal agency.

Reconnaissance-level data are acceptable if the applicant can show that they

are representative of the conditions prevailing at the alternative site and

are sufficient for the evaluation of the baseline ambient radiation levels.

Measured data should follow the criteria listed in "Draft Technical Position

Paper - Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Waste Facilities" prepared by

the Division of Waste Management.

3.3- 2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3. 3 Ambient Radiation Levels

ESRP 3.3 Ambient Radiation Levels

EVALUATION

The staff will verify that the baseline data reported for each medium in each

significant pathway-are (1) complete; that is, all the information in Items

(1) through (4) of Section 2 of this ESRP including data that were missing or

reported without an uncertainty limit has been submitted; (2) given in the

form of long-term annual average values; and (3) reported in appropriate units

as given in NCRP Report 45. The staff may need to coordinate its observations

with those of other members of the review team in the Division of Waste Management in order to ensure that the baseline data reported are sufficient.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.3, "Ambient Radiation Levels," of the ES.

The staff will provide the reported baseline concentrations and values for

the radiation fields to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES

sections so that the environmental impacts of the alternative sites can be

assessed:

* 4.8.2, "Dose to Man"

* 4.8.3, "Dose to Biota Other Than Man"

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report 45,

"Natural Background Radiation in the United States," Washington, DC,

November 1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 3-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
' NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.4

HYDROLOGY

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.4.1 Surface Water

ESRP 3.4.2 Groundwater

3.4-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-

' NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.4.1

SURFACE WATER

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.4.1.1 Surface Water Regime

ESRP 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

ESRP 3.4.1.3 Surface Water Use

3.4.1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
f \ NUREG-1300

; a ) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

%, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD, REVIEW PLAN 3.4.1.1

SURFACE WATER REGIME

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report-Section(s)

2.1.2.2, "Candidate Area Selection"

* 2.1.2.3, "Candidate Site Selection"

* 3.1.1, "Site Location"

* 3.1.2, "Site Description"

* 3.4, "Hydrology"

* 3.4.2, "Surface-Water"

* 3.5,"Geology and Seismology" -

8.1.2, "Hydrology and Water Quality"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.2.5,'"Summary Alternatives 'for Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)-

Executive Order No. 11988, "Floodplain Management," 1977

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal'of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

State water resource 'dat&a(U.S. Geological'Survey, annual reports)

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE -

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant'and the-staff's concisedescription of the surface

water'bodies that could affect or be'affectedlby the alternatives identified

under ESRP 2.2.5. The scope of the'review will consist0of an evaluation of

regional and site-specific data on the physical and hydrological characteristics of the water bodies in sufficient detail to provide basic data to the

staff reviewers responsible for the evaluation of impacts on surface water

regime, quality, and use.

3. 4. 1. 1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-W

ESRP 3. 4.1.1 Surface.Water Regime

ESRP 3.4.1.1 Surface. Water Regime

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by regional and

site-specific factors and by the anticipated magnitude of potential hydrological impacts. For the evaluation of alternatives other than the applicant's

preferred site, reconnaissance-level data should be-sufficient. The information needed for the review will usually include the following:

(1) maps sufficiently detailed so that they show the major surface water systems that could be affected by the alternatives being considered (from

the ER and the general literature)

(2) lists identifying the affected water bodies, their sizes and drainage

areas, and their stream gradients or water surface elevations (from the

ER and the general literature)

(3) maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum, and minimum monthly

temperatures of affected water bodies (from the ER and the general

literature)

(4) maximum, average-maximum, average, average-minimum,, and minimum monthly

flows of affected streams, and variations in water surface elevations of

other affected water bodies (from the ER and the general literature)

(5) flood-frequency distributions and floodplain descriptions (following

Executive Order No. 11988) for affected streams, including their relationships to the sites (from the ER and the general literature)

(6) historical drought stages or water surface elevations for affected water

bodies, and 7-day, 10-year low flows for affected streams (from the ER

and the general literature)

(7) description of hydrographic modifications (e.g., diversion dams and

channelization) or flood-control measures (e.g., reservoirs and levees)

located on affected water bodies, including known future projects (from

the ER, the site visit, consultation with appropriate agencies, and the

general literature)

(8) estimated erosion (e.g., wave and channel) and sedimentation characteristics, including rate, bed and suspended load fractions, and total sediment yield, of affected water bodies; also, the estimated sheet, rill,

and gully erosion characteristics of sites under consideration (from

the ER and the general literature)

(9) quantitative and qualitative-descriptions of groundwater-surface water

interactions (e.g., groundwater (baseflow) contributions to streamflow)

(from the ER and the general literature)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of surface water hydrology will be closely coordinated

with the environmental reviews of surface water quality and use and the

environmental reviews of groundwater regime, quality, and use in order to

establish the hydrological characteristics that are most likely to be affected

3.4. 1. 1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.4.1.1 Surface Water Regime

by the alternatives being considered. The depth of analysis will be related

to the level of consideration being given each alternative.

The staff will identify the monthly-and annual ranges, averages, and historical extremes of the physical and hydrological characteristics of-potentially

affected surface water bodies. Historical data should be adjusted to present

or known future conditions. If observations are-incomplete or unavailable,

the staff will request that the applicant make'additional measurements or

develop additional data using accepted hydrological techniques such asthose

identified by Chow (1964), Linsley et al. (1975), Riggs (1985), Soil Conservation Service (1972), U.S. Army Corps-of Engineers (1959, May 1973, and 1973),

U.S. Geological Survey (1977), and U.S. Water Resources Council (1978) (see

Section 6 of this ESRP).

The staff will determine if the sites under consideration or any site-related

structures or alterations of the natural topography are located on the 100-

year floodplain (as defined in Executive Order No. 11988) and, if so, the

extent of floodplain alteration.

The staff will use such sources of1 information as necessary to obtain sufficient data for the required level of review. The following sources of regional and site-specific information are recommended:

(1) river basin commissions, regional interagency committees, and regional

power administrations (e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority)

(2) State agencies, including those dealing with ecology, conservation, public health, fish and game,-forestry,agriculture, and water resources;

State engineer; State highway departments; and special natural resource

commissions (names and functions vary from State to State)

(3) Federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Geological

Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service,

Weather Service, Coast and Geodetic Survey, National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration, Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife Service, and

Federal Highway Administration

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the data are sufficient to provide quantitative

information on the regime-of surface water bodies -that may be affected by the

alternatives being considered. The staff will ensure that this quantitative

information is sufficient for:use in-other reviews dealing with the evaluation

of impacts on surface water regime, quality; anrd use. "'If necessary, the-staff

will recommend that the applicant collect additional hydrologic data.

The staff will evaluate the hydrological:-descriptions and data to ascertain if

they are relevant, complete,'reliable, and accurate. The staff will verify

that accepted hydrological practices-were used in-the measurements and data

development programs. If necessary, the staff will request'that the applicant

substantiate the methodologies used in the collection or generation of data.

I 3.4.1.1-3 . 3Rev. 0 - April 1987
I- l

. -. I,-

ESRP 3.4.1.1 Surface Water Regime

S. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.4.1.1, "Surface Water Regime," of the ES.

This section should contain a concise description of the regime of surface

water bodies that could be affected by the alternatives under consideration.

The depth and extent of the descriptions will be governed by the level of

consideration being given each alternative and by the anticipated magnitude

of hydrological impacts. The following information will usually be included

in ES Section 3.4.1.1-

(1) Physical descriptions of affected surface water bodies and floodplains.

These descriptions should include maps and lists or tables that identify

the water bodies, floodplains, and hydrographic modifications; show their

relationships to the sites under consideration; and define their physical

characteristics.

(2) Descriptions of the hydrological characteristics of the affected water

bodies. These descriptions should include tables of hydrological data

(e.g., historical monthly disharges) and figures of historical or seasonal trends (e.g., flood-frequency curves, baseflow recession curves) so

that the information will be presented in as concise a form as possible.

(3) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of any other hydrological

conditions that may be affected, such as groundwater-surface water

interactions.

The staff will ensure that ES Section 3.4.1.1 contains information in sufficient detail to support the descriptions and assessments in the following ES

sections:

3.4.1.2, "Surface Water Quality"

3.4.1.3, "Surface Water Use"

4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology"

4.3.2, "Groundwater Hydrology"

6. REFERENCES

Chow, V., ed., Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1964.

Linsley, R. K., M. A. Kohler, and J. L. H. Paulus, Hydrology for Engineers,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1975.

Riggs, H. C., Developments in Water Science, Vol. 22, Streamflow Characteristics, Elsevier, New York, 1985.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1405, "Flood Hydrograph Analysis and Computations," August 31, 1959.

Shore Protection Manual, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research

Center, 1973.

3. 4. 1. 1-4 Rev. 0 - April 1981
ESRP 3. 4.1. 1 Surface Water Regime

ESRP 3.4.1.1 Surface Water Regime

- "Water Surface Profiles, HEC 2," Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA, May 1973.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, 1972.

U.S. Geological Survey, National Handbook of Recommended Methods for WaterData Acquisition, U.S. Department of the Interior, Reston, VA, 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

U.S. Water Resources Council, "Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988," Federal Register, Vol. 43, p. 6030, February 10,

1978.

3.4. 1.1-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-

NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commisulon

Office of Nuclear Materal Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDREVIEW PLAN 3.4.1.2

SURFACE WATER QUALITY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.1.2.2, "Candidate Area Selection"

* 3.1.1, "Site Location"

* 3.1.2, "Site Description"

* 3.1.4, "Uses of Adjacent Lands..and Waters"

* 3.2, "Ecology"

* 3.4.2, "Surface Water" .

* 3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

* 8.1.2, "Hydrology and Water Quality"

* 8.1.3, "Terrestrial Environment"

* 8.1.4, "Radiological Baselines"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 3.4.1.1, "Surface Water Regime"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

* Regulatory.Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* State and Federal water quality standards

Other

* Consultation with local., State; and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* State and Federal water resource data

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's analysis and evaluation of

the applicant's characterization of regional and site-specific surface water -

quality conditions and the staff's preparation of Section 3.4.1.2 of ;the ES.

The scope of the review will-consist of a thorough evaluation of the applicant's characterization of existing and potential surface water quality

3.4.1.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I--qpm

ESRP 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

conditions that may affect or be affected by the construction and waste disposal operations of the alternatives.

Information needed for the staff's review will usually include the following:

(1) A complete set of site-specific surface water chemistry data. Data

should assess seasonal variations and should include the mean, range,

and temporal and spatial variations in water quality parameters such as

(a) concentrations of major inorganic constituents (including important

trace elements), dissolved gases, and radioactive elements

(b) concentrations of major organic constituents, dissolved organic carbon, total organic carbon, total organic halogens, and water quality

indicator organisms (e.g., fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci)

(c) pH, oxidation/reduction conditions, total dissolved solids, specific

conductance, alkalinity, ionic strength, and density

(d) turbidity, and the nature of colloidal-sized materials

(e) temperature

Spatial and temporal variations in surface water quality conditions and

the potential for these variations to affect characterization and modeling of the site should be identified. Reconnaissance-level data may be

used for alternatives other than the applicant's preferred site. (From

the ER; the general literature; and consultation with local, State, and

Federal agencies)

(2) Regional surface water quality data, whether acquired through a literature search conducted by the applicant or, if necessary, collected by

the applicant, to be used to describe the surface water quality characteristics of the region and vicinity. This information will also help

identify spatial variations in surface water quality conditions. (From

the ER; consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies; and the

general literature)

(3) Descriptions of preexisting chemically stressed (i.e., contaminated) surface water environments, and sources of contamination to any water body

that may affect local water quality or site construction, operations, or

monitoring programs.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological surface water

quality properties in'ES-Section 3.4.1.2 will be closely coordinated with the

environmental reviews of-surface water regime and surface water use to establish the long- and short-term surface water effects of the alternatives being

considered. The analysis will also be used as a basis for the assessment of

the effects of the alternatives in ES Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.5.1, 4.5.2,

4.9, 4.11, and 4.13.

3.4.1.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3. 4.1. 2 Surface Water Quality

ESRP 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

The staff will identify the spatial and temporal variations in the physical,

chemical, and biological water quality parameters and, if available, the

historical extremes of these parameters.- If historical data are not included

in the ER, the staff will obtain the data, if available, through consultation

with the applicant or the appropriate agency. This information will be used

to define the baseline physical, chemical, and (where appropriate) biological

surface water quality conditions that may be affected by site construction

and operations.

The staff will identify (1) those parameters or conditions that may enhance

the migration of contaminants from the disposal site and (2) the potential of

the water bodies in question to disperse and dilute contaminants.

The staff will identify existing chemically stressed (i.e., contaminated) surface water environments on the basis of water quality criteria for the approved

water-use classification of the water body in question. Historical literature

addressing water quality issues for the water body in question should be consulted in identifying these stresses. The staff will identify those stresses

that may affect water use and site monitoring programs or enhance the migration

of contaminants from the disposal site.

-The staff will obtain the information from the applicant's ER, from the applicant's responses to staff questions, and from consultation with local, State,

and.Federal agencies.' Sources of data .such as State agencies and Federal

agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey will be used as available and as

necessary when the staff has determined that additional information is needed.

If site-specific data are needed, the following sources are suggested:

(1) comprehensive framework studies of water and related lands by river basin

commissions and regional interagency commissions

(2) STORET water quality data, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(3) WATSTORE Water Quality File, U.S. Geological Survey National Water Data

Storage and Retrieval System

(4) reports and data from State agencies, including those dealing with

ecology, conservation, public-health, fish and game, forestry, agriculture, water resources, and-.State lands; State engineer; State highway

departments; and special natural resources commissions (names and functions vary from State to State)

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the data are sufficient to-enable a complete, quantitative description of the physical, chemical, and (as appropriate) biological water quality characteristics that may affect or be affected by the construction and waste disposal operations of the alternatives. The description

of water quality should be relevant, accurate, complete, and reliable so that

it can be used for impact assessments in other sections of the ES. The staff

3.4. 1. 2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
'It,-

ESRP 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

also will ascertain if the appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies

have been consulted. In evaluating the information, the staff should consult

applicable standards and guides and may wish to consult additional references

such as the documents'by the American Public Health Association (1985), Hem

(1985), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983 and 1986), and U.S. Geological Survey (1977) (see Section 6 of this ESRP). if deemed necessary, the

staff will recommend that the applicant collect additional data, verify existing data, and substantiate the methodology used to determine surface water

quality conditions.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.4.1.2, "Surface Water Quality," of the ES.

The depth and extent of the description will be governed by the water quality

characteristics that could affect or be affected by site construction and

waste disposal operations and the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The following information will be included in ES Section 3.4.1.2:

(1) Complete description of surface water quality parameters for the site and

vicinity. This description should include those parameters that could be

affected by site construction and waste disposal operations or cause enhanced migration of contaminants from the disposal site. Seasonal variations in surface water quality should also be described. The description

may contain statistical summaries of the water quality characteristics,

including mean, mean low, mean high, and historical high and low values

(as available) for the site and vicinity.

(2) Descriptions of preexisting chemically stressed (i.e., contaminated) surface water environments at the site and in the vicinity, and local sources

of contamination that may affect site construction, operations, or monitoring programs.

(3) Any other significant or unusual surface water quality characteristics

that could affect or be affected by the proposed and alternative construction and waste disposal operations.

(4) The potential for the water body in question to dilute and disperse

contaminants.

The staff will also provide pertinent information and ensure that ES Section 3.4.1.2 contains information in sufficient detail to support assessments

of the impacts in the following ES sections:

4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology"

* 4.3.2, "Groundwater Hydrology"

4.5.1, "Terrestrial Ecosystem"

4.5.2, "Aquatic Ecosystem"

4.9, "Impacts of Accidents".

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity"

3.4.1.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

ESRP 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality

6. REFERENCES

American Public Health Association, "Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Waste Water," 16th ed., Washington, DC, 1985.

Hem, J. D., "Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of

Natural Water," U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water

and Wastes," Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,

1983.

- "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants,"

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 136, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, 1986.

U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, National Handbook

of Recommended Methods for Water-Data Acquisition, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Reston, VA, 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection

and Characterization," April 1982.

Regulatory Guide, 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

3. 4.1. 2-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- .

NUREG-1300

: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.4.1.3

SURFACE WATER USE

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use theifollowing to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1, "Geography and Demography"

* 3.1.3, "Population Distribution"

* 3.1.4,-"Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters"

* 3.4, "Hydrology"

* 3.4.2, "Surface Water"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 3.1.1, "Population Distribution-and Characteristics"

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 3.4.1.1, "Surface Water Regime"

* 3.4.1.2, "Surface Water Quality"

Standard(s) and/or-Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface-Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

Responses to requests for additional information

Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE -

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's description of surface water uses

that could be affected by the alternatives identified under ESRP 2.2.5.

The scope of the review will consist of. (1) an evaluation of such water

uses as domestic,-municipal, agricultural,*industrial, mining, recreational,

and navigational and hydroelectricpower generation; (2):identification of the

water use locations; and (3) quantification of water diversions, consumption,

and returns. The review will encompass past, present, and known future water

uses. -

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by regional

and site-specific factors and by the anticipated magnitude of potential

3.4.1.3-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I-*1Y*-

ESRP 3.4.1.3 Surface Water Use

impacts on present and future water uses. To evaluate alternatives other

than the applicant's preferred site, reconnaissance-level data should be

sufficient. Information needed for the review will usually include the

following:

(1) maps sufficiently detailed so that they show the surface water systems

that could be affected by the alternatives being considered (from the

ER, appropriate environmental reviews, and the general literature)

(2) lists identifying the affected water bodies and the water uses associated with them (from the ER, appropriate environmental reviews, and the

general literature)

(3) for off-channel uses, average monthly withdrawal, consumption, and

return rates for each diversion by use category; also, maps showing the

locations of diversions and returns on the affected water bodies with

respect to the sites under consideration (from the ER, consultation

with appropriate agencies, and the general literature)

(4) for on-channel uses, quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the

kind, location, use rate, and time variation of such uses; also, maps

showing the kinds and locations bf the activities on affected water

bodies with respect to the sites under consideration (from the ER,

consultation with appropriate agencies, and the general literature)

(5) summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use

or specific water-body restrictions on water use imposed by Federal or

State regulations (from the ER and consultation with appropriate agencies and their regulations)

(6) quantitative and qualitative descriptions of:future water use based on

past and present use, demographic trends, and potential for the development of new water uses (from the ER, appropriate environmental review and the general literature)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will evaluate those aspects of water use related to consumptive

use, nonconsumptive use, and effluent pathways. The depth of analysis

will be related to the importance of the water use and the proximity of

the use to the sites under consideration.

The staff will identify consumptive water uses that may be affected by the

alternatives being considered. Important characteristics to be identified

include (1) type of use (e.g., municipal, industrial, and agricultural),

(2) number of users; (3) water source, (4) locations of diversions and

returns, (4) rate and time variation of use, and (5) water rights.

The staff will identify recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive

water uses that may be affected by the alternatives being considered. Important characteristics-to be identified include (1) activity, (2) location,

(3) number of users, and (4) rate and time variation of use.

3.4.1. 3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3. 4.1. 3 Surface Water Use

The staff will identify those water uses that provide potential pathways for

both radiological and nonradiological effluents.: Important characteristics to

be identified include (1) type of:use, (2) number of users, (3) water sources,

(4) .location of diversions for' consumptive uses, (5)-location of receptors for

nonconsumptive uses, and (4) rate and time variation of use for-each.

The staff will contact sources of information as necessary in order to obtain

sufficient data'for the required level 'of review. These'may include local

water-supply companies'or agencies,. river basin commissions, State agencies

(e.g., those concerned with water resources, fish and wildlife, and parks),

and various Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Geological Survey,;Forest Service,-Fish-and Wildlife Service, and'Department of

Agriculture. In addition, local water users may be questioned during the site

visit.

Because-of the geographic and hydrologic diversity of'potential low-level

waste disposal sites, only the following reference document is suggested for

the staff's use in its review: U.S. Geological Survey, National Handbook of

Recommended Methods for Water Data Acquisition. Generally, regional and sitespecific information on water use can be obtained from Federal, State,:and

local agencies such as those in the preceding paragraph.. Additional information may also be obtained from the private sector (e.g., water-supply companies) and from local colleges and universities.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that data are sufficient to provide quantitative information on surface water uses that may be affected by the alternatives being

considered. The staff will ensure that this information is sufficient-for use

in other reviews dealing with the evaluation of impacts on consumptive and

nonconsumptive surface water use. If. necessary, the staff will recommend that

the applicant collect additional-surface water use-data.

The staff will evaluate the surface water use data and information to ensure

that they are relevant, complete, reliable, and accurate. The staff may consult with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as water

users, in making this evaluation.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.4.1.3, "Surface Water Use," of the ES. This

section will contain a concise description of surface water uses that may be

affected by the alternatives being considered. The depth and extent of the

description will be governed by the level of consideration being given each

alternative and by the nature and anticipated magnitude of impacts on surface water use. The following information will usually be included in ES

Section 3.4.1.3:

(1) A summary of past, present, and future consumptive and nonconsumptive

surface water uses within the hydrological system that may be affected

by the alternatives under consideration. The summary should include

maps, lists, tables, and figures that describe the types of use,

--3.4. 1.3-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ItT--

w-.

ESRP 3.4.1.3 Surface Water Use

number of users, water sources, locations of diversions and returns or

activities, consumption or use rates, long-term or seasonal trends and

variations, and water rights. Appropriate maps, tables, or descriptions from ES Sections 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.1.2 should be referenced to avoid

duplication. -

(2) A summary of water uses that provide potential surface water pathways for

both radiological and nonradiological effluents from the sites under consideration. The summary should include a description of the types of

use, number of users, water sources, location of diversions for consumptive uses, location of receptors for nonconsumptive uses, and rate and

time variation of use for each. Appropriate maps, tables, or descriptions from ES Sections 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.1.2 or other portions of Section 3.4.1.3 should be referenced.

(3) A summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water

use or specific water-body restrictions on water use imposed by Federal,

State, or local regulations.

The staff will ensure that ES Section 3.4.1.3 is sufficiently detailed to

support the assessments in the following ES section:

* 4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology"

6. REFERENCES

U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, National Handbook

of Recommended Methods for Water Data Acquisition, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Reston, VA, 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 4.1.3-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- -

NUREG-1300

-v= }U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\e'S/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.4.2

GROUNDWATER

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.4.2.1 Groundwater Regime

ESRP 3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality

ESRP 3.4.2.3 Groundwater Use

3.4.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
'N\ NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\s7J>/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.4.2.1

GROUNDWATER REGIME

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1, "Geography and Demography"

* 3.4.1, "Ground Water"

* 3.4.2, "Surface Water"

3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

* 5.1, "Short-Term Environmental Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

* 7.1, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* 8.1.2, "Hydrology and Water Quality"

* 8.2.2, "Hydrological Monitoring System"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.1, "Location"

3.1.1, "Population Distribution and Characteristics"

3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

3.4.1.1, "Surface Water Regime"

3.4.1.2, "Surface Water"Quality"

3.4.1.3, "Surface.Water Use"

* 3.4.2.3, "Groundwater Use"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to directthe staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's description of the groundwater

regime that could affect or be affected by the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES. The scope of the review will consist of an evaluation

of site-specific and regional.data on the groundwater regime in sufficient

3. 4.2.1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
elf - ILIW

ESRP 3.4.2.1 Groundwater Regime

detail to provide the basic data to the staff reviewers responsible for the

evaluation of the impacts on existing aquifers at the site and vicinity.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors and the anticipated magnitude of the impacts on the groundwater regime. For sites other than the preferred site, reconnaissance-level

data may suffice. Information needed for the review will usually include

the following:

(1) areal extent of major hydrogeologic units, recharge and discharge areas,

elevation and depth of major hydrogeologic units, and stratigraphic relationships (from the ER and the general literature)

(2) piezometric contour maps and cross-sections showing temporal and areal

distribution of head levels for each principal hydrogeologic unit (from

the ER and the general literature)

(3) groundwater velocities and hydraulic gradients (from the ER and the general literature)

(4) principal saturated flow paths and associated groundwater fluxes and

travel times (from the ER and the general literature)

(5) data and methods used for determining principal hydraulic characteristics

for each major unit, such as permeability, hydraulic conductivity or

transmissivity, specific storage or specific yield, total and effective

porosity, bulk density, and aquifer compressibility (from the ER and the

general literature)

(6) data and methods used for determining radionuclide transport characteristics of each major hydrogeologic unit, including soil and rock mineralogy,

clay content and cation exchange capacity, distribution coefficients

(retardation), and coefficients of dispersion (hydrodynamic dispersion)

(from the ER and the general literature)

(7) groundwater-surface water interactions (from the ER and the general

literature)

(8) historical and seasonal trends in water table elevation or potentiometric

levels, water table fluctuation zones, and communications between different aquifers (from the ER and the general literature)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The analysis of groundwater hydrology will be closely coordinated with the

environmental reviews of groundwater quality and use and the environmental

reviews of surface water regime, quality, and use in order to establish the

hydrological characteristics that are most likely to be affected by the alternatives being considered.

The staff will identify the seasonal trends and historical extremes in water

table elevation or potentiometric levels, communications between aquifers,

3.4.2.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987

I
ESRP 3.4.2.1 Groundwater Regime

surface water-groundwater interactions, and recharge and discharge relationships of potentially affected groundwater systems. Historical data should be

adjusted to present or known future conditions (e.g., pumping schemes). If

observations are incomplete or unavailable, the staff will request that the

applicant make or develop measurements.using acceptable hydrological techniques such as those identified by'Chow (1964), Stallman (1971), and Walton-

(1970) (see Section 6 of this ,ESRP).

The staff will'use sources of information'such as

(1) State agencies, including those dealing with ecology, conservation,

public health, fish and game,'agriculture, and water resources; State

engineer; State highway department; and special natural resource commissions (names and functions vary from State to State)

(2) Federal agencies, including the-Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, Agricultural Resource

Service, Weather Service, Coast'an'd Geodetic Survey, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Federal Highway

Administration

(3) river basin commissions and regional interagency committees

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the data'are sufficient to provide quantitative information on the groundwater regimes that may'be affected by the alternatives

being considered. The staff will ensure that this quantitative information is

sufficient for use in other reviews under ESRP 4.3.2 dealing with the evaluation of impacts on groundwater regime, quality, and use.

The staff will evaluate the hydrological descriptions and data to ensure that

they are relevant, complete, reliable, and accurate so that they can be used

for the'impact evaluations under ESRP 4.3.2. The staff will verify that

accepted hydrological practices such as those identified by Chow (1964),

Stallman (1971), and Walton (1970) were used in the measurements and data

development programs. If necessary, the staff will request'that the'applicant substantiate the methods used in the collection or generation of data.'

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.4.2.1, "Groundwater Regime," of the ES. This

section should contain a concise description of the groundwater regimes that

could be affected by the alternatives under consideration. The depth and extent of the descriptions will be governed by the level of consideration being

given each alternative and by the anticipated magnitude of the hydrologic

impacts. The following information will usually be included in ES Section 3.4.2.1:

(1) Descriptions of the physical characteristics of the groundwater regimes

potentially affected by the alternatives. These descriptions should include maps that identify the groundwater systems and their relationships

3.4.2.1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
Ii1X . . .41%_

ESRP 3.4.2.1 Groundwater Regime

to the alternatives. More detailed information is required for groundwater systems at or near the site than for groundwater systems at a

greater distance.

(2) Descriptions of the hydrological characteristics of the groundwater re-

-gime potentially affected by the alternatives. These descriptions should

include tables and/or figures of hydrological data (e.g., seasonal fluctuations in water levels, recharge and discharge relationships, communications between aquifers, and groundwater/surface water interactions).

(3) Water table or piezometric contour maps.

(4) Other hydrological data, such as annual historical groundwater discharges, historical extremes of flow, and aquifer properties (tables of

these may be useful).

The staff will ensure that ES Section 3.4.2.1 contains information in sufficient detail to support the descriptions and assessments in the following

ES sections:

* 4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology".

* 4.3.2, "Groundwater Hydrology"

4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

4.9.1, "Waste Spillage"

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

6. REFERENCES

Chow, V., ed., Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,

1964.

Stallman, R. W., Technical Water Resource Investigations, Book 3, Aquifer-Test

Design Observation and Data Analysis, Chapter B1, U.S. Geological Survey,

1971.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

Walton, W. C., Groundwater Resource Evaluation, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New

York, 1970.

3.4.2. 1-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
' 'N NUREG-1300

* su U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\NMW'/ Office of Nuclear Materi3l Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL'STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.4.2.2

GROUNDWATER QUALITY.

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.1.2.2, "Candidate Area.Selection"

* 3.1.4, "Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters"

* 3.2, "Ecology" --

* 3.4.1, "Ground Water"

* 3.5, "Geology and Seismology" * 8.1.2, "Hydrology and Water Quality"

8.1.3, "Terrestrial Environment"

* 8.1.4, "Radiological Baselines"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under-the Following ESRP(s)

3.4.2.1, "Groundwater Regime"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* State and Federal water quality standards

Other

Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* State and Federal water resource data

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct-the staff's analysis-and evaluation of

the applicant's-characterization of regional and site-specific groundwater quality conditions and the.staff's preparation of Section 3.4.2.2 of the ES.

The scope of the review.will consist of a thorough evaluation of the appli- cant's characterization of existing and potential groundwater quality conditions that may affect or be affected by the construction and waste disposal

operations of the alternatives.

-3.4.2.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I tt?

ESRP 3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Information needed for the staff's review will usually include the following:

(1) A complete set of site-specific groundwater chemistry data. Data should

assess seasonal variations and should include the mean, range, and temporal and spatial variations in water quality parameters such as

(a) concentrations of major inorganic constituents (including important

trace elements), dissolved gases, and radioactive elements

(b) concentrations of major organic constituents, dissolved organic carbcn, total organic carbon, total organic halogens, and water quality

indicator organisms (e.g., fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci)

(c) pH, oxidation/reduction conditions, total dissolved solids, specific

conductance, alkalinity, ionic strength, and density

(d) turbidity, and the nature of colloidal-sized materials

(e) temperature

Spatial and temporal variations in groundwater quality conditions and the

potential for these variations to affect characterization and modeling of

the site should be identified. Reconnaissance-level data may be used for

alternatives other than the applicant's preferred site. (From the ER;

the general literature; and consultation with local, State, and Federal

agencies)

(2) Regional groundwater quality data, whether acquired through a literature

search conducted by the applicant or, if necessary, collected by the applicant, to be used to describe the groundwater quality characteristics

of the region and vicinity. This information will also help identify

spatial variations in groundwater quality conditions. (From the ER; the

general literature; and consultation with local, State, and Federal

agencies)

(3) Descriptions of preexisting chemically stressed (i.e., contaminated)

groundwater environments and sources of contamination to any water body

that may affect local water quality or site construction, operations, or

monitoring programs.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological groundwater

quality properties in ES Section 3.4.2.2 will be closely coordinated with the

environmental reviews of groundwater regime and groundwater use to establish

the: long- and short-term groundwater effects of the alternatives being considered. The analysis will also be used as a basis for the assessment of the

effects of the alternatives in ES Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.9,

4.11, and 4.13.

The staff will identify the spatial and temporal variations in the physical,

chemical, and biological water quality parameters and, if available,

3.4. 2. 2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.4.2.2 Groundwater.Quality

SR 3... Grudaer ult

historical extremes of these parameters. If historical data are.not..included

in the ER, the staff will obtain-,the data, if available, through-consultation

with the applicant or the appropriate agency. This.information will be used

to define the baseline physical, chemical- and (where appropriate) biological

groundwater quality conditions that miay be affected by site construction and

operations.

The staff will identify those parameters or conditions that-may enhance-the

migration of contaminants from.the disposal site.

The staff will identify preexisting chemically stressed (i.e., contaminated)

groundwater environments on the basis of water quality criteria for the approved water-use classification of the water source in question. Historical

literature.addressing water quality issues for the water source in question

should be consulted in identifying'these stresses.- The staff will-identify

those stresses that may affect wateruse-and site monitoring programs-or enhance the migration of.contaminants from the disposalsite.

The-'staff will obtain.the information' from the applicant's ER, from the applicant's responses to staff questions, and from consultation with local, State,

and Federal agencies. Sources of data such as State agencies and Federal

agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army

Corps ofEngineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey, will be used-as available

and aspnecessary whe" the staff has.determined that additional information is

needed.

If site-specific data are needed, the following sources are suggested:

(1) STORET water quality data, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2) WATSTORE Water Quality File, U.S. Geological Survey National Water Data

Storage and Retrieval System

(3) reports and data from State agencies, including those.dealing with ecology, conservation, public health, fish and game, forestry, agriculture,

water resources, and State lands; State engineer;.State highway departments; and special natural resources commissions (names and functions

vary from State to State)

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that data are 'sufficient to enable a complete, quantitative description of the phjsical.,.chem'ical, and-(as appropriate) biological

water quality characteristic's that may affect or be affected by construction

and waste disposal operations of the alternatives. The description of..water

quality should be relevant, accurate, complete, and reliable so that it can

be used for impact assessments in other sections of.-the ES. The.staff also

will ascertain if the' appropriate'local, State, and Federal agencies have'

been consulted. In evaluating the'information, the staff should consult applicable standards and guides, and may wish to consult additional references

such as the documents by American Public Health Association (1985), Britton

and Gerba (1984), Hem (1985), U.S." Environmental Protection Agency' (1983 and

3.4.2.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality

ESRP 3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality

1986), and U.S. Geological Survey (1977) (see Section 6 of this ESRP). If

deemed necessary, the staff will recommend that the applicant collect additional data, verify existing data, and substantiate the methodology used to

determine groundwater quality conditions.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare'Section 3.4.2.2, "Groundwater Quality," of the ES. The

depth and extent of the description will be-governed by the water quality

characteristics that could affect or be affected by construction and waste

disposal operations and the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The

following information will be included in ES Section 3.4.2.2:

(1) Complete description of groundwater quality parameters for the site and

vicinity. This description should include those parameters that could

be affected by site construction and waste disposal operations or cause

enhanced migration of contaminants from the disposal site. Seasonal

variations in groundwater quality should also be described. The description may contain statistical summaries of the water quality characteristics, including mean, mean low, mean high, and historical high and low

values (as available) for the site and vicinity.

(2) Descriptions of preexisting chemically stressed (i.e, contaminated)

groundwater environments at the site and in the vicinity of the site,

and local sources of contamination that may affect site construction,

operations, or monitoring programs.

(3) Any other significant or unusual groundwater quality characteristics that

could affect or be affected by the proposed and alternative construction

and waste disposal operations.

The staff will also provide pertinent information and ensure that ES Section 3.4.2.2 contains information in sufficient detail to support the assessments of impacts in the following ES sections:

4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology"

4.3.2, "Groundwater Hydrology"

4.5.1, "Terrestrial Ecosystem"

* 4.5.2, "Aquatic Ecosystem"

* 4.9, "Impacts of Accidents"

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity"

6.' REFERENCES

American Public Health Association, "Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Waste Water," 16th ed., Washington, DC, 1985.

Britton, G., and C. P. Gerba (eds.), Groundwater Pollution Microbiology, Wiley

Interscience, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984.

3.4. 2.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.4.2.2 

Groundwater Quality

3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality

hem, J. D., "Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of

Natural Water," U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water

and Wastes," Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,

1983.

--- , "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants,"

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 136, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, 1986.

U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, National Handbook

of Recommended Methods for Water-Data Acquisition, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Reston, VA, 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection

and Characterization," April 1982.

--- , Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

3.4.2. 2-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

{ 1U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.4.2.3

GROUNDWATER USE

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1, "Geography.and Demography"

* 3.1.1, "Site'Location"

* 3.1.2, "Site Description".

* 3.1.3, "Population Distribution"

* 3.1.4, "Uses of.Adjacent Lands and Waters"

* 3.4.1, "Ground Water"

* 3.4.2, "Surface Water"

* 3.5i .":Geology and Seismology"..

* 5.1, "Short-Term Environmental Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

* 7.1, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

8.1.2, "Hydrology and Water Quality"

* 8.2.2, "Hydrological Monitoring System"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.1, "Location"

3.1.1, "Population Distribution and Characteristics"

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected.Land Use"

* 3.4.1.2, "Surface Water Quality"

* 3.4.1. 3,'"Surface Water Use"

3.4.2.1, "Groundwater Regime"

* 3.4.2.2, "Groundwater Quality"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18,."Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local,..State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit .

3.4.2.3-1 . . .1. Rev. 0 - April 1987
IMSi

..111t

ESRP 3.4.2.3 Groundwater Use

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's description of groundwater uses that

could affect or be affectedby the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of

the ES. The scope of the review will consist of (1) an evaluation of such

water uses as industrial, municipal, domestic, agricultural, and energyresource development well uses; (2) identification of the locations of water

use; and (3) quantification of groundwater exploitation and recharge. The

review will cover past, present, and future (both known and potential) water

uses.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors and the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts on

groundwater use. For sites other than the preferred site, reconnaissancelevel data may suffice. Information needed for the review will usually

include the following:

(1) maps showing the relationship of the site to the major hydrogeologic

systems (from the ER and the general literature)

(2) identification of locations and rates of groundwater recharge and

groundwater discharge at the site and vicinity (from the ER and the

general literature)

(3) inventory of existing groundwater users within the site and vicinity

including location, type, amounts, and rates of use, hydrogeologic unit

used, and typical well construction details; identification of the

nearest downgradient groundwater users and nearest supply well relying

on groundwater (from the ER and the general literature)

(4) data on drawdown (or mounding) caused by withdrawals (or injections) of

groundwater from neighboring major industrial, agricultural, and municipal wells, including extent of depression (or impression) cones (from

the ER, regional groundwater management agencies, and the general

literature)

(5) description of future groundwater withdrawals based on past and present

withdrawals and the potential for development of new groundwater withdrawals in the foreseeable future; description of groundwater uses and

changes through time in potentiometric levels (from the ER, regional

groundwater management agencies, and the general literature)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will identify groundwater uses that could affect or be affected

by the site and groundwater uses that provide potential pathways for radiological and nonradiological contaminants. For groundwater uses that could

affect or be affected by the site, the important characteristics to be

identified include groundwater source, locations of groundwater use and

discharge, amount and time variation of use, and water rights. The staff

3.4.2.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- - -

ESRP 3.4.2.3 Groundwater Use

will consult with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology," and 4.3.2, "Groundwater Hydrology," to establish the

degree of detail needed for this review.

For those groundwater uses that provide pathways for contaminants, the important characteristics to be identified include groundwater sources, locations

of groundwater use and discharge,-and amount and time variation of use. The

staff will consult with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.8,

"Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment," and 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse

Environmental Impacts," to establish the degree of detail needed for this

review.

In addition to information obtained from the applicant's ER and from the

applicant's responses to subsequent-staff questions, the staff is expected

to use additional sources of data such as local water-supply companies or

agencies, river basin commissions, State agencies (e.g., those dealing with

water resources and fish and wildlife), and various Federal agencies (e.g.,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey) when necessary to complete the analysis. Local water users may be questioned

during the site visit.

Because of the geographic and hydrologic diversity of potential site locations

and the large number of published sources of information on water use, no

specific listing of reference documents that may be used by the staff in its

review is provided. Generally, maps and charts by the U.S. Geological Survey,

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Army Map-Service, and Federal

Aviation Administration; water supply papers of the U.S. Geological Survey;

river basin reports of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and relevant publications of Federal, State, and regional agencies and local colleges and universities that describe water use in the site vicinity and region may be used.

If the preliminary safety analysis report for the proposed site is available,

it may be consulted as needed.

Using the above information, the staff will compile and tabulate water uses by

the categories and characteristics described in this section. In its analysis, the staff will include past, present, and future (both known and potential) water uses.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that data and information on water use are adequate to

serve as a basis for assessing the impacts of the proposed site on groundwater use. In evaluating this material, the staff will ensure that the data

are sufficient to provide quantitative information on groundwater uses to be

affected by the site. The staff may wish to consult with appropriate Federal,

State, and local agencies in making this evaluation.

3.4.2.3-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-4Pk_ In

ESRP 3.4.2.3 Groundwater Use

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.4.2.3, "Groundwater Use," of the ES. This

section should contain a concise description of the groundwater uses that

could be affected by the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES.

The depth and extent of the description will be governed by the groundwater

uses that could be affected by each alternative and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts on groundwater use.

This section will usually include a summary of present and known future

groundwater withdrawals on the site and for distances great enough to cover

potentially affected groundwater systems. Appropriate maps or descriptions

from ER Section 3.4.2.3 will be referenced to depict the groundwater

hydrology. References to applicable State laws on water use should be

included.

The staff will provide pertinent information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections and

will ensure that ES Section 3.4.2.3 contains information in sufficient detail

to support the descriptions and assessments in the following ES sections:

4.1, "Land"

* 4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology"

4.3.2, "Groundwater Hydrology"

* 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

* 4.9.1, "Waste Spillage"

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3.4. 2. 3-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

*~' aiU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\ / Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.5

GEOLOGY

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.5.1 Geology

ESRP 3.5.2 Soils

ESRP 3.5.3 Seismic Characteristics

ESRP 3.5.4 Mineral Resources

3. 5-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
"I..

NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.5.1

GEOLOGY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.1.2.2, "Candidate Area Selection"

* 2.1.2.3, "Candidate Site Selection"

* 3.1.1, "Site Location"

* 3.1.2, "Site Description"

* 3.1.4, "Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters"

* 3.4, "Hydrology"

3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

* 5.2.2, "Environmental Effects of Potential Radionuclide Releases"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 3.4, "Hydrology"

* 3.5.2, "Soils"

* 3.5.3, "Seismic Characteristics"

* 3.5.4, "Mineral Resources"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation withilocal; State, 'and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for-additional information

Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE -

The purpose of this ESRP is to'direct-the staff's review and evaluation of

the geologic-conditions presented in the applicant's'ER and the staff's

preparation of Section 3.5.1 in the ES. This ESRP also provides a frame-

-work~for other staff reviews of environmental. studies in hydrology and

geochemistry.

The scope of the review will

regional and site geology in

consist of a description and discussion of the

sufficient detail so that the effect of the

13.5. 1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.- 41-

ESRP 3.5. 1 Geology

construction, operation, and closure of the facility on the geology of the

site can be determined. The detail required is a function of the complexity

of the geology of the site, but information needed for the staff's review will

usually include the following:

(1) description of the tectonic province and regional geologic features

(2) geologic maps sufficiently detailed so that they show the major geologic

units and structural features that could affect or be affected by the

disposal site (from the ER and the general literature)

(3) tables identifying the mineralogy, petrology, grain size, and hydrologic

characteristics of major stratigraphic units (from the ER and the general

literature)

(4) description of major structural features including faults and folds (from

the ER and the general literature)

(5) description of small-scale structural features including joints, bedding

surfaces, and metamorphic fabrics (from the ER and the general

literature)

(6) description of topographic features indicative of faulting and/or mass

wasting including fault scarps, karst topography, and landslide scars

(7) description of paleontologic resources that could be affected by the

disposal site (from the ER and the general literature)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of geology will provide a framework for environmental

reviews of the groundwater regime, geochemistry, mineral resources, and

seismic characteristics.

The staff will analyze specific geologic factors that could affect or be

affected by the disposal site. The analysis will typically include the

following:

(1) an analysis of the tectonic province and regional geologic features of

the site that will be based on a review of appropriate regional tectonic

and geologic maps and reports

(2) an analysis of major structural features (e.g., folds and faults) that

could affect or be affected by the disposal site that will be based on a

review of logs defining surface and subsurface features and a review of

areal structural, geologic, and lithologic maps and reports

(3) an analysis of small-scale structural features (e.g., joints and bedding

surfaces) that will based on a review of detailed structural maps

(4) an analysis of stratigraphic units (including hydrologic characteristics)

that could affect or be affected by the disposal site that will be based

3.5. 1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.5.1 Geology

,on a review of detailed geologic maps accompanied by-detailed lithologic

descriptions

(5) an analysis of topographic features.of faulting and/or mass wasting that

will be based on a review of surficial geologic maps and slope maps

(6) an analysis of the potential for affecting important index or guide

fossil-bearing strata that will be based on a review of detailed regional

lithologic and paleontological descriptions

The:staff will use sources of information as necessary to obtain sufficient

data for-the required level of review. The following sources of.regional and

site-specific information are recommended:-

(1) State agencies, including those dealing with State geological surveys,

and university geology departments

(2) Federal agencies, including the-U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines,

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the.data are sufficient so that quantitative information can be obtained on the geology that may be affected by the alternatives

being-considered. The staff will-ensure-that this quantitative information is

sufficient for use in other evaluations of groundwater, surface.water, and

mineral resources in ES Sections 3.4, 3.5.4, 4.3, and 4.4.2. If necessary,

the staff will recommend that the:applicant collect additional.geologic data.

The staff will review the geologic interpretations, descriptions, and-data

to ensure that they are relevant, complete, and accurate. The review will

typically include the following:

(1) An evaluation of the geologic maps provided to determine geologic

hazards. The evaluation should be based on a comparison with previously

published or open-file maps from Federal and State agencies.1.

(2) An evaluation of.the description.of major stratigraphic units, boreholes,

and previously established,-,formally defined units. .,Emphasis should be

placed on major hydrologic units, fossil- and mineral-bearing strata, and

major facies changes.

(3) An evaluation of the major and small-scale structural features to determine faults or other structural features that may provide pathways for

waste, present engineering hazards, and otherwise compromise the proposed

site or alternatives. The evaluation should be based on a comparison

with previously published or open-file maps or structural descriptions.

(4) An evaluation of topographic or mass wasting features identified to

determine unstable areas that may present engineering hazards or

3.5.1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ltl

-'RESRP 3.5.1 Geology

otherwise compromise the proposed or alternative sites. The evaluation

should be based on a comparison with previously published reports.

(5) An evaluation of the importance of fossil-bearing strata present for

index and guide fossils in order to enhance the understanding of stratigraphic relationships.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.5.1, "Geology," of the ES. This section will

contain a concise'description of the stratigraphy and structure that could be

affected by-the alternatives under consideration. The depth and extent of the

descriptions will be governed by the level of consideration being given each

alternative and by the anticipated magnitude of geologic impacts. The following information will usually be included in ES Section 3.5.1:

(1) descriptions of geologic units, including maps and tables that identify

the distribution and physical character of rock units and show their

relationship to the sites under consideration

(2) descriptions of major structural .and topographic features, including maps

and tables that define the distribution and physical character of major

features and show their relationship to the sites under consideration

(3) quantitative and qualitative descriptions of any other geologic conditions that may be affected

The staff will ensure that ES Section 3.5.1 contains information in sufficient detail to support the descriptions and assessments in the following ES

sections:

* 3.4.2, "Groundwater"

3.5.3, "Seismic Characteristics"

3.5.4, "Mineral Resources"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Formatand Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 5.1-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-

I> KNUREG-1300

t Adi U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'.>WW/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

-LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTALtSTANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.5.2

- SOILS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1, "Geography and Demography" ..

* 3.2, "Ecology"

3.3, "Meteorology and Air Quality"

3.4.1, "Ground Water" -

3.4.2, "Surface Water"

3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

4.2, "Facility Description" :

* 4.3, "Support Facilities"

Environm~ental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1, "Description of the Proposed Action"

* 2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action"

* .3.1.2, "Current'and Projected Land Use"

* 3.2, "Meteorology and Air Quality" - * 3.4.1.1, "Surface Water. Regime".

* 3.4.2.1, "Groundwater Regime"

3.5.1, "Geology"

3.5.3, "Seismic Characteristics"

* 3.5.4, "Mineral Resources"

* 3.b, "Ecology"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, '"Standard Format and Content of-Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

-Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* . Literature review .:;

* Responses.to requests for-additional information

:-Site visits , . :

. 3.5.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
i1tl

.- IFESRP 3.5.2 Soils

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this-ESRP is to direct the staff's review of information provided by the applicant and the staff's description of soil conditions that

could be affected by the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES.

The scope of this review'will consist of (1) the identification of natural

soils (e.g., see Hunt, 1972) including weathered bedrock; deposits transported

by fluvial, colluvial, eolian, marine, lacustrine, or glacial processes;

sedentary deposits formed in swamps, bogs, or evaporite basins; and the

profiles formed by weathering and organic activity near a soil unit's upper

boundary; and (2) an assessment of pedologic and geomorphic processes resulting in soil accumulation or erosion.

This ESRP also provides a framework for other staff reviews, particularly

environmental studies of geochemistry, hydrology,. and ecology. The kinds of

data and information needed for the review will vary depending on regional and

site-specific factors and the anticipated magnitude of the proposed actions.

Information needed for the staff's review will usually include the following:

(1) Identification of soil series or broader class, as specifically as

possible (from the ER and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

literature).

(2) Description of physiographic setting, such as hillslopes, alluvial

terrace, or floodplain (from the ER, site visits, topographic maps, and

general literature).

(3) Nature of bedrock and other underlying materials in the area. Some of

the information may be referenced in Section 3.5 of the ER and included

in Section 3.5 of the ES (from the ER, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

maps and literature, and general literature).

(4) Slopes; descriptions of approximate gradient or range of gradients (from

the ER and USGS maps).

(5) Description of plant cover and vegetation at the site, such as pine

forest, corn, and pasture (from the ER, USDA literature, and general

literature).

(6) Description of climate; annual and monthly precipitation and temperature

data, including mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and

annual extremes (from the ER and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration).

(7) Description of soil materials and horizons and whether they are products

of weathered bedrock or surficial deposits. For the horizon descriptions,

USDA nomenclature should be used (see USDA, 1975). Soil profile descriptions for each soil unit would be expected to include horizon designation, depth, thickness, boundary, color, texture, structure, consistence,

roots, pores, and reaction. Additional features in the description might

include iron or carbonate concretions, effervescence with dilute hydrochloric acid, and cementation (from the ER and USDA literature).

3.5.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3;5.2 Soils

(8) Maps and cross-sections of soil, and bedrock distribution, showing differing soil types,' if present.''Diagrams shouldJinclude'the general soils

of the region and specific soils of the 'site'(from'-the ER and USDA

literature).

(9) Relationships.between'soils and surficial geologic processes, including

erosio'n'by wind or running water (from the ERand general literature).

(10) Susceptibility of soils to mass wasting through slow displacements, such

as creep and'solifluction,-and fast movements, such as debris slides and

flows and earthflow (from theWER and general literature).

(11) Rates and recurrences of processes in Items (9) and (10) above (from the

ER and general literature).

(12) Geochemical interactions between soil materials'and'percolating and

interstitial waters in the'vadose zone, and groundwater in the saturated zone. S6me of thisinformation will'be found'in'Section 3.4 of'

the ER and included in Section'3.4 of the ES (from the ER and general'

literature).

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The' staff will verify 'that sufficient information is presented in the ER to

characterize-soils at a proposed low-level waste'disposal facility.' The

staff's analysis will be closely coordinated with the 'reviews of ER Sections 3.1, "Geography and Demography," 3.2, "Ecology," 3.3, "Meteorology and

Air Quality," 3.4, "Hydrology," and 3.5, "Geology and Seismology."

The ER should contain information and data, listed in Section 2 of this ESRP,

that identify' all soil conditionslrelevant to low-level radioactive'waste

disposal. Data on'soils must'be complete so that potential impacts 'on soils

resulting from waste disposal ca'n-be 'characterized (see' ESRP 4.4.1). The"

staff's analysis'of 'soil conditions'should consider the following: '

(1) completeness and accuracy of soil descriptions and classification at and

near alternative disposal sites and borrow areas

(2) complete identification of-relationships between soil materials and

biologic, meteorologic, hydrologic, and surface and 'subsurface geologic

processes

(3) complete identification of'current uses of soil and land resources

If observations or data are incomplete or unavailable, the 'staff will request

that the applicant develop data using the standard methods and terminology

such as those identified by Hunt (1972) and the USDA (1975). The staff will

use the information in the ER in concert with regional and site-specific

reference'materials-'from't e'following'su'rces-to ensure the'accuracy and

completeness of soil descriptions:'

3.5.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.5.2 Soils

(1) Federal agencies, especially Soil Conservation Service; also Forest

Service Bureau of Land Management, Geological Survey, and U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers

(2) State agencies, especially.agricultural or farm bureaus; also geologic

surveys, natural resources divisions, and the. State engineer and highway

administration departments

(3) other sources such as university reports and dissertations and environmental and conservation organizations

4. EVALUATION

The staff will evaluate the information provided by the applicant to ensure

that (1) soil studies have included all alternative sites; (2) all soil units

have been considered; (3) all locations of proposed operations, such as site

buildings, disposal areas, buffer zones, and.borrow areas, have been included;

and (4) other aspects of the sites (geography, ecology, meteorology, hydrology,

and geology) have been described in sufficient detail so that their interactions with soils can be determined. The staff will ensure that this information is included in the appropriate section of the ES.

The staff will verify, that observations and data provide quantitative information derived through a review of relevant literature and through accepted

field and laboratory methods.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.5.2, "Soils," of the ES. This section will

contain a concise description, derived from the ER and this review, of soil

characteristics that could be affected by the alternatives under consideration. - Depth of the report will be governed by the level of consideration

being given to a particular alternative and the soil's susceptibility to

adverse impacts. The following information will usually be included in ES

Section 3.5.2.:

(1) physical description of affected soil units, which will include maps, of

cross-sections, and lists describing areal and volumetric predictions

effects on soil units

(2) descriptions of features related to soils that may also experience indirect effects of impacts on soils, such as future land use (especially

agriculture), terrestrial ecology, natural resources, groundwater, and

surface water

6. REFERENCES

Hunt, C. B., Geology of Soils, Their Evolution, Classification, and Uses,

W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972.

3.5.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.5.2 

Soils

3.5.2 soils

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff,

Agricultural Handbook No. 436, "Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys," U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, 1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 5.2-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
't > NUREG-1300

* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commitsion ,f Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.5.3

SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

; 3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* None

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* None

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's description of the seismic conditions that could be affected by the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5

of the ES. The scope of the review will consist of the analysis of the effects of construction and operation of the proposed low-level waste disposal

facility on the seismic activities at the site. This ESRP also provides a

framework for other staff reviews of environmental.studies related to the

engineering aspects of the site.

The information needed for the staff's review will include a description of

the regional and local seismicity in relation to the alternatives.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The potential for seismic impact is negligible, and the staff's experience has

been that such an impact is not likely. Therefore, an environmental review

of seismicity normally is not required. If the potential for seismic impact

should exist, the potential impact will be analyzed and evaluated on a caseby-case basis.

3.5.3-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
It- .- TESRP 3.5.3 Seismic Characteristics

4. EVALUATION

None required unless the potential for a seismic impact exists.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

On the basis of the information provided, the staff will prepare Section 3.5.3, "Seismic Characteristics," of the ES. This section will contain, if necessary, an analysis and evaluation of the seismic data for the

alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES.

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 5.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

X~I uU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\',f Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.5.4

MINERAL RESOURCES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1.2, "Site Description"

* 3.1.4, "Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters"

* 3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

* 3.6, "Regional Historic, Archeological, Architectural, Scenic, Cultural,

and Natural Landmarks"

* 7.1, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* 7.2, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

3.5.1, "Geology"

* 3.5.2, "Soils"

* 3.8, "Cultural Resources"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* .Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, "Principles of a Resource/Reserve

Classification for Minerals"

Other

- Consultation with local, Statei-and.Federal agencies

* Local courthouse records

Responses to requests for,'additional information

* Site visit .

U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey, and State geologic survey

reports and data -..-

3.5.4-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
__ _4"

ESRP 3.5.4 Mineral Resources

ESRP 3.5.4 Mineral Resources

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's description of known or identified

mineral resources, as defined in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, that

could be affected by the proposed action. The scope of the review will consist of the identification and evaluation of site-specific and regional

reconnaissance-level data on mineral resources including (1) economic, marginally economic, and subeconomic identified resources at the site; (2) the

uses and net worth of such mineral resources; and (3) the locations of active

or abandoned mines, prospects, quarries, borrow pits, wells, and excavations.

The information needed for the staff's review of the primary site will usually

include the following site-specific and regional information relevant to mineral resources. Only reconnaissance-level data and information will usually

be needed for the review of alternative sites.

(1) maps that are sufficiently detailed so that they show all active and

abandoned mines, prospects, borings, wells, borrow pits, quarries, and

excavations and identify those that are currently active

(2) lists, coded to maps in Item (1), of commodity types at each mine, prospect, boring, well, borrow pit, quarry, and excavation

(3) detailed maps that show all workings such as shafts, pits, trenches,

adits, stopes, and drifts at the proposed site

(4) maps with descriptions of geologic units that host all mines, prospects,

quarries, borrow pits, and excavations

(5) all available logs from wells and borings at the site

(6) a listing of all completion practices on wells and drilled holes within

the affected area

(7) quantitative information (if available) such as assays, tonnages, ore

grades, and production amounts of active or previously active mines,

wells, borrow pits, and quarries

(8) summary of ownership of mineral rights and leases held for exploratory

rights

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's review-of known mineral resources will be closely coordinated with

the environmental reviews of current and projected land use, geology, and

soils in order to establish potentially exploitable mineral resources that may

be affected by the alternatives being considered.

The staff will identify current and historical mining and exploration activity

and known exploitable resources for the affected site and surrounding area.

Historical resource data should be projected to current prices and demand. If

3. 5.4-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.5.4 Mineral Resources

ESRP 3.5.4 Mineral Resources

data are incomplete, additional sources of information should be consulted.

If data are unavailable, some assessment should be made using regional and

site-specific geological data and regional mineral resource data from references and information sources.

The staff's analysis of specific mineral resource data and information will

usually include the following:

(1) an analysis of affected known mineral resources that is based on a review

of maps and lists provided and other appropriate literature

(2) an analysis of regional geologic units known to host mineral deposits

that is based on a review of regional geologic and mineral resource maps

and reports and other information provided

(3) an analysis of well logs or-data that is based on a review of logs and

log reports

(4) an analysis of-quantitative information on assays, tonnages, and production 'amounts that is based on'a review of published and unpublished

reports, State mineral files, and other information provided

(5) an analysis of ownership of mineral rights and property leases that is

based on a review of local courthouse records and information provided

The staff will use sources of information' as necessary to obtain sufficient

data for the required level of review.'' Recommended sources for regional and

site-specific information are the following:

(1) State geologic surveys, mining associations, offices of industry and

trade, and planning commissions

(2) local and regional planning commissions and courthouse records

(3) Federal agencies including theBureau of Mines, Geological 'Survey, Bureau

of Land Management, Forest Service, and Environmental Protection Agency

4. EVALUATION' '

The staff-will ensure that the data are sufficient to provide quantitative and

qualitative information on the known mineral'resources that may be affected by

the alternatives being 'considered. '-If necessary,,the staff will recommend that

the applicant collect additionjal-relevant mineral resource data.'

The staff will evaluate the mineral, resource information and descriptions to

ensure th'at they: a're'tho'rough',' relevant, reliable, applicable, and accurate.

The staff will-'also verify the'information sources and references. The review

will usually include the following:

(1) evaluation of maps and lists provided of mines, prospects, wells, borings, borrow pits, and quarries to determine known mineral'resources that

could be affected by the proposed action

3.5.4-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3. 5.4 Mineral Resource~s

ESRP 3.5.4 Mineral Resources

(2) evaluation of geologic maps and descriptions to determine host lithologies for mineral resources

(3) evaluation of well logs to determine zones of economic, marginally economic, or subeconomic known or identified mineral resources

(4) evaluation of quantitative assay, tonnage, and production data to determine economic, marginally economic, or subeconomic known or identified

mineral resources

(5) evaluation of ownership of mineral or exploratory rights for the alternatives being considered

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.5.4, "Mineral Resources," of the ES. This

section will contain a concise description of known mineral resources and

recovery operations. The depth and extent of the descriptions will be governed by the level of consideration being given each alternative and by the

anticipated affect on the resource of each alternative if potentially exploitable mineral resources are present. The following information will be included in ES Section 3.5.4:

(1) Descriptions of any geologic formations at the site that are host for or

are likely to host mineral resources. These descriptions should include

maps that identify the geologic units.

(2) Annotated maps showing active and abandoned mines, prospects, quarries,

borrow pits, wells; and borings.

(3) Detailed maps, for the primary site, of the workings and excavations at

each mine, prospect, quarry, or borrow pit.

(4) If available, descriptions of significant mineral resources in wells and

borings.

(5) A listing of wells and borings at the site that, because of completion

practices, could provide significant pathways for waste.

(6) Quantitative data and/or qualitative 'assessment of known mineral

resources that would be affected by the proposed action. Present and

projected demand for known resources should be described to the degree

possible.

The staff will ensure that ES Section 3.5.4 contains descriptive information

in sufficient detail to support the descriptions and assessments in the following ES sections:

- 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 3.5.1, "Geology"

3.5.2, "Soils"

3.5.4-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.5.4 Mineral Resources

ESRP 3.5..4 Mineral Resources

6. REFERENCES

U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 831, "Principles of a Resource/Reserve Classification for Minerals,"

Washington, DC, 1980.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3.5.4-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
5i

I . 4%,

NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.6

ECOLOGY

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.6.1

ESRP 3.6.2

Terrestrial Ecology

Aquatic Ecology

3.6-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
:V '^ NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.6.1

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.2.1, "Terrestrial Ecology"

* 5.1, "Short-Term Environmental Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

* 8.1.3, "Terrestrial Environment"

* 8.2.3, "Ecological Monitoring System"

* 8.3, "Postoperational Monitoring"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance"

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Endangered Species Act of 1973

* Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, ''Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's concise description of the terrestrial environment and biota of the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of

the"ES:.' The staff will'pr'ovide pertinent inform ation to the staff reviewers

responsible for other evaluations of. the effects of, construction, operations,

and closure on the terrestrial ecosystem under ESRP 4.5.1.

3. 6.1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The scope of the review will consist of the following:

(1) Review of the applicant's identification and description of terrestrial

species (both wild and domestic), including the composition, spatial

distribution, abundance, and other attributes of biotic assemblages that

could be affected by the planned action for both the proposed and alternative sites.

(2) Review of the applicant's identification of any important* species, irreplaceable terrestrial natural resources, and the location of wildlife

sanctuaries and natural areas that might be affected by the proposed

action.

(3) Review of the applicant's compliance with applicable Federal, State, and

local ecological quality standards and regulations regarding, for example, endangered species, unique wildlife habitats, national parklands,

and critical wildlife breeding areas.

(4) Review of the applicant's program that was used to collect initial baseline ecological data. Sampling design, frequency, methodology, and

instrumentation for both collection and analysis will be evaluated as

applicable. If the terrestrial environment has already been subject to

environmental stress from pollutant sources, the applicant should provide

information on the nature of this stress and its consequences.

(5) Review of the applicant's sources of information, including published

reports and contacts with regional, State, and local officials.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential

impact. Information needed for the review will usually include the following:

(1) Maps of the alternatives and vicinity (5-kilometer radius) showing the

boundaries of major plant communities, the location of minor communities,

special habitats (e.g., springs, seeps, bogs, sink holes, cliff faces,

and rare or unique habitats) and any habitats used by "important" species

(U.S. Geological survey topographic maps of 7-1/2-minute scale can serve

as base maps when available). The site boundary, the construction zone,

and other areas to be cleared should be shown on these maps. When available, the maps described above should be supplemented with recent aerial

photographs of comparable scale.

*A species is "important" if a specific causal link can-be identified between

the proposed project and the species and if one or more of the following criteria apply: (1) the species is commercially or recreationally valuable,

(2) the species is threatened or endangered (Pub. Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884),

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

within criteria (1) or (2), or (4) the species is critical to the structure

and function of the ecological system or is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment.

3. 6.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology

ESRP3.6. Terestral Eolog

(2) Data for the alternatives that will include the composition and abundance

of floral species. Such information will be important for the reviews

under ESRPs 4.8.1, "Pathway Analysis," and 4.8.3, "Dose to Biota Other

Than Man," because plant species can control radionuclide uptake from the

soil. The identification of significant faunal exposure pathways will

also be important, in determining the sampling frequency of environmental

monitoring programs (ESRP 2.1.4, ["Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance"). In addition, a map that'shows the distribution of principal

farm crops in the area (10-kilometer radius) should be provided.

(3) Discussion of natural and man-induced effects resulting from activities

such as farming, logging, grazing, and burning. The successional stages

(i.e., weed, brush, pole, and mature stages) of each endeavor should be

addressed.

(4) A map of each alternative and vicinity showing the locations of National,

State, local, and private wildlife refuges or other land areas dedicated

to the preservation, management, or study of wildlife and wildlife

habitats.

(5) List of important terrestrial vertebrate species known to occupy the site

and vicinity (5-kilometer radius). The quantitative abundance of each

important species should be estimated; determinations should include

migratory species *and species that only use the area for temporary breeding purposes. Information on the variety and abundance of'species will

be important for the review under ESRPs 4.8.1 and 4.8.3; faunal (both

wild and domestic) foraging habits, diet, and metabolism can influence

radionuclide concentrations and affect the human food chain. The identification of significant faunal exposure pathways will also be important

in determining the sampling or measurement frequencies of environmental

monitoring programs (ESRP 2.1.4).

(6) Lists of threatened or endangered species that are known to occur, and

for any such species, their site-specific habitat. The relationships

between threatened or endangered species and the'environment should be

discussed. This discussion should include a description of the use of

the area important species (i.e., nursery and breeding), their normal

seasonal population fluctuations, and their habitat requirements. In

addition, information on food chain and interspecies relationships should

be provided.

(7) Data on the number and distribution. of important iomestic fauna, particularly cattle and sheep and other meat animals, that may contribute' to

the exposure of humans to radionuclides. Important game, dairy, recreational, and work animals-should receive similar'treatment. A map that

shows the distribution of the above-mentioned faunal types in the

area of each alternative (5-kilometer radius) should be provided.

(8) Discussion of the results of any ecological or biological studies previously completed or currently in progress. If such studies are not

available, a detailed discussion of the applicant's minimal 1-year ecological survey (quarterly sampling) is required. Such a study will be

3.6. 1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
1R_

ESRP 3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology

ESRP 3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology evaluated for its use of established scientific methods for surveying,

evaluated for its use of established scientific methods for surveying,

data retrieval, and data reduction.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will (1) describe terrestrial communities (both floral and faunal)

and their interactions- with their environment, (2) describe existing habitats,

and (3) identify important species. The review under this ESRP will be

closely coordinated with the review under ESRP 4.5.1 so that the environmental

consequences of the alternatives can be evaluated.

The staff's description of the important terrestrial communities and habitat

types will be supplemented by a review of pertinent literature, information

acquired during the site visit(s), and consultation with appropriate local,

State, and Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency.

4. EVALUATION

In evaluating the applicant's description of terrestrial resources of the

alternatives the staff will consult the appropriate standards and guides given

in Section 1 of this ESRP. Within these guides, the staff.will find a framework for the description of terrestrial resources for the environmental impact

assessment of low-level waste disposal facilities. The staff will also become

familiar with the provisions of any Federal statutes germane to the evaluation

under this ESRP such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, and the

Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The staff will ensure that (1) the. information on important terrestrial resources is sufficient to provide quantitative data on the value (economic,

environmental and social), distribution, and abundance of biota expected to be

affected by construction,,operation, and closure; (2) if biological-indicator

species are involved, criteria as to their selection have been verified; and

(3) local, State, and Federal fish, game, and conservation departments and

other appropriate resource agencies and institutions have been consulted.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.6.1, "Terrestrial Ecology," of the ES. This

section will contain descriptions of the terrestrial resources of the alternatives including offsite areas that could be affected by the disposal project.

The descriptions should be brief and should include the following:

(1) The principal terrestrial ecological features of the alternatives.

Emphasis should be placed on communities that likely will be affected by

construction, operation, and closure activities. The extent of discussion should be adequate to support the impact assessments in ES

Sections 2.3, 4.5.1, 4.11, and 4.12.

(2) Wildlife sanctuaries and natural areas that could be affected by the

proposed project. Special attention will be given to describing important species. Estimates of their abundance will be provided where

3. 6.1-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology

appropriate. Special habitat needs such as cover, forage, and protection

from prey species will be emphasized if the proposed project would potentially disrupt these needs.

The staff will provide terrestrial ecology data to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

* 2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance"

2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

* 4.5.1, "Terrestrial Ecosystem"

* 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

* 4.8.3, "Dose to Biota Other Than Man"

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

6. REFERENCES

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection,

and Characterization," April 1982.

--- , Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

3.6. 1-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Officeof Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.6.2

AQUATIC ECOLOGY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to'perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

3.2.2, "Aquatic Ecology"

* 5.1, "Short-Term Environmental. Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

* 8.2.3, "Ecological Monitoring, System"'.

* .8.3, "Postoperational Monitoring"

Environmental Reviiew(s) Performed-Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance.!

2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Coastal Zone Management Act.of 1972

* Endangered Species Act of 1973

* Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948

* Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

* Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 .

Marine Sanciuaries. Actof1972.

* .NUREG-0902, "Site .I Suitability, . .. Selection , ...,, ... ,..,.... .. and Characterization",

* Regulatory Guide 4:18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* -Rivers and Harbors Act bf 1899 - :

* State and local laws affecting water quality- - . .} - .................. : : ' ' -. ...... ! e

,3.6.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.6.2 .Aquatic Ecology

ESRP 3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's concise description of the aquatic

environment and biota of the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of

the ES. The staff will provide pertinent information to the staff reviewers

responsible for other evaluations of the effects of construction, operations,

and closure on the aquatic ecosystem.

The scope of the review will consist of the following:

(1) Review of the applicant's identification and description of aquatic

species including the composition, spatial distribution, abundance, and

other attributes of biotic assemblages that could be affected by the

alternatives under consideration:

(2) Review of the applicant's identification of any important* species,

irreplaceable aquatic natural resources, and the location of aquatic

sanctuaries and natural areas that might be affected by the proposed

action.

(3) Review of the applicant's compliance with applicable Federal, State, and

local ecological quality standards and regulations regarding, for example, endangered species, unique aquatic habitats, and critical aquatic

species breeding areas.

(4) Review of the applicant's program that was used to collect initial baseline ecological data. Sampling design, frequency, methodology, and

instrumentation for both collection and analysis will be evaluated as

applicable. If a natural water body has 'already been subject to environmental stress from pollutant sources, the applicant should provide information on the nature of this stress and its consequences.

(5) Review of the applicant's sources of information, including published

reports and contacts with regional, State, and local officials.

*A species is "important" if a specific causal link can be identified between

the proposed project and the species and if one or more of the following

criteria apply: (1) the species is commercially or recreationally valuable,

(2) the species is threatened or endangered (Pub. Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884),

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

within criteria (1) or (2), or (4) the species is critical to the structure

and function of the ecological system or is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment.

3. 6.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.6.2 Aqu.atic Ecology

ESRP~~~~~ 3.. qai clg

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential

impact.

The staff will describe the important aquatic communities and important

aquatic habitat types on the basis of the following information provided by

the applicant:

(1) Maps of the alternatives and vicinity (5-kilometer radius) showing the

locations of major aquatic communities and important aquatic habitats

(U.S. Geological Survey maps of 7-1/2-minute scale can serve as base maps

when available). The-site boundary, the construction zone, and other

areasrto -be cleared should be shown on these maps so-the staff -can evaluate,-spatially; the potential,effects of construction activities on

identified habitats as well as ascertain the proximity of significant

migration pathways to the designated disposal site property. When avail-

-able, the maps described above-should be supplemented with recent aerial

photographs of comparable scale.

(2) Data for -the alternatives that will include the composition, abundance,

and seasonal variability-of aquatic species. Such information will be

important for the review under ESRPs 4.8.1 and 4.8.3. The identification

of significant exposure pathways will also be important in determining

the sampling frequency of'environmental monitoring programs. In addition, a map that shows -the location of any harvested aquatic species used

either for stock or human consumption within a 10-kilometer radius of the

site should be provided.

(3) Description of the relative significance of the various identified

aquatic habitats in a regional-context. Maps delineating the location

of important or irreplaceable aquatic resources such as wetlands, sanctuaries, or preserves should be furnished.

(4) Description of the temporal and spatial distribution of important finfish, shellfish, and other-invertebrates, including benthos, and their

quantitative abundance, where appropriate. Critical species habitats

such as spawning areas, nursing grounds, foodhabitats, feeding -areas,

and wintering areas should be identified.

(5) Discussion of the composition and distribution of any plankton communities., -Emphasis should be placed on the-,eggs and larvae of important

fin and shellfish species. -Information on physical, chemical, and biological factors, including nutrient concentrations, known to influence

species diet, distribution, and abundance should be provided.

(6) Identification-of-endangered-or-threatened aquatic-species that are known

-to be present.An the'region and delineation of their specific habitat

requirements. - ; .- ' .

(7) Discussion of the results of any ecological or biological studies previously completed or currently in progress. If such studies are not

3. 6.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology

available, a detailed description of the applicant's 1-year environmen--

tal survey is required. Such a study will be evaluated for its use of

established scientific methods for surveying, data retrieval- and data

reduction.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will (1) describe the aquatic communities and their interactions

with the environment, (2) describe existing aquatic habitats, and (3) identify

important species. The review under this ESRP will be closely coordinated

with the review under ESRP 4.5.2 so that the environmental consequences of the

proposed action can be evaluated. In evaluating the applicant's information,

the staff should consult applicable standards and guides and may wish to consult additional references such as the documents by Edmondson and Winberg

(1971), Ricker (1971), Russel-Hunter (1975), and Vollandwider (1971) (see

Section 6 of the ESRP).

The staff description of important aquatic communities and habitat types based

on information provided by the applicant will- be supplemented by a review of

pertinent literature, information acquired during the site visit(s), and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the appropriate State

fish and wildlife agency.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that-the regional and site-specific aquatic ecological

information is adequate to serve as a basis for the assessment of the effects

of facility construction, operation, and closure on the aquatic ecosystem.

The staff will consult the appropriate standards and guides as noted in this

ESRP to assist in the evaluation. The staff will also become familiar with

the provisions of Federal statutes germane to the evaluation under this ESRP.

The staff will ensure that (1) information on important aquatic resources of

the alternatives is sufficiently detailed and accurate so that adequate quantitative data can be obtained on the value, distribution, and abundance of

vulnerable biota (vulnerable to site construction, operation, and closure

activities); (2) if indicator species are involved, criteria as to their

selection have been verified; (3) if diversity indices or other statistics are

used, each index chosen for analysis is appropriate; (4) descriptions will

include existing environmental and man-induced stresses on aquatic biota; and

(5) local, State, and Federal conservation departments, as well as other

appropriate Federal'agencies or their publications, have been consulted to

verify information needed for the staff's analysis.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The-staff will prepare Section 3.6.2, "Aquatic Ecology," of the ES. This section will contain descriptions of aquatic resources, stressing those features

that could be affected by the proposed project. The descriptions should be

brief and should include the following:

3. 6.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology

ESRP 3.6.2 Aquatic Ecology

(1) The principal aquatic ecological features of the alternatives. Emphasis

should be placed on communities that likely will be affected by construction, operation, and closure activities. The extent of discussion should

be adequate to support the impact assessments in ES Sections 2.3, 4.5.2,

4.11, and 4.1.2.

(2) Important species and aquatic food webs leading to humans. Estimates of

species abundance and habitat needs should be emphasized.

The staff will provide aquatic ecology data to the staff reviewers responsible

for the following ES sections:

2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance"

* 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

4.5.2, "Aquatic Ecosystem"

4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

* 4.8.3, "Dose to Biota Other Than Man"

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

6. REFERENCES

Edmondson, W. T., and G. G. Winberg, IBP Handbook No. 17, A Manual on Methods

for Measuring Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters, International Biological

Programme, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh, 1971.

Ricker, W. E., IBP Handbook No. 3, Methods for Assessment of Fish Production

in Fresh Waters, International Biological Programme, Blackwell Scientific

Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh, 1971.

Russel-Hunter, W. D., Aquatic Productivity, The MacMillan Company, New York,

1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection,

and Characterization," April 1982.

--- , Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

Vollandwider, R. A., IBP Handbook No. 12, A Manual on Methods for Measuring

Primary Production in Aquatic Environments, International Biological

Programme, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh, 1971.

3. 6.2-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

E) }U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.7

SOCIOECONOMICS

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 3.7.1 Labor Force and Employment

ESRP 3.7.2 Infrastructure Characteristics

ESRP 3.7.3 Tax Base and Revenues

ESRP 3.7.4 Sociocultural Characteristics

3.7-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

'U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.7.1

LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.7, "Socioeconomics"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal-of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's concise description of the labor

force and employment characteristics of the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES. The staff will.provide pertinent information to the

staff reviewers responsible for the identification 'and assessment of the

effects of construction, operation, 'closure, and long-term care of the proposed low-level waste disposal facility.

The scope of the review will be based on the magnitude and nature of.the expected effects of the proposed facility as identified in the scoping process.

At a minimum, thestaff's review of the labor force and employment characteristics will be described in sufficient detail to permit a subsequent staff

assessment and calculation of specific impacts.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified'according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential

-3.7.1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.7.1 Labor Force and Employment

ESRP 3.7.1 Labor Force and Employment

impact. The information needed for the review will usually include the

following:

(1) identification of major industries in the region,* by category, including

employment (from the ER and consultation with local and State agencies)

(2) size and nature of the construction industry and construction labor force

within the region (from the ER and consultation with local and State

agencies)

(3) size and nature of the total regional labor force (from the ER and consultation with local and State agencies)

(4) regional unemployment levels and economic projection (from the ER and

consultation with local and State agencies)

(5) identification and location of major competitors for the labor force,

i.e., large-scale, multiyear construction projects (from consultation

with local and State agencies)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the labor force and employment in the region surrounding each alternative will be closely coordinated with the impact assessment review under ESRPs 4.1 and 4.6 to establish the parameters that will

affect socioeconomic impacts. The staff will analyze the labor force and employment characteristics of each region in order to obtain adequate information on the availability of skilled and unskilled labor to meet the needs of

the project.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the information on labor force and employment is

adequate so that it can be used as a basis for the assessment of impacts on

the local communities resulting from the construction, operation, closure, and

long-term care of the proposed facility.

*The region, as used in this ESRP, is limited to the area that includes the

following for which social and economic base data must be provided:

(1) the counties in which the alternative sites would be located

(2) those specific portions of surrounding counties and urbanized areas

(generally up to 40 kilometers from each alternative site) from which

the construction work force would be principally drawn, or whose community services would be affected because construction workers changed

residence.

Other social and economic impacts can generally be presumed to affect the

same area covered by this definition of the region.

3.7. 1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.7.1 Labor Force and Employment

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The factors identified above will govern the depth and extent of the input to

the ES. The staff will prepare Section 3.7.1, "Labor Force and Employment;"

of the ES. This section will summarize the staff's review of the labor force

and employment characteristics for the region surrounding each alternative

site.

The staff also will provide the following information or ensure that it has

been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

* 4.6, "Socioeconomics" - estimates of the adequacy of the labor force

size, composition, and availability to meet the labor force needs of the

project.

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3.7. 1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
\ NUREG-1300.'

{s) U.S. Nucear Rguatoy Commission .Officeof Nuclear Materia Safetly'nd Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.7.2

- INFRASTRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS- '

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to'perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

' *3.7, "Socioeconomics" '

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.2.-2,;"Alternative Sites" 7-

* 2.2.5, "Summary Altertnitives fof'Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18; "Standa'rd Format and'Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to^ direct'the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's concise description of the infrastructure characteristics for the alternatives identified'in Section 2.2;5 'of

the ES. The staff will provide pertinent information to the staff, reviewers

responsible for the identification and assessment of the socioeconomic impacts

of the construction, operation, closure, and long-term care of the proposed

low-level waste disposal facility. :

The scope of the review will be based on the ma'gnitude'and nature of the

expected impacts of the proposed facility as identified 'in-the scoping

process. 'At a minimum, the staff's review of the infrastructure characteristics 'will be described in'sufficient detail to permit'a subsequent staff

assessment and evaluation of specific impacts.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the

results of the scoping process'and the'anticipated magnitude of the potential

3.7.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.7.2 Infrastructure Characteristics

ESRP 3.7.2 Infrastructure Characteristics impacts. The information needed for the review will usually include the

impacts. The information needed for the review will usually include the

following:

Housing

(1) location and amount of existing and projected housing

(2) characteristics of existing housing: types, age, size, and condition

(3) trends in size of housing stock

(4) turnover and vacancy rates

(5) constraints on development of new housing (if any)

Health and Public Safety

(1) present and projected water and sewer/sewage disposal facilities, including present capacity and projected percentage of use

(2) present and projected police and-fire capabilities

(3) location of hospitals and number of physicians and specialized health

facilities, including present and projected capacity

Education

(1) regional private and. secondary schools, including pupil-teacher ratios,

capacity, and present.percentage of use

(2) regional junior colleges, technical schools, and higher institutions,

including capacity and present percentage of use

Highways and Transportation

(1) regional and local highway systems, including carrying capacity and condition of roads and highways

(2) availability and type of public transportation

(3) modifications that might affect traffic flow to and from the alternatives

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE.

The staff's analysis of the infrastructure characteristics in the region

surrounding each alternative will be closely coordinated with the impact

assessment review under ESRPs 4.1 and 4.6 in order to establish the parameters

that will affect socioeconomic impacts. The staff will analyze the infrastructure characteristics of each region in order to provide sufficient information on the availability of an adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of

the project.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure-that the information on the infrastructure characteristics is adequate to serve as a basis for the assessment of impacts on the

3.7.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.7.2 Infrastructure Characteristics

local communities resulting from the construction, operation, closure, and

long-term care of the proposed facility.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The factors identified above will govern the depth and extent of the input to

the ES. The staff will prepare Section 3.7.2, "Infrastructure Characteristics," of the ES. This section will summarize the .staff's review of the

infrastructure characteristics for the region surrounding each alternative

site.

The staff also will provide the following information or ensure that it has

been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

4.6, "Socioeconomics" - estimates of the adequacy of existing housing,

health and public safety facilities and capabilities, educational

institutions, and transportation facilities to meet the needs of the

incoming labor force associated with the project

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3.7.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- \ NUREG-1300 - ( U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - \l*,. --Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL-STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.7.3

TAX BASEAND REVENUES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.7, "Socioeconomics"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal-of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* reConsultation with!.local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses-to requests for additional information

* Site visit.

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of-this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's concise description of the regional

tax base and revenues of the alternatives;.identified:in.Section 2.2.5 of the

ES. The staff will provide pertinent information to the.:staff reviewers

responsible for the identification and assessment of the socioeconomic impacts

of the construction, operation, closure, and long-term care of the proposed

low-level waste disposal facility.

:The.scope of the.review will be based.on the magnitude and nature of the

expected impacts of the proposed facility as identified in the scoping . process. At a minimum, the staff's review of tax base and revenues will be

described in sufficient detail to permit a subsequent staff assessment and

evaluation of specific impacts.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the

3.7.3-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-R_

ESRP 3.7.3 Tax Base and Revenues

ESRP 3.7.3 Tax Base and Revenues

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential

impact. Information needed for the review will usually include the following:

(1) regional political jurisdictions and tax districts, including the tax

districts that will be directly affected by the construction, operation,

closure, and long-term care of the proposed facility

(2) regional tax structure and the distribution of present revenues to each

jurisdiction and district

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the tax base and resources in the region surrounding

each alternative will be closely coordinated with the impact assessment review

under ESRPs 4.1 and 4.6 in order to establish the parameters that will affect

socioeconomic impacts. The staff will analyze the tax base and revenue data

of each region in order to provide adequate information on the economic impacts of the proposed facility.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the information on the regional tax base and revenues is adequate to serve as a basis for the assessment of impacts on the

local communities resulting from the construction, operation, closure, and

long-term care of the proposed facility.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The factors identified above will govern the depth and extent of the input to

the ES. The staff will prepare Section 3.7.3, "Tax Base and Revenues," of the

ES. This section will summarize the staff's review of the tax base and revenue data for the region surrounding each alternative site.

The staff also will provide the following information or ensure that it has

been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

4.6, "Socioeconomics," - quantitative and qualitative data on the

regional tax base and revenues relative to each alternative site

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 7.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
'A X NUREG-13t0

;~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Saleguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.7.4

SOCIOCULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.7, "Socioeconomics"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

* 2.2.5, "Summary'Alternatives for' Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional'information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this'ESRP is to direct the'staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's concise description of the sociocultural characteristics of'the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of

the ES. The potential for sociocultural impacts is highly site specific.

For this reason,"the staff will review'this area with the applicant early

during the'preparation of-the ER to establish the necessity of considering

sociocultural characteristics. The staff will provide pertinent information

to the staff reviewers responsible for the'identification'and'assessment of

the effects of the construction, operation, closure, and long-term-care of

the proposed low-level waste disposal facility.

The scope of the review will be based on the magnitude and nature of the

expected impacts of the proposed'facility-as identified in the scoping

process. At a minimum, 'the'staiff's 'review of sociocultural factors will be

described in sufficient detail to permit a subsequent staff assessment and

calculation of specific impacts.

3. 7.4-1 3Rev. 0 - April 1987
.qpL.

ESRP 3.7.4 Sociocultural Characteristics

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential

impact. Information needed for the review will usually include the following:

(1) social structure and significant institutions of major communities within

the region surrounding each alternative site

(2) identification and evaluation of significant community problems (i.e.,

crime, family stability, substance abuse, etc.)

(3) results of attitudinal surveys, if conducted, of local attitudes, lifestyle indicators, cultural values, community cohesion, etc.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the sociocultural characteristics of the region surrounding each alternative will be closely coordinated with the impact assessment review under ESRP* 4.6 in order to establish the parameters that will

affect socioeconomic impacts. The staff will analyze the sociocultural characteristics of each region in order to provide adequate information on the

sociocultural factors that are likely to affect or be affected by the needs

of the project and result in potential adverse impacts.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the information on the sociocultural characteristics is adequate to serve as a basis for the assessment of impacts on the

local communities resulting from the construction, operation, closure, and

long-term care of the proposed facility.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The factors identified above will govern the depth and extent of the input

to the ES. The staff will prepare Section 3.7.4, "Sociocultural Characteristics," of the ES. This section will summarize the staff's review of the

sociocultural characteristics for the region surrounding each alternative.

The staff also will provide the following information or ensure that it has

been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

4.6, "Socioeconomics" - data on the sociocultural factors likely to

affect or be affected by the project

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

3. 7.4-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
'' C NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-w7fi Office of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.8

CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review-under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.6, "Regional Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, Scenic, Cultural

and Natural Landmarks"

* 5.1, "Short-Term Environmental Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for-Detailed Consideration"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* 36 CFR 800, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"

* Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural

Environment," 1971

* Historical and Archaeological-Preservation Act of 1974

* National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

.Reports for Near-Surface-Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* U.S. Department of the Interior, The Uational Register of Historic Places

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's concise description of those

3. 8-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.8 Cultural Resources

ESRP 3.8 Cultural Resources

historic, archaeological, and cultural resources* that could be affected by

disposal facility construction and operation. The results of this review will

be used for other reviews of the effects of construction and operation on

these resources.

The scope of the review will consist of the following:

(1) evaluation of the methods used to identify and locate cultural, historic,

and archaeological resources

(2) evaluation of the results of the surveys conducted

(3) confirmation of the location and significance of any properties that are

listed or are eligible for inclusion in The National Register of Historic

Places

(4) review of any additional information pertaining to the identification and

description of cultural or historic resources that could be affected by

the construction or operation of the proposed project

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential

impact. Information needed for the review will usually include the following:

(1) The applicant's detailed description of any archaeological or historical

surveys (planned or ongoing) of the proposed and alternative sites and

vicinity. The description should include a map outlining the physical

extent of the survey and a brief discussion of survey techniques and the

qualifications of the surveying party. If a "new" survey is planned,

both historic and archaeological resources should be considered.

For site evaluations (especially the alternative sites), the applicant

should rely heavily on reconnaissance-level information that can be retrieved or generated without performing additional specific investigations. This includes relevant scientific government or private agency

reports and consultations with experts.

(2) The applicant's identification (on a map) and discussion of "important"* sites. The applicant's determinations should be supported by

(a) the State historic preservation officer (SHPO), (b) an extensive

literature review, (c) field reconnaissance work, and (d) limited surface

testing, if necessary.

*Historic and cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects of historical, archaeological, architectural, or cultural

significance.

**"Important" implies locations valued for their historic, archaeological,

architectural, scenic, cultural, or landmark significance.

3. 8-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 3.8 Cultural Resources

(3) The results of the staff's consultation with the SHPO and the State

archaeologist and/or State historian, if they exist, to determine if

there are any additional comments or information concerning the proposed

action. An additional 'source of information in the area 'of historic and

cultural preservation is the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation of the National Park Service, U.S. Department'of the Interior. The

staff may also choose to consult this entity to substantiate'the applicant's results.

(4) The results of the staff's consultation with the SHPO in applying The

National Register criteria to any' important historical, archaeological,

or cultural locations identified in the applicant's suryvey(s).' If the

staff determines that a particular location appears to -meet the criteria,

it should request, in 'writing,"an opinion from the U.S. Department of the

Interior. The request for determination of 'eligibility should be sent

directly to the Director of the Historic Preservation Council, U.S.

Department of the Interior.

(5) The results of the staff's search'of The National Register of Historic

Places to verify the applicant's list of properties included therein. It

should be noted that a disposal site can have a visual or audible effect

on cultural and historic resources that 'are located'some distance from

the proposed site. Therefore, all'properties listed in The National

Register that are within 10 kilometers of the potential disposal site

should be identified. In addition-to the above, the staff should consider'compliance-with appropriate State and/or local historic preservation laws.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

In evaluating the cultural resources of the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES, the staff will'review the following information provided

by the applicant: (1) the description of any archaeological or historical

surveys; (2) the discussion of relevant comments by any organization contacted

by the applicant for the purpose 'of 'locating and assessing archaeological and

historic resources; and (3)Ythe 'description of all properties within or adjacent to (within a 10 kilometer radius) the sites that are listed or are eligible for inclusion in The National Register of Historic Places or are

included in State'or local registers. --The review under this ESRP will be

coordinated with the review under ESRP 4.7 in order to carefully evaluate

the environmental consequences of the proposed action.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the historic, archaeological, and cultural resources that could be affected by the construction, operation, and closure

of the proposed project have been identified, located, and described in sufficient detail to enable an analysis and assessment of these impacts.

3.8-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
*1!

ESRP 3.8 Cultural Resources

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 3.8, "CulturalResources," of the ES. The

depth and scope of input to the ES will be dictated by the extent and significance of the identified historic, archaeological, and cultural resources

and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts of construction,

operation, and closure. The following information usually will be included

in ES Section 3.8:

(1) A description of historic, archaeological, and cultural resources that

are listed in or are eligible for inclusion in The National Register of

Historic Places. Any resource, with the potential for inclusion, should

have SHPO concurrence. A description of resources included in State

and/or local registers should also be provided.

(2) A list and summary of conversations with members of organizations or

individuals contacted by the applicant or NRC staff who provided necessary information concerning the location and significance of important

resources.

(3) A brief description of the overall results and adequacy of any surveys

(field or archival) that were conducted by the applicant or others.

The staff will provide historic, archaeological, and cultural resource information to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

4.7, "Cultural Resources"

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, "Parks, Forests and Public Property,"

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., revised annually.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The National Register

of Historic Places, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., revised

periodically.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability Selection

and Characterization," April 1982.

--- , Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

3.8-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I- X NUREG-1300

* u U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.1

LAND

1. REVIEW INPUT.

The.staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Rep'ort Section(s)

* 3.1.1, "Site Location"

* 3.1.2, "Site Description"

* 3.1.4,"Uses of Adjacent Lands'and Waters"

* 5.1.1.1, "Land-Use Effects"

* 5.1.2.5, "Other Effects"

* 5.1.3.1, "Land Use and Terrestrial Impacts"

* 5.2.1, "Environmental Effects of Long-Term Containment"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

.2.1.1, "Location"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

* 2.2.3, "Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 3.6.1, "Terrestrial Ecology"

* 3.7.2, "Infrastructure Characteristics"

* 3.8, "Cultural Resources"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s).,

Federal Land Policy and Managenmyent Act of 1976

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, '"Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface. Disposal of. Radioactive Waste"

U.S. Department of Agriculture; "Prime and Unique Farmlands," Final

Rule, 43 FR 4030, January 31, 1978

* Wilderness Act of 1976

4..1-1 Rev 0 - April 1987
IESRP 4.1 Land

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests.for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's assessment of the direct and

indirect impacts of construction, operation, closure, and long-term care on

land use associated with the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the

ES. The scope of the review will consist of the analysis and evaluation of

the alternatives in sufficient detail in order to determine the significance

of potential land-use impacts and to recommend how these impacts should.be

treated in the licensing process (e.g., recommendations that would mitigate

adverse environmental impacts). The impact analysis should.consider the

potential changes in land use for each alternative as a result of construction, operation, closure, and long-term care.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespeciric factrs, and thedegred rrfetail me- wi-lbe m Aifie accord1uig to the

anticipiated iagrnitud f.-the pgtejntial impact. Information niedred-fur-the

review will usually include the following:

(1) maps showing land-use categories according to the categories defined

by Anderson et al. (1976) for the various alternatives and within a

10-kilometer radius of each alternative (from ES Section 3.1.2)

(2) land areas devoted to major uses within the confines of the alternatives

as well as within a 10-kilometer radius of each alternative (from ES

Section 3.1.2)

(3) highways and utilities at each alternative and in its vicinity (from ES

Section 3.1.2)

(4) special land uses, such as recreation, for each alternative and its

vicinity (from ES Section 3.1.2)

(5) local and regional land-use plans that include the alternatives within

their scope (from ES Section 3.1.2)

(6) for each alternative, the area and location of land that will be disturbed by construction on either a long- or short-term basis (from ES

Section 3.1.2)

(7) proposed land restoration and management actions such as recontouring or

grading, permanent landscaping, revegetation of disturbed areas, restoration of stream flows, and establishment of recreational areas (from the

ER and on request from the applicant)

4.1I- 2 Rev 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.1 Land

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will. consider land-use impacts of the various alternatives in terms

of (1) long-term restrictions on land use and long-term physical changes in

land use and (2) short-term physical changes in land'use. Long-term restrictions and/or changes in land use will be considered in terms of the amount and

quality of land affected after proposed measures, if any,'have been implemented. Restrictions on the use of farmland,''industrial areas, recreational

areas, residential areas, and other areas will be reviewed. In specific

cases, the degree'of change or impact can sometimes be analyzed by comparison

to existing standards, guides, or local use plans and zoning ordinances. The

staff'should consult these documents 'and ensure that'the'evaluations of'impacts at the alternatives are consistent. In most cases, however', no standards or guides exist, and the staff will have to evaluate the severity of

the impact without these aids.

Restrictions on the use of land such as farmland or forest can be analyzed'

in the context of the amount and quality of the land to be affected by each

alternative. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has developed two indices

of land quality that may be'used for guidance:

(1) Land Capability Classification: This classification places land in one

of eight categories as defined inieach State's "Conservation Needs Inventory" document. Land incapability Classes I and 'II is usually'the

most productive and, therefore.'subject to'the most detailed analysis

when it is to be committed. Land in Classes III through VIII is less

important and, therefore, its commitment is not as thoroughly analyzed.

(2) "Prime" or "Unique"-'Classification: >"Prime" land, as defined in'the

U.S. Department of Agriculture Final Rule (Federal Register, January 31,

1978), is-generally also in' Class I or II and is the most productive.

The criteria for committingprime land have not been established. If

the staff determines that prime land is to be committed, it must assess

productivity and provide the results of that assessment to the staff

reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts."

"Unique" land, because of an unusual convergence of soil and climate, is

suited to the production of a special crop that is not widely grown elsewhere."' The criteria'-for the commitment of unique'land have not been

established. -If the'staffifinds that unique'land is to be committed, it

must assess.-productivity and provide the 'results of that assessment'to

the staff reviewer-res§ponsible'for'ES Section 4.11.

To assess productivity, the staff will use a State's annually published document on. agricultural statistics,; which'contains crop and'animal' production

statistics'and land areas'by county.- The'staff'will'also consult with local

and State agricultural and soil conservation agencies as necessary to complete

this-assessment.' - '-'' -

4.1-3 Rev 0 - April 1987
.-. WESRP 4. 1 Land

ESRP 4.1 Land

4. EVALUATION

For each alternative the staff generally will consider the following to assess

the severity of impacts on land use:

(1) physical amount or extent of. land affected

(2) quality/use category qf affected area

(3)- duration of impacts: short-term or long-term

(4) other quantitative or qualitative measures

Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following

determinations:

(1) The impact is minor and mitigation is not required.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be mitigated by specific practicable

design or procedural modifications.

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided.

If the staff cannot identify any mitigative or avoidance practices, it will

provide a detailed summary of the land-use changes and their impacts to the

staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.11.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.1, "Land," of the ES, which should contain

the following: (1) a brief description and quantification of the land-use

changes with regard to the alternatives, thus ensuring disclosure to the

public of major direct and indirect land-use consequences of the proposed

action, (2) the basis of the staff's analysis of the project, and (3) the

staff's conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding land use.

This section should be clear to a nontechnical reader. Extensive descriptive

material may be incorporated by reference and need not be duplicated in the

statement.

The staff's analysis may be presented in a narrative summary, and important

aspects of the impacts resulting from potential land-use changes should be

highlighted. The discussion should identify important impacts and mitigating

actions. Minor issues should receive minor treatment. Important or disputed

issues should be discussed in detail.

The staff will provide the. following information or ensure that it has been

provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

* 4.5, "Ecology" - a list of land-use impacts that should be considered for

potential ecological impacts

* 4.6, "Socioeconomics" - a list of land-use impacts that should be considered for potential socioeconomic impacts

4. 1-4 Rev 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.1 Land

* 4.7, "Cultural Resources" - a list of impacts that could affect historic/

archeological sites

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a summary of the

unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of changes

in land use

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable'Commitments of Resources" - a

summary of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land-use

resources

6. REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Wirmer, "A Land-Use and

Land-Cover Classification System for Use With Remote Sensor Data," U.S.

Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, Washington, DC, 1976.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Prime and Unique Farmlands," Final Rule,

Federal Register, Vol. 43, p. 4030, January 31, 1978.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.1-.5 Rev 0 - April 1987
\ NUREG-1300 ) IU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of N1t.lear Mateial Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.2

METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action"

* 3.1.1, "Population Distribution and Characteristics"

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 3.2.1, "Meteorology"

* 3.2.2, "Ambient Air Quality"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* :10 CFR 20.106, "Radioactivity in Effluents to Unrestricted Areas"

* 40 CFR 50, "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards"

40 CFR 52, "Protection of the Environment"

* 40 CFR 58, "Ambient Air Quality Surveillance"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultations with local, State, and Federal agencies

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and independent

assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from the releases of radiological and nonradiological pollutants to the atmosphere during the construction, operational, closure, and postoperational phases of the alternatives

under consideration. For those pollutants identified by the applicant, the

scope of the review will consist of.'an evaluation of their impacts on the

environment at receptor locations for postulated releases during each of the

above phases.

4. 2-1l Rev. 0 - April 1987
-- m

ESRP 4.2 Meteorology and Air Quality

ESRP 4.2 Meteorology and Air Quality

Information needed for the staff's review will usually include the following:

(1) The expected ground-level concentrations of radiological and nonradiological pollutants at the facility boundary and receptor locations during

each phase of the life cycle of the waste disposal site. The potential

radiological airborne pollutants resulting from releases from waste

buried at the disposal site should be identified and their estimated

ground-level airborne concentrations should be listed. The nonradiological pollutants generated during the construction, operational, and

closure periods from fugitive dusts and the combustion of fossil fuels

will include sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, and lead.

(2) Documentation of the methods used to identify each concentration (such as

reconnaissance-level information, instrumental measurements, or calculations from a conceptual model).

(3) Evidence of compliance with.relevant local, State, and Federal ambient

air quality standards.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

For the preferred site and for each alternative site:

(1) The staff will compare the radiological and nonradiological concentrations reported by the applicant with the baseline concentrations reported

in ES Section 3.2.2 (using appropriate statistical techniques) in order

to identify significant differences between the baseline and impact

concentrations. It may be necessary for the'staff to use conceptual/

computer models to verify the ambient air concentrations reported by the

applicant.

(2) The staff will determine if the projected ground-level concentration of

any radiological or non-radiological pollutant significantly exceeds

(a) its corresponding baseline concentration as reported in ES Section 3.2.2 or (b) any national primary and secondary ambient air quality

standards listed in 40 CFR 50. If any significant differences are found,

the staff should contact the applicant for further clarification of the

parameters used in the calculation and, if necessary, should perform an

independent evaluation of the concentrations in question.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will independently confirm the applicant's projected ground-level

concentrations for radiological and nonradiological contaminants. After

having done this, the staff will evaluate the significance of any increases

above background levels either by comparing them with ambient air quality

standards for the location under consideration or by including them in the

pathways analysis to determine the consequent dose to humans or other biota.

If values exceeding established standards are projected, the staff will notify

the project manager to ensure that the necessary coordination with local,

State, and Federal agencies takes place.

4.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.2 Meteorology and Air Quality

ESRP 4.2 Meteorology and Air Quality

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.2, "Meteorology and Air Quality," of the ES.

The information in this section will be used in Section 4.8, "Radiological

Impacts and Dose Assessment," of the ES to determine compliance of the proposed or alternative sites with 10 CFR 61.41.

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, "Energy," and Title 40, "Protection

of Environment," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, revised

annually.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection

and Characterization," April 1982.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

4. 2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
X NU REG-13DO

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\7,7./ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.3

HYDROLOGY

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

4. 3-1 Rev 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.3.1

SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

2.1, "Siting Alternatives"

* 2.2, "Alternative Facility Designs"

* 4.2.3.4, "Disposal Unit Covers and Use of Engineered Structures"

4.2.3.5, "Site Drainage and Erosion (Operational and Postclosure)"

4.3.2, "Excavated Materials Area"

* 5.1, "Short-Term Evnironmental .Effects".

* 5.1.1, "Site Preparation and Construction Effects"'

* 5.1.2, "Facility Operation Effects"''

* 5.1.3, "Facility Closure Activities Effects"

5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

5.2.1, "Environmental Effects of Long-Term Containment"

* .5.2.2, "Environmental Effects of Potential Radionuclide Releases"

* 7.1, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* 7.2, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

* 7.3, "Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity

of Man's Environment,'

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under-the Following ESRP(s)

2.1.2, "Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

2.1.5, "Site Closure and Stabilization"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

* 2.2.3, "Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features

* 2.2.4, "Alternative Plans for. Site Closure and Stabilization"

* 3.4.1.1, "Surface Water Regime"'.

3.4.1.2, "Surface Water Quality"

3.4.1.3, "Surface&Water Use" .

4.3. 1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
....r

ESRP 4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

ESRP 4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

* 3.4.2.1, "Groundwater Regime"

* 3.4.2.2, "Groundwater Quality"

* 3.4.2.3, "Groundwater Use"

* 3.5.1, "Geology"

* 3.5.2, "Soils"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Executive Order No. 11988, "Floodplain Management," 1977

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's identification, assessment, and

description of the impacts of the alternatives selected for detailed consideration on surface water bodies that will affect or will be affected by the

alternatives. The scope of the review will include an analysis of the effects

of the alternatives, including site preparation, construction, operation, and

closure, on the regime, quality, and use of surface water bodies. The review

will also encompass an evaluation of features designed to minimize the impacts on surface water and an evaluation of compliance with local, State, and

Federal regulations governing surface water regime, quality, and use.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by regional and

site-specific factors. Information needed for the review will usually include

the following for each of the alternatives:

(1) Data on surface water regime, quality, and use (from the ER and appropriate environmental reviews).

(2) Maps and lists identifying surface water bodies whose regime, quality,

or use would be affected by the alternatives (from the ER and appropriate

environmental reviews).

(3) Maps and lists identifying surface water users that would be affected by

changes in surface water regime or quality caused by the alternatives

(from the ER and appropriate environmental reviews).

4. 3.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

(4) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the impacts of site preparation, construction, operation, and closure on the regime, quality, and

use of surface water. Specific data required for each ER section related

to this review are described in Regulatory Guide 4.18 (from the ER and

appropriate environmental reviews).

(5) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of natural or man-made features

designed to minimize surface water impacts (from the ER,'site visit,

appropriate environmental reviews, and the general literature).

(6) Description and analysis of surface water pathways to demonstrate that

potential radiological and nonradiological effluent concentrations will

be within acceptable limits'(from the ER and appropriate environmental

reviews).

(7) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the impacts on groundwatersurface water interactions (from the.ER and appropriate environmental

reviews).

(8) Local, State, and Federal regulations applicable to surface water regime,

quality, and use (from'the ER, appropriate environmental reviews, and

consultation with appropriate agencies and their regulations).

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of impacts on surface water will be closely coordinated

with the environmental reviews performed under the ESRPs listed in Section 1

of this ESRP. The analysis procedure will be divided intbothree parts in

order to assess the impacts on surface"water (1) regime,'(2) quality, -and

(3) use that may result from the'alternatives being.considered. The depth of

analysis will be governed by the level of consideration being given each

alternative. Descriptions of the types of analyses to be'conducted can be

found in references such as the'documents by Becker and Mills (1972), Curran

and Associates (1976), Darnell et al. (1976), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (1973a, 1973b, and 1976) Iand U.S. Water Resources Council (1978) (see

Section 6 of this ESRP).'

Surface Water Regime

The staff will determine if any of the activities associated with the alternatives being considered,''including site preparation, construction, operation,

and closure, will have an impact on surface water regime. If so, the staff

will quantify, 'as much as possiblej the;magnitude of the anticipated impacts.

Analyses of the following will usually be conducted:

(1) effects of increased or decreased runoff, which may result from.changes

in vegetation'or'topography during site preparation and construction or

emplacement of runoff-enhancing (infiltration-retarding) covers during

operation and closure, on the flow regime (water.surface elevation) and

erosion p'otential of' affected surface water bodies

4. 3.1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- F.

ESRP 4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

(2) effects of increased or decreased groundwater recharge, resulting from

increased or decreased runoff,- on the 16w-flow (water surface elevation)

characteristics of affected surface water bodies

(3) effects of construction on, or other alteration of, the 100-year floodplain (as defined in Executive Order No. 11988) on flood flows and water

surface profiles of affected surface water bodies

(4) effects of proposed channelized drainage and surface water diversions on

flood flows and erosion potentials of affected surface water bodies

(5) effects of increased sediment load, which may result from the exposure of

unconsolidated'materials to erosion during site preparation, construction, and operation, on the sedimentation rates and erosion potentials of

affected surface water bodies

(6) the legal ramifications of anticipated changes in surface water regime

with respect to Federal, State, and local regulations

The staff's analysis of impacts on surface water 'regime will be conducted from

the additional perspective of providing pertinent information to the staff

reviewers responsible for the analysis of impacts on surface water quality and

use.

Surface Water Quality

The staff'will determine if any of the activities associated with the alternatives being considered; including site'preparation, construction, operation,

and closure, will have an impact on surface, water quality. If so,' the staff

will quantify, as much as possible, the magnitude of the anticipated impacts.

Anticipated impacts on surface water regime should be taken into consideration

during the analysis. Analyses'of the following will usually be conducted:

(1) effects of operational, postoperational, or accidental releases of radioactive effluents on established radiological baselines for the affected

water bodies

(2) effects of constructional, operational, postoperational, or accidental

releases of nonradiological chemical effluents. (organic and inorganic)

on established water quality baselines for the affected water bodies

(3) effects of changes in physical (e.g., turbidity) or biological (e.g.,

water quality indicator organisms) surface water characteristics on the

established water quality baselines for the affected surface water bodies

(4) the legal ramifications of anticipated changes in surface water quality

with respect to Federal, State, and local regulations

The staff's analysis of impacts on surface water quality will be 'conducted

from the additional perspective of providing pertinent information to the

staff reviewers responsible for the analysis of impacts on surface water use.

4. 3.1-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4. 3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

ESRP 4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

Surface Water Use

The staff will determine if any of the activities associated with the alternatives being considered, including site preparation, construction, operation,

and closure,.will have an impact-on surface water use. If so, the staff will

quantify, as much as possible, the-magnitude of the anticipated impacts.

Anticipated impactson surface water regime and-quality should be taken into

consideration during the analysis. Analyses of the following will usually be

conducted:

(1) effects of decreased flow volumes (water surface elevations) during

periods of low flow on consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses (e.g.,

industrial and domestic use, waste assimilation, irrigation, navigation,

and hydroelectric power generation) involving the affected surface water

bodies

(2) effects of increased sediment load and sedimentation on water uses such

-as navigation and reservoir storage capacity on the affected surface

water bodies -

(3) effects of changes in nonradiological water quality (i.e., total dissolved solids, total organic carbon, turbidity, heavy metals, water

quality indicator organisms, and major organic and inorganic constituents) on consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses (e.g., industrial

and domestic use, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation) involving

the affected surface water bodies

(4) effects of changes in radiological water'quality on consumptive and

nonconsumptive water uses involving'the affected surface water bodies

(5) the legal ramifications of anticipated changes in surface water use with

respect to Federal, State, and local regulations

The staff will use sources of information as necessary to conduct the surface

water impacts analyses at the requir'ed level of review. These sources should

include consultation with all applicable Federal, State, and local agencies,

as well as with the applicant and local water users.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the surface water impacts analyses are relevant,

complete, reliable, accurate,,and conservative, according to the level of consideration being given each alternative.' If necessary, the staff will request

that the applicant provide additional analyses or substantiate the methodologies that were used.. If anticipated impacts and the.level of consideration warrant, the staff will conduct independent analyses to further evaluate

surface water impacts.

Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following

determinations:

4. 3. 1-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology

(1) The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are

of this nature, the staff will accept the alternative(s) as proposed.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be mitigated-by specific design or procedural modifications. In this case, the staff will consult with the

staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action," to determine if the recommended modifications are practicable. The staff will provide information on-the verified modifications

and recommendations to the staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 2.3,

"Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations."

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are

identified, the staff will inform the staff reviewers responsible for ES

Sections 2.2 and 2.3 that an analysis of alternative designs or procedures is required. The staff will participate in any analysis or evaluation of alternatives that would result in avoidance of the'impact and

that could be considered practicable. If no such alternatives can be

identified, the staff will provide this information to the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts," and 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources."

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.3.1, "Surface Water Hydrology," of the ES.

This section will contain concise descriptions of the anticipated impacts on

surface water regime, quality, and use that were identified in the impacts

analyses. The depth and extent of these descriptions will be governed by

the level of consideration being given each alternative and the anticipated

magnitude of the impacts. The following information will usually be included

in ES Section 4.3.1:

(1) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of identified impacts on the

regime, quality, and use of affected surface water bodies. These descriptions should include maps, lists, tables, and figures as necessary

to present the analysis results as concisely as possible.

(2) A summary of the evaluation findings, including recommended modification

; and adverse impacts.

(3) A summary of the legal ramifications of the identified impacts with

respect to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.

The staff will also provide pertinent information on the identified surface

water impacts to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES

sections:

2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

4.5.2, "Aquatic Ecosystem"

4.7, "Cultural Resources"

4.8, "Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment"

4. 3.1-6 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.3. 1 Surface Water Hydrology

* 4.10, "Relationships to Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Controls"

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

* 4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity"

6. REFERENCES

Becker, B. C., and T. R. Mills, "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Implementation," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA-R2-72-015, August 1972.

Curran and Associates, Inc., Guidelines for Review of Environmental Impact

Statements, Vol. IV, Channelizatiion Projects, prepared for U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC, July 1976.

Darnell, R. M., W. E. Pequegnet, B. M. James, F. J. Benson, and R. A.

Defenbaugh, "Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United

States," EPA-600/3-76-045, NTIS PB 256 674/3WP, Tereco Corp., College

Station, TX, April 1976.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Processes, Procedures, and Methods To

Control Pollution Resulting From All Construction Activity," EPA-430/9-73-007,

Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC, October 1973a.

--- , "Methods For Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of NonPoint Sources of Pollutants," EPA-430/9-73-014, Washington, DC, October

1973b.

--- , Guidelines for Review of Environmental Impact Statements, Vol. III,

Impoundment Projects, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC, 1976.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

U.S. Water Resources Council, "Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988," Federal Register, Vol. 43, p. 6030,

February 10, 1978.

4. 3.1-7 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

* X -- ) IU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminlon

\s7f - Office of Nuclear Matersi Safety and Sufeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.3.2

GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* -2.1, "Siting Alternatives" - 2.2, "Alternative Facility Designs"

* 3.4.1, "Ground Water"

* 3.4.2, "Surface Water"

* 3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

* 4.1, "Description of Wastes To Be Accepted"

* 4.2, "Facility Description"

5.1, "Short-Term Environmental Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

* .7.1, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1, "Description of the Proposed Action"

* 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action"

* 3.1, "Land"

3.4.1.1, "Surface Water Regime"

3.4.1.2, "Surface Water Quality"

3.4.1.3, "Surface Water Use"

* 3.4.2.1, "Groundwater Regime"

* 3.4.2.2, "Groundwater Quality"

3.4.2.3, "Groundwater Use"

3.5.1, "Geology"

3.5.2, "Soils"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide .4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

Responses to requests for ,additional information -

* Site visit -.

4. 3. 2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
_1r_

ESRP 4. 3.'2 Groundwater Hydrology

ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's assessment and description of the

potential impacts of the alternatives selected for detailed consideration on

the groundwater regime, quality, and use. The scope of the review will consist of (1) analysis of predicted'impacts on local and regional groundwater

regimes; (2) analysis and evaluation of proposed features designed to minimize

contaminant migration and subsequent adverse impacts on groundwater quality

and use; and (3) evaluation of compliance with local, State, and Federal

regulations applicable to water use and water quality.

The information needed for the staff"s review will be affected by sitespecific factors and the anticipated magnitude of the impacts on groundwater

regime and use. Information needed for the review will usually include the

following:

(1) Descriptions of the hydrogeologic units and general stratigraphic units

at the site and vicinity (from the ER and the general literature).

(2) Descriptions of the hydrologic properties and radionuclide transport

characteristics of major hydrogeologic units at the site and vicinity,

needed for groundwater pathways analysis (from the ER and the general

literature).

(3) Principal saturated flowpaths at the site and vicinity and associated

groundwater fluxes and travel times (from the ER and general literature).

(4) Locations of groundwater users and natural groundwater discharge points

located downgradient from the site where contaminants could become

accessible to the public (from the ER and the site visit).

(5) Aquifer recharge areas located downgradient from the site that could

become contaminated by either surface or subsurface releases from the

disposal site (from the ER and the site visit).

(6) Identification of potential alterations in locations and rates of groundwater recharge or discharge resulting from site activities (from the ER

and the general literature).

(7) Description and analysis of groundwater migration pathways to demonstrate

that potential radionuclide concentrations will be within acceptable

limits. The analysis should include transient flow simulations resulting

from known or potential future groundwater withdrawals (from the ER and

the general literature).

(8) Natural and engineered features designed to impede waste/water contact

and contaminant migration from the proposed facility (from the ER, the

general literature, and the site visit).

4. 3.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

(9) State and Federal regulations applicable to water quality and water use

(from consultation with State and Federal agencies).

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of impacts :on groundwater will be coordinated with the

environmental reviews performed under the ESRPs listed in Section I of this

ESRP to ensure that sufficient data have been provided to support the identification-and description of potential impacts on groundwater regime, quality,

and use that may result .from the alternatives being considered. The depth

of analysis will be governed by the level-of consideration being given each

alternative.

Information obtained during the site visit will be used for the analysis.

During the site visit, the staff.will observe the topography of the site,

special geologic features controlling' runoff and infiltration, and the general

pattern of groundwater Use,;at the site and vicinity and will identify those

water users and water-use areas that should be analyzed. The staff will consult with appropriate nearby local, State, and Federalsorganizations and

agencies for further identification of water users, water uses, or water

quality considerations that should be analyzed.

Groundwater Regime -

The staff will determine if. any of the activities associated with the alternatives being considered (site preparation, construction, operation, and closure) will alter the groundwater regime. The staff will identify the alterations of the groundwater regime by correlating these activities with changes

in groundwater quantity and availability and changes in groundwater flow. The

staff will then determine the. likely physical effects on groundwater quality

and groundwater use, using techniques such as those cited in the documents by

Darnell et al. (1976) and theU.S.. Environmental Protection-Agency (1973a and

1973b) (see Section 6 of thisiESRP). 'Examples of analyses to be conducted include the following: . ;

(1) Identification of the site activities that could alter the locations and

rates of groundwater recharge and discharge and determination of the subsequent physical-effects on the-groundwater flow regime (e.g., changes in

water table elevation, rate, and/or direction of flow).

(2) Identification of the site'activities that could alter groundwater quantities resulting in decrieased water availability. Water used during site

preparation and construction, water diversions, and points of discharge

will be considered.'

(3) Evaluation ofthe legal ramifications of the potential alterations of the

'groundwater regime'.withh.respet'to Federal, State, and local'regulations.

The staff's analysis of alterations of the groundwater regime will be used to

determine the impacts on groundwater quality and groundwater use.

4. 3.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4. 3. 2 Groundwater Hydrology

ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

Groundwater Quality

The staff will determine if any of the activities associated with the alternatives being considered (site preparation, construction, operation, and closure) will affect groundwater quality. The staff will then determine those

water users or water-use areas that could be affected by the alterations in

water quality. The staff will'consult with the staff reviewer responsible

for ES Section 3.4.2.2 to determine the baseline water quality of the affected

groundwater systems, and with the staff reviewer'responsible for ES Section 3.4.2.3 to identify potentially affected water users. Examples of analyses to be conducted include the following:'

(1) analysis of the effects of operational, postoperational, or accidental

releases of radioactive effluents on established groundwater quality

baselines for the potentially affected groundwater systems

(2) analysis of the effects of constructional-, operational, postoperational,

or accidental releases of nonradiological chemical effluents (organic and

inorganic) on established groundwater quality baselines for the potentially affected groundwater 'systems

(3) evaluation of the legal ramifications of the potential impacts on groundwater quality with respect to Federal, State, and local regulations

The staff's analysis of impacts on groundwater quality will be used to determine the impacts on groundwater use.

Groundwater Use

The staff will determine if any of the activities associated with the alternatives being considered (site preparation, construction, operation, and closure) will, affect groundwater use. If so, the staff will quantify to the

extent possible the magnitude of the anticipated impacts. Anticipated alterations of groundwater regime and groundwater quality should be considered during the analysis of impacts on groundwater use. Examples of analysis to be

conducted include the following:

(1) If the staff has determined that site activities will result in decreased

groundwater availability, identification of the locations of the water

users likely to be affected. The staff will consider the effects of

decreased groundwater availability (e.g., lowered groundwater level and

reduced well yields) and determine their effect on individual water users

and water-use areas. Seasonal requirements for water and temporal variations in water availability will be considered.

(2) Analysis of the potential impacts of groundwater quality (radiological

and nonradiological) on groundwater use. Present and potential future

uses that could be affected will be considered.

(3) Evaluation of the legal ramifications of potential impacts on groundwater

use with respect to Federal, State, and local regulations.

4. 3.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

ESAP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

4. EVALUATION

Evaluation of each'identified impact will result in one of the following

determinations:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required. When all impacts

are of this nature, the staff will accept the alternative s) as proposed.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the staff has identified. For these cases,

the staff will consult with the staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action," to determine-if.the

recommended modifications are-practicable. The staff will provide a list

of verified modifications and recommendations to the staff reviewer

responsible for ES Section 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and

Recommendations."

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are

identified, the staff will-inform the staff reviewers responsible for ES

Sections 2.2 and 2.3 that an analysis of alternative designs or procedurestis required. The~staff will participate in any analysis or evaluation of alternatives that would result in the avoidance of the impact and

that could be considered practicable. If no such alternatives can be

identified, the staff will provide this information to the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts," and 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources." ' K

The staff will ensure that the site activities associated with the alternatives being considered that-will result in alterations in the groundwater

regime have been identified and will confirm that the alterations affecting

groundwater quantity and use have been described in sufficient detail to allow

for the subsequent analysis and assessment of these impacts. Specifically,

the staff will ensure the following:

(1) The physical changes caused-by'identified alterations in groundwater

regime have been described -in sufficient detail to permit an assessment

of ,the environmental impacts. -:The staff will determine the extent and

magnitude of the resulting impacts and recommend means to mitigate or

'avoid them.

(2) The identified alterations in groundwater regime have been analyzed with

respect to their potential impacts on water users or water-use areas.

Impacts will be evaluated for individual water users and for water-use

areas. 'When necessary, thie staff will consult with local, State, and

Federal agencies. -When adverse impacts have been identified, the staff

will seek means to mitigate or avoid them.

(3) Alterations in groundwater regime'that affect water quality have been

'identified and the impacts on wate'r users or water-use areas have been

described. The staff will consult'with the staff reviewers responsible

4. 3. 2-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

for ES Sections 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.3 to ensure that potentially affected

water users have been identified and that baseline water quality data for

the affected groundwater systems are available. When adverse impacts

have been identified, the staff will identify means to mitigate or avoid

them.

(4) The identified alterations in groundwater regime are compatible with

existing and known future water rights and allocations.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.3.2, "Groundwater Hydrology," of the ES.

This section will contain concise descriptions of the anticipated impacts on

groundwater regime, quality, and use that were- identified in the impacts analyses. The depth and extent of these descriptions will be governed by the

level of consideration being given each alternative and the anticipated magnitude of the impacts. The following information will usually be included in ES

Section 4.3.2:

(1) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the identified impacts on

the regime, quality; and use of affected groundwater systems. These

descriptions should include maps, lists, tables, and figures as necessary

to present the analysis results as concisely as possible.

(2) A summary of the evaluation findings, including recommended modifications

and adverse impacts.

(3) A summary of the legal ramifications of the identified alterations and

impacts with respect to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.

The staff will provide pertinent information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

4.1, "Land"

4.6, "Socioeconomics"

4.8, "Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment"

4.10, "Relationships to Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Controls"

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity"

6. REFERENCES

Darnell, R. M., W. E. Pequegnet, B. M. James, F. J. Benson, and R. A.

Defenbaugh, "Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United

States," EPA-600/3-76-045, NTIS PB 256 674/3WP, Tereco Corp., College

Station, TX, April 1976.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Processes-, Procedures, and Methods To

Control Pollution Resulting From All Construction Activity," EPA-430/9-73-007,

Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC, October 1973a.

4. 3. 2-6 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

ESRP 4.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology

---, "Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of NonPoint Sources of Pollutants," EPA-430/9-73-014, Washington, DC, October 1973b.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.3. 2^7 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..... Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.4

GEOLOGY

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 4.4.1 Soils

ESRP 4.4.2 Mineral Resources

4. 4-1l Rev. 0 - April 1987
;; - NUREG-1300

I iU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisdon

\-~"/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL-WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.4.1

SOILS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to-perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

3.1,

* 3.2,

3.3,

3.4,

* 3.5,

4.2,

* 4.3,

*5.1,

5.2,

* 7.1,

7.2,

"Geography and Demography"

"Ecology"

"Meteorology and Air Quality"

"Hydrology"

"Geology and Seismology"

"Facility Description"

"Support Facilities"

"Short-Term Environmental Effects"

"Long-Term Environmental Effects"

"Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects"

"Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.1, "Description of the Proposed Action"

* 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action"

3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

3.2.1, "Meteorology"

3.4.1; "Surface Water" -

3.4.2, "Groundwater"

* 3.5, "Geology"

* 3.6, "Ecology"

4.1, "Land"

* 4.3, "Hydrology"

* 4.5, "Ecology"

4.8, "Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment"

* 4.10, "Relationships to Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Controls"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s) .

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with-local, State, and Federal agencies

Literature review

.4.4. 1- 1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.-. RESRP 4.4. 1 Soils

ESRP 4.4.1 Soils

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of information provided by the applicant and the staff's identification, assessment, and

description of predicted impacts on soil units resulting from alternatives

selected for detailed consideration. The scope of the review will consist of

an analysis of the effects on soil units of construction and excavation,

radiological impacts of waste emplacement and burial, and effects of postclosure institutional controls on short- and long-term land use. The staff's

review of impacts on soil will be completed in concert with reviews of geologic, geochemical, hydrologic, ecologic, and land-use issues.

Information needed for the staff's review will be affected by regional and

site-specific factors regarding soil materials and proposed site operations.

Information needed for the review will usually include the following:

(1) Calculation of volumes of soil materials isolated from future use at

a proposed site and all borrow areas by excavation for backfill, trench

caps, or removal from the site (from the ER and staff calculations).

(2) Calculated predictions of volumes of soil material lost through erosion

caused by land-use changes (procedures such as construction and excavation) based on the Uniform Soil Loss equation (from the ER and verification by staff calculations).

(3) Changes in susceptibility of soils to erosion' and mass wasting during and

after site construction caused by recontouring of the land, changes in

surface drainage patterns, oversteepening of slopes, removal of stabilizing vegetation, and overburdening of top slopes by waste packages or

facility buildings (from the ER and staff calculations).

(4) Changes in rates and recurrence intervals of erosion and mass wasting

events caused by proposed actions identified in Item (3) above (from the

ER and staff calculations).

(5) Changes in soil-unit properties related to surface water and groundwater,

and floral and faunal ecology, caused by soil disruption, compaction,

erosion, or mass wasting (from the ER and staff calculations).

(6) Changes in susceptibility of soil units to structural failure, collapse,

or liquefaction caused by disruption at the site. These processes would

be expected to result from alterations of soil cohesion and pore-water

pressures caused by compaction or excavation (from the ER and staff

calculations).

(7) Calculation of acreage of arable soils or foundation soils isolated from

future use at the proposed site and all borrow areas as a result of

anticipated radiological impacts and long-term institutional controls

(from the ER and staff calculations).

4.4. 1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.4.1 Soils

ESRP 4.4.T Soils (8) Assessment of radiological pathways through contaminated soils to aquatic

(8) Assessment of radiological pa thways through contaminated soils to aquatic

.and terrestrial environments and humans.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of impacts on soils at a proposed low-level waste disposal facility will be closely coordinated with the'environmental reviews of

impacts on ecology, surface water,'groundwater, and future land use. Impacts

on any of these environmental components are likely to involve direct or indirect impacts on the others.

The staff will identify the potential impacts on soils resulting fromthe

various alternatives proposed for the 'disposal of low-level radioactive waste.

In its evaluation of impacts, the staff will consider the following:

(1) present and future land use

(2) present and future use of soil materials

(3) changes in soil properties and surficial geologic processes caused by

waste disposal and site management

(4) changes in the environment ofwildlife ecology

The staff's analysis will consider the impacts on soils resulting from

(1) institutional management of proposed site areas and buffer zones

(2) offsite sources of borrow material.

(3) radionuclide migration due to the nature of the site's soils, climate,

ecology, surface water, groundwater, and geology

4. EVALUATION

The staff will evaluate the itemization of impacts to ensure that (1) all soil

units have been considered; (2) all locations of proposed operations, including site buildings, disposal areas, buffer zones, and borrow areas, have been

included; and (3) indirect inipacts on soils, such as impacts on vegetation or

surface water runoff, have been.identified and that.these other impacts are

being considered in'the appropriate section of the ES.

The staff will evaluate the list of, impacts on soils to ensure that it is

complete and accurate according t'o the level of consideration being given

each alternative.

Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following

determinations:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required. When all impacts

are of this nature, the staff will accept the alternative(s) as proposed.

4. 4. 1- 3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.4.1 Soils

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be mitigated by specific design or

procedural modifications that have been icentified by the staff. For

these cases, the staff will consult with the staff reviewer responsible

for ES Section 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action," to determine

if the recommended modifications are practicable. The staff will provide

a list of verified modifications and recommendations in ES Section 2.3,

"Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations."

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are

identified, the staff will prepare an analysis of alternative designs or

procedures to be included in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the ES. The staff

will participate in any analysis or evaluation of alternatives that would

result in avoidance of the impact and that could be considered practicable. If no such alternatives can be identified, the staff will provide

this information in Section 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental

Impacts," and Section 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources," in the ES.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.4.1, "Soils," of the ES. This section will

contain concise descriptions of the anticipated impacts on soils that were

identified in the impacts analyses. The depth and extent of these descriptions will be governed by the level of consideration being given each alternative and the anticipated magnitude of the impacts. The following information

will usually be included in ES Section 4.4.1:

(1) Descriptions of soils in the site area and region systems. These should

be included by reference in ES Section 3.5.1.

(2) Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of identified impacts on the

soils. These descriptions should include maps, lists, tables, and

figures as necessary to present the analysis results as concisely as

possible.

(3) A summary of evaluation findings, including adverse impacts and recommended modifications to the proposed action.

(4) A summary of the legal ramifications of identified alterations and impacts with respect to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.

The staff will provide pertinent information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

4.1, "Land"

4.3, "Hydrology"

4.5, "Ecology"'

4.8, "Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment"

4.10, "Relationships to Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Controls"

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

4.4. 1-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.4.1 Soils

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

* 4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.4.1-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
'NNUREG-11300

U.S.'Nuclsar Regulatory Commision

VFW,/ VOffice of Nuclear Material SafeW and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.4.2

:MINERAL RESOURCES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.1.4, "Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters"

* 3.4.2, "Surfice Water"

* 3.5, "Geology and Seismology"

* 3.6, "Regional Historic, Archeological, Architectural, Scenic, Cultural,

and Natural Landmarks"

* 7.1, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* .7.2, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

* 7.3, "Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of

Man's Environment"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following-ESRP(s)

* 2.1.2, "Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 3.4.1.1, "Surface Water Regime"

* 3.4.2.1, "Groundwater Regime"

- 3.5.1, "Geology"

* 3.5.2, "Soils" -.

* 3.5.4, "Mineral Resources" --

4.3, "Hydrolo'gy"- i

* 4.4.1, "Soils"

4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

4.4. 2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.4.2 Mineral Resour~ces

ESRP 4.4.2 Mineral Resources

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, "Principles of a Resource/Reserve

Classification for Minerals"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

Responses to requests for additional information

Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The pur~pose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the information

provided by the applicant and the staff's identification, assessment, and description of the effects of the construction, operation, and closure of the

alternatives on mineral resources. The scope of the review will consist of

an analysis of the effects of site preparation, construction, operation, and

closure on the quantity, production, and availability of mineral resources in

the area under consideration.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by regional and

site-specific factors and will usually include the following:

(1) maps sufficiently detailed so that they show the locations and types of

mineral resources that could be affected by the preparation, construction, and operation of the disposal site or alternatives

(2) lists identifying the availability and amounts of mineral resources that

could be affected by the preparation, construction, and operation of the

proposed disposal site

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the impacts on mineral resources will be closely related to the environmental reviews of geology, hydrology, and the commitments

of resources in order to establish the effects of the alternatives being considered. The depth of analysis will be governed by the level of consideration

being given each alternative. The staff will perform the following analyses

in order to determine specific impacts on mineral resources:

(1) An analysis of mineral resources that could be affected by the preparation, construction, operation, and closure of the alternatives by review

and comparison of maps delineating the locations and types of mineral

resources.

(2) An analysis to determine if the alternatives under consideration will

affect or alter the availability and quantity of mineral resources. To

4. 4.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.ESRP 4.4.2 Mineral Resources

perform the -analysis, the.staff will consider the resource needs and current demands at the disposal site..

The staff will use 'the following.recommended sources of regional and sitespecific information, if necessary,tto obtain sufficient data for the required

level of review:

(1) State offices of industry and trade, mining associations, and geological

surveys

(2) local planning commissions

(3) Federal agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey,

and Bureau of Reclamation

4. EVALUATION

The staff will ensure that the data are sufficient to provide quantitative

information on the quantity, production, and availability.of mineral.resources

that may be affected by the alternatives being considered. The staff will . ensure that this quantitative information is sufficient to permit an evaluation of the impacts on mineral resource users and supplies. If necessary, the

staff will recommend that the applicant collect additional information and

data.

The staff will evaluate the descriptions and data to ensure that they are relevant, complete, reliable, and accurate and will verify the data, information,

and references. The review will usually include the following:

(1) an evaluation to establish if maps provided are complete and sufficiently

detailed so that they show the types and locations of mineral resources

that could be affected by the preparation, construction, operation, and

closure of the alternatives being considered

(2) an evaluation of quantitative mineral resource data to determine possible

impacts on amounts and availability of mineral resources

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.4.2, "Mineral Resources," of the ES. This

section will contain a clear, concise description of the mineral resources

and their availability that could be affected by the alternatives under consideration. The depth and extent of the descriptions will be governed by the

level of consideration being given each alternative and by the degree of impact on mineral resources. The following information will usually be included

in ES Section 4.4.2:

(1) identification of types and locations of mineral resources that could be

affected by the preparation, construction, operation, and closure of the

alternatives being considered

.4.4. 2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-- I,..-

ESRP 4.4.2 Mineral Resources

(2) discussion of the effects of site preparation, construction, and operation on the availability and production of mineral resources

The staff will ensure that ES Section 4.4.2 contains descriptive information

in sufficient detail to support the descriptions and assessments in the following ES sections:

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 3.5.1, "Geology"

* 3.5.4, "Mineral Resources"

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments-of Resources"

6. REFERENCES

U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, "Principles of a Resource/

Reserve Classification for Minerals," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831,

1980.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.4. 2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
/ XNUREG.1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Ofice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.5

ECOLOGY

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

Appendix A - Construction Activities of Recognized Good Practice

ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Ecosystem

4. 5-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
-. ' NUREG-1300

1% U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Ahp,/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL' STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.5.1

TERRESTRIAL-ECOSYSTEM

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.2.1, "Terrestrial Ecology"

5.1, "Short-Term Environmental Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

* 8.1.3, "Terrestrial Environment"

* 8.2.3, "Ecological Monitoring System"

* 8.3, "Postoperational Monitoring:

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance"

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

* 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

3.6.1, "Terrestrial Ecology"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Endangered Species Act of 1973

* Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's description, quantification,

and assessment of the impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem of the construction,- operational, and closure activities associated with the alternatives

identified in Section 2.2.5 of the:ES. The scope-of the review will consist

of an evaluation-of rthe construction, operational, and closure activities in

sufficient detail to allow the staff to (1) estimate the significance of

potential impacts on the species, populations, communities, and habitats of

4. 5. 1-! Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4. 5. 1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

ESRP 4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

the biota and (2) recommend how those impacts should be treated in the licensing decision. If necessary, the staff will recommend the mitigation of the

projected environmental impacts.

Both onsite and offsite construction activities will be considered. To assess

the impacts the staff will evaluate the following:

(1) the proposed schedule of construction activities

(2) construction activities of "recognized good practice" (see Appendix A to

this ESRP)

(3) proposed site plans, including lands to be cleared, buildings, disposal

areas, and the construction zone

(4) proposed clearing methods, erosion runoff and siltation control methods,

and dust suppression methods

(5) plans for the restoration of land areas used for the short term during

construction

(6) any proposed construction activities that may threaten rare, unique, or

endangered species

(7) the tolerances of and/or susceptibilities of "important"* biota to physical and chemical pollutants resulting from construction activities

(8) the survey of major plant communities and critical species and habitats

that are expected to be affected by construction activities

(9) evaluation of important preexisting environmental stress factors

The staff will evaluate the applicant's discussion of the adverse terrestrial

environmental impacts associated with facility closure and decommissioning in

a way similar to that identified above for construction-phase impacts. In

addition, the commitment of irreversible and irretrievable floral and faunal

resources resulting from restricted access and closure practices will be

evaluated.

*A species is "important" if a specific causal link can be identified between

the proposed project and the species and if one or more of the following

criteria apply: (1) the species is commercially or recreationally valuable,

(2) the species is threatened or endangered (Pub. Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884),

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

within criteria (1) or (2), or (4) the species is critical to the structure

and function of the ecological system or is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment.

4. 5.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

ESRP 4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will identify the construction, operational, and closure activities

that will affect important flora and fauna of the alternatives identified in

Section 2.2.5 of the ES. All species, communities, and habitats identified in

ESRP 3.6.1 will be evaluated to'determine potential impact. The areal extent

of such impacts should be graphically provided by the applicant. ' This entails

the preparation of site 'and vicinity maps on which impact areas have been

superimposed over resource areas. Other information, in addition to that

identified in ESRP 3.6.1, which should be furnished by the applicant and which

will facilitate the staff's thorough evaluation of terrestrial impacts, includes the following:

(1) site and vicinity maps showing proposed facility structures, waste disposal areas, land to be cleared, construction zone, site boundary, and

total area of land to be disturbed

(2) identification of the land area.to be used only on a short-term basis

during construction and a discussion of plans for restoration of this

'land .

(3) discussion and special consideration of any construction, operational,

or closure activities expected to affect threatened or endangered

species

When necessary, the staff will supplement the above data and information

through consultations with local, State, and Federal agencies and through

site visits and inspections.

For important species having commercial or recreational value, the staff will

estimate the magnitude of the impact, which may be expressed in terms of

dollars, lost opportunity for recreational pursuits, percent reduction in

harvest, percent loss of habitat,-or other.appropriate quantifiers.

If threatened or endangered species are known to be present in the project

area, and the proposed project is predicted to endanger them further, the

staff will consult with the U.S. Department' of the Interior.

In addition, the staff will assess.the.following:

(1) the'acreage of plant community types preempted and the acreage modified

by construction activities -

(2) the adequacy of proposed plans for preventing soil erosion runoff into

surface water and for-revegetating.disturbed'soil

(3) the impact of habitattmodificatioq (e.g., tree removal) on attendant

animal populations ' - "\ .

(4) construction,.operational, or closure activities that will.alter surface

drainage patterns supporting terrestrial biota

4.5.1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

(5) disposal of construction or nonradioactive operational or closure wastes

that will require landfill or special disposal

(6) construction, operational, or closure activities that will create obstacles to the movements of vertebrate species or result in increased

dispersal of invertebrate species

(7) the impact on biota of any preexisting environmental stress factors

(e.g., water pollution and air pollution)

(8) the effects of noise on important terrestrial biota

The staff must become, familiar with the provisions of statutes, standards,

and guides pertinent to the construction, operation, and closure of low-level

waste disposal facilities. Those applicable to this environmental review

are listed under "Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)" in Section 1 of this ESRP.

Finally, the staff will analyze construction activities in light of recognized

good practice, that is, construction activities that tend to mitigate adverse

environmental impacts. Appendix A to this ESRP lists good-practice construction activities. Additional guidance in this regard may be found in the documents by Beasley (1972), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1971), U.S. Department

of Agriculture (1970), U.S. Department of the Interior (1974), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1973) (see Section 6 of this ESRP).

4. EVALUATION

Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following

determinations:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be mitigated by specific design or

procedural modifications that the staff has identified and determined

to be practicable.

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are

identified, the staff (a) will inform the staff reviewer responsible for

ES Section 2.2 that analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or

procedures are required and (b) will participate in any such analysis and

evaluation of alternatives that would result in avoidance of the impact

and that could be considered practicable.

The staff will assess each predicted impact using criteria appropriate for the

affected segment of the ecosystem. For example, loss of more than a few percent of the habitat available-in the region for an important species could require consideration of mitigative action. If mitigation is required, the

staff will recommend appropriate measures (e.g. , alternative placement of

structures, alternative schedules, or alternative construction practices).

4. 5.1-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

To assess the impacts, the staff-will perform the following:

(1) The staff will evaluate loss of habitat for endangered or threatened species-in accordance with~the;provisions of the Endangered Species Act of

1973. Where loss of habitat for commercially or recreationally important

species occurs, the staff-will-consider the effects on the harvestable

crop. Generally, loss of up~to.5 percent of such a habitat in the-site,

vicinity will have a negligible effect on the crop and. require no further

analysis. If losses should exceed 5 percent, the staff will consider the

loss in-relation to the regional abundance of these species.

(2) The staff will evaluate practicesi-during construction to minimize soil

erosion and the number of acres disturbed..

(3) The staff will evaluate (a) the intrusion on or destruction of terrestrial plant. and animal communities that are regarded as representative of

_-natural,'undisturbed, or remnant.communities or that show unusual ecolog-

.ical-.or geographical distributions and (b) the loss of fragile or sensitive habitats.

(4) .The.staff will assess the applicant's.commitment to the use of recognized

:good construction practices (see-Appendix A to this ESRP).

(5) In addition to direct impacts on animals such as loss of habitat, the

staff will consider secondary impacts such as altered behavior resulting

from construction noise.

5. INPUT TOETHE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.5.1, "Terrestrial Ecosystem," of the ES.

This section will contain (1) a description of the.intended construction,

operational, and closure activities and-a discussion of the timing of such

efforts thus ensuring public disclosure of major, direct ecological consequences of the proposed project; (2) the basis of the.staff's analysis of the

project; and (3),the staff's conclusions, recommendations,.and-conditions

regarding the impacts of the construction, operational, and closure activities on the terrestrial ecosystem.

This section should include a map showing disposal site boundaries and the

estimated extent of the impact. cThe.staff. will discuss (1) the relationship between important biota (as describedin ESRP- .3.6.1) and areas of intended

site activities and (2) the biota,!s'-susceptibility to the proposed actions.

The staff will provide a summary of impacts for each of the activities as described in Sections 3and 4 of this-ESRP. For.all the.activities, the commitment of terrestrial resources should be indicated...The staff will discuss

compliance with the guidelines and regulations of other agencies and will

document consultations with:such agencies-in-this regard.' .

Any construction, operational, or closure activity that requires mitigative

action will be described along with the staff's recommendations on mitigation.

J,4.5. 1-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem

The staff will recommend the consideration of alternatives for any proposed

activity that is predicted to result in an adverse impact that cannot be mitigated. Practices proposed by the applicant for the protection of the environment will be described if the staff determines that they are necessary.

The staff will make the following recommendation or provide the following information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action" - the recommendation that

alternative locations and facility or component designs be considered if,

in the staff's judgment, a proposed activity will result-in an adverse

environmental impact that carnot be mitigated by alternative practices

and procedures

* 4.11, "Unadvoidable-Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a brief summary of

the unavoidable impacts that are likely to occur-during construction,

which will usually be limited to the more significant impacts as, for

example, modification of habitat for important species

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Comments of Resources" - a brief

summary of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of terrestrial

resources that are likely to occur during facility construction, operation, and closure

6. REFERENCES

Beasley, R. P., Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 1972.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Environmental Protection Measures for Construction Practices," Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA, 1971.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Controlling Erosion on Construction Sites,"

Agriculture Information'Bulletin 347, Washington, DC, December 1970.

U.S. Department of the Interior, "Environmental Guidebook for Construction,"

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1974.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Processes, Procedures, and Methods To

Control Pollution Resulting From All Construction Activity," EPA-430/9-73-007,

Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC, October 1973.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection

and Characterization," April 1982.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

4. 5.1-6 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300 I 

* A ) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.5.1 - APPENDIX A

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OF RECOGNIZED GOOD PRACTICE

The following examples of construction activities are recognized as "good

practice" and were derived from a review of NRC environmental statements. The

good practices chosen are site specific and dependent on the potential adverse

impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

(1) Tree and Brush Clearing

Tree and brush clearing should be confined to minimum-sized areas. Construction areas should be judiciously located so as to avoid excessively steep

slopes. Buffer zones.of trees and brush should be left near all surface

waterways. This can range from absolute prohibition of cutting and intrusion

by work forces and equipment to selective clearing.. Figures-of anywhere from

15 to 200 meters have been used for the width of this buffer strip. Slash can

be chipped and used for mulch. If burning is performed, it should not be done

during excessively windy periods or-periods of high air pollution conditions

(inversions).

(2) Petroleum Products, Salvagable Materials, and Landfill

Petroleum wastes should be collected and saved for possible reuse. Salvagable

materials should be collected and stored in designated areas. Landfills for

burial of nonradioactive construction wastes should not be located. near surface waterways, nor should they be located where groundwater or surface water

can become contaminated. Landfill areas should be revegetated with plant

species suited to the soil and climatic regime of the region, and the beautification of the region or enhancement of wildlife habitats should be a

concern.

(3) Burning and Fire

Burning practices range from "no burning" *to "burning all combustible materials." Materials should not be burned near waterways where the residue can

wash into the water. In remote, heavily forested areas with potentially high

fire hazard, no burning should be permitted and vehicles should be equipped

with devices to reduce the chances of inadvertent fire damage. Open burning

should be done in accordance with'State or local regulations.

(4) Evacuation, Grading, Drainage, Erosion, Sediment Control, and

Revegetation

Excavation and earth moving should be balanced so that earth removed from one

area is used as fill for another area. Topsoil should be segregated and

stored for use;in revegetation. Stored topsoil and other excavated materials should be contoured and treated for erosion control. Excess excavated

4.5.1-7 Rev. 0 - April 1987
E5RP 4.5.1 Appendix A

materials should be spread out in such a manner so that they will not erode into nearby waterways. Drainage, erosion, and sediment control practices are

highly variable and extremely site specific. They basically involve keeping

land disturbance to a minimum both in area and time; controlling drainage so

runoff rates and amounts are controlled; stabilizing land surface with mats,

mulches, chemicals, vegetation, etc.; and providing places for'suspended materials to settle out of runoff before draining into waterways. Some applicants

have drawn up very specific plan's that include information on percent slope,

size of sediment basins based on expected runoff, percent of basin fill-in

allowed, time of exposure of land, dates of seeding, size and-number of terraces, particle-size distribution (texture), organic matter content, and plant

nutrient status of soil. Long-term revegetation practices are usually tailored to specific soil and site growing conditions, but temporary erosion controls and revegetation practices should also be detailed.

(5) Dust

The most common sources of dust during construction include dirt and gravelsurfaced roads, unpaved parking areas, concrete batch plants, sand blasting,

and bare ground. Paving and graveling of roads, spraying with'water or calcium chloride, dust-control devices on batch plants, and revegetation of disturbed soils are common practices for minimizing dust. Spraying of bituminous

coatings (oiling), asphalt, or water-soluble polymers may have an adverse terrestrial effect when these substances contaminate runoff and should be avoided

or the materials should be applied with care.

(6) Roads and Parking, Laydown, Assembly, and Staging Areas

Access roads should be kept to a minimum. Slopes, drainage structures, pavement types, revegetation of embankments, etc., should be detailed. Roads,

parking areas, laydown and assembly areas, etc., should be located away from

waterways and on level terrain, if possible. Temporary areas should be graded

and revegetated. Rutted and compacted soil should be loosened and seeded.

(7) Pesticides and Herbicides

As a general rule, application of chemical herbicides and pesticides should be

avoided during construction phases of the project. Alternatives to the use

of these chemicals, or measures that will serve to avoid the necessity to use

these chemicals, should be considered.

(8) Sanitary Wastes

Portable chemical toilets can be used during the early stages of construction.

Wastes are usually collected by a licensed contractor. A temporary package

sewage treatment plant can be used on site.

(9) Concrete

Waste water and runoff from aggregate washing, cement truck washings, and the

disposal facility area will have a high lime content and should be routed to

settling ponds and treated before they are released. Discharge from these

4.5. 1-8 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4. 5. 1 Appendix A

ESRP 4.5.1 Appendix A

ponds should be monitored. Cement spoil should be dumped in designated areas

and allowed to harden and used as fill whenever possible. All concrete operations should be conducted away from waterways where contamination from airborne cement dust or from runoff is possible.

(10) Stream Crossings and Riparian Area Habitats

Special consideration should be given to construction activities that involve

stream crossings or riparian areas. A vegetative buffer strip should be maintained at all waterways and riparian areas (conditions can range from no

clearing to selective clearing). Stream crossings should be avoided but, if

necessary, they can either be simple fords with rocks if the crossing is to

be used only occasionally or culverts and a bridge (but this usually entails

damage to stream banks and riparian areas and may cause impounding of the

water). Banks are sometimes riprapped, or other special erosion control measures are taken. Sometimes activities near streams and riparian areas should

cease during flood season, spawning periods, etc.

(11) Special Considerations

Sometimes consideration should be given to the use of special equipment in

unusual environments or unique situations that change with time. It must be

kept in mind that the following practices are highly site specific.

Consideration should be given to the use of special equipment, such as oversized tires on vehicles that cross sensitive habitats. Also, construction

activities should occasionally be prohibited during certain seasons. Occasionally, special efforts should be made to improve habitats or to replace

habitats committed to facilities or other purposes.

(12) Control

Administrative control procedures should be established and shall provide the

framework for the onsite quality assurance program. It should be the responsibility of the facility operator to select personnel with demonstrated ability

and experience in assessing the relative importance of activities being performed to mitigate terrestrial impacts. A full-time coordinator should be

assigned to the control and quality assurance program through the peak construction years of the project, The function of this individual would include

review of the construction activities to see that they conform to the conditions of the construction permit, and analysis of monitoring feedback to

ensure a minimal impact of construction activities on the terrestrial and

aquatic environment. The coordinator would also be responsible for briefing

construction personnel on the prevailing environmental policy and would provide supervision in sensitive ecological areas.

4. 5. 1-9 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisson

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.5.2

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.2.2, "AquaticEcology "

* 5.1, "Short-Term Environmental. Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

* 8.2.3, "Ecological Monitoring System"

* 8.3, "Postoperational Monitoring"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring And Surveillance"

2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations

* 3.6.2, "Aquatic Ecology"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

* Endangered Species Act of 1973

* Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948

* Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958

* Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972

NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports-for Near-Surface Disposal:of Radioactive Waste"

Rivers and Harbors Act'of 1899

State and local laws affecting water quality

4.5.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystern

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's description, quantification,

and assessment of the impacts on the aquatic ecosystem of the construction,

operational, and closure activities associated with the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES. The scope of the review will consist of an

evaluation of the construction, operational, and closure activities in sufficient detail to allow the staff to (1) estimate the significance of potential

impacts on the species, populations, communities, and habitats of the biota

and (2) recommend how those impacts should be treated in the licensing decision. If necessary, the staff will recommend the mitigation of the projected

environmental impacts.

Both onsite and offsite construction activities will be considered. To assess

the impacts, the staff will evaluate the following:

(1) the proposed schedule of construction activities

(2) construction activities of "recognized good practice" (see Appendix A

to ESRP 4.5.1)

(3) proposed site plans, including lands to be cleared, buildings, disposal

areas, and the construction zone

(4) proposed clearing methods, erosion runoff and siltation control methods,

and dust suppression methods

(5) any proposed construction activities that may threaten rare, unique, or

endangered aquatic species

(6) the tolerances of and/or susceptibilities of "important"* biota to physical and chemical pollutants resulting from construction activities

(7) the survey of major aquatic species and critical aquatic habitats (i.e.,

spawning, nursery, feeding, wintering, or migration areas) that are expected to be affected by construction activities

*A species is "important" if a specific causal link can be identified between

the proposed project and the species and if one or more of the following

criteria apply: (1) the species is commercially or recreationally valuable,

(2) the species is threatened or endangered (Pub. Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884),

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

within criteria (1) or (2), or (4) the species is critical to the structure

and function of the ecological system or is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment.

4. 5.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

(8) water bodies receiving construction effluents and the average and maximum

flow rates, composition, and physical characteristics of those effluents

(9) potential changes to surface water and groundwater quality resulting from

construction activities

(10) important preexisting environmental stress factors

Aquatic species identified must be evaluated for their radiological impact

potential during operation and closure and after closure of the facility. The

staff will evaluate the applicant's discussion of the adverse aquatic environmental impacts associated with facility closure in a way similar to that identified above for construction-phase impacts. In addition, the commitment of

irreversible and irretrievable aquatic resources resulting from restricted

access and closure practices will be evaluated.

Finally, the staff will evaluate the adequacy and accuracy of data collection

and analytical methods used'in aquatic monitoring. The staff will determine

if the applicant's identification of important aquatic species and habitats

is sufficient to establish a baseline for assessing the subsequent impacts of

site construction, operation, and closure. The results of the review will be

used to support the findings of the review under ESRP 2.1.4, "Environmental

Monitoring and Surveillance."

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the effects of construction, operation, and closure on

the aquatic ecosystems will be coordinated with the environmental review under

ESRP 3.6.2, "Aquatic Ecology." This will ensure that the environmental factors most likely to be affected by the proposed facility are described in sufficient detail to permit an assessment of the predicted impacts.

The staff must become familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and

agreements pertinent to the construction of low-level waste disposal facilities. A listing of those believed most pertinent to this environmental

review is contained under "Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)" in Section). of this

ESRP. The staff will determine the applicant's compliance with applicable

regulations and guides and, when necessary, consult with appropriate local,

State, and Federal agencies. The staff also must become' familiar with general

references on construction practices and impacts. A few of those practices

are discussed in Appendix A to ESRP'4.5.1.

Using the environmental descriptions prepared forES Section 3.6.2, the staff

will identify construction, operational, and closure activities that could

affect important aquatic flora and fauna of. the site and offsite areas. The

'staff also will'determine the'areal 'extent of the potential impact. This entails the'review of site'and vicinity maps on which impact areas have been

superimposed over resource areas. Such maps should delineate facility structures, waste disposal areas, land to be cleared, construction zone, site

boundary, and the total area of land to be disturbed.

4. 5. 2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.. T

ESRP 4. 5. 2 Aquatic Escosystem

For affected species having commercial or recreational value, the staff will

estimate the magnitude of the impact, which may be expressed in terms of

dollars, lost opportunity for recreational pursuits, percent reduction in

harvest, percent loss of habitat, or other appropriate quantifiers.

If threatened or endangered species are known to be present in the project

area, and the proposed project is predicted to endanger them further, the

staff will consult with the U.S. Department of the Interior.

In addition, the staff will assess the following:

(1) The critical life history needs of important fish and shellfish in offsite water courses (i.e., seasonal requirements, migration routes, spawning areas, nursery grounds, and feeding and wintering areas). The staff

will relate these needs to the disposal facility construction schedule

and determine if impacts are likely to be of short duration or otherwise

reversible. The staff will assess potential changes to water quality.

Where habitats of endangered or threatened aquatic species (flora and

fauna) are to be disturbed by facility activities, guidelines promulgated

under the Endangered Spec-ies Act of 1973 should be followed.

(2) The types of sediments, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy

metals, and other potential pollutants that may enter adjacent water

bodies. The staff will determine both the points of entry of site drainage into surface bodies and the areal extent of impact by suspended

materials and siltation. The staff will determine if construction impacts can be reversed following completion of construction activities.

The staff also will assess plans for the maintenance of siltation ponds

or catchment basins. I

(3) Clearing activities along reaches of streams and other surface water

sources adjacent to the site. The staff will identify water bodies where

such activities will occur and will indicate the extent of the changes

resulting from the activities. These should be compared with the extent

of the remaining similar habitats in the region.

(4) The impact on aquatic species of any preexisting environmental stress

factors (e.g., poor water quality and natural siltation). Information to

help make this determination will be developed by the reviews conducted

under ESRPs 2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance," and

3.4.1.2, "Surface Water Quality."

In addition to the above analyses, the staff will evaluate any other sitespecific impacts of construction, operation, or closure on aquatic ecosystems

that can be predicted on the basis of proposed facility activities and the

local aquatic ecosystem. The staff will consult with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.2.4, 3.4.1, and 4.3.1. Additional

guidance may be found in the documents by Beasley (1972), National Academy of

Sciences (1972), Sherk and Cronin (1970), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1971),

U.S. Department of Agriculture (1970), U.S. Department of the Interior (1974),

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1973) (see Section 6 of this ESRP).

4.5.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

4. EVALUATION

Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following

determinations:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required. When impacts are of

this nature, the staff will accept project construction as proposed.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be mitigated by specific design or

procedural modifications that the staff has identified and determined

are practicable.

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, andis of such

magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts-of this nature are

identified, the staff (a) will inform the staff reviewer responsible for

ES Section 2.2 that analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or

procedures are required and (b) will participate in any such analysis and

evaluation'of alternatives that would result in avoidance'of the impact

and that could be considered practicable.

In making the following evaluations of specific impacts identified in Section 3 of this ESRP, the staff will consider the extent in time of the identified impacts. For many facility activities, especially'construction activities, the associated impacts on aquatic resources can'be short term and

potentially reversible. The staff will evaluate the proposed construction,

operational, and closure activities'and any associated monitoring programs

to ensure that the applicant is planning to use generally acceptable practices that should result in minimizing' adverse impacts (see Appendix A to

ESRP 4.5.1). Important considerations will include the following:

(1) 'Disturbance of'benthic areas.' The staff will evaluate the loss of habitat for endangered or threatened species by following the guidelines of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Where loss of important areas or

habitats for commercial or sport species occurs, the' staff will consider

the effects on the harvestable crop

(2) Surface runoff. Good construction practices will generally control surface runoff. Where drainage courses represent an'especially important

resource, attention'should be given to measures for their protection during construction. The staff will determine if (a).facility activities

affecting water quality (e.g., runoff and turbidity) will comply with

State, regional, and Federal water quality standards and (b) the controls

proposed by the applicant will ensure satisfactory protection of surface

waters.

(3) Clearing stream banks. Clearing of vegetation from stream banks should

be limited to'that required for construction activities and the placement

of structures.

4.5. 2-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.5.2, "Aquatic Ecosystem" of the ES. This

section will contain (1) a description of the intended construction, operational, and closure activities and a discussion of the timing of such efforts

thus ensuring public.disclosure of the major direct ecological consequences of

the proposed project; (2) the basis of the staff's analysis of the project;

and (3) the staff's conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding the

effects of construction, operation, and closure on the aquatic ecosystem.

This section should include a map showing disposal site boundaries and the

estimated extent of the impact. The staff will discuss (1) the relationship

between important aquatic biota (as described in ESRP 3.6.2) and areas of

intended site activities and (2) the biota's susceptibility to'the proposed

actions. The staff will provide a summary of impacts for each of the activities as described in Sections 3 and 4 of this ESRP._ For all 'the activities,

the commitment of aquatic resources.should be indicated. The'staff will discuss compliance with the guidelines and regulations of other agencies and will

document consultations with such agencies in this regard made in response to

these guidelines.

Any construction, operational, or closure activity that requires mitigative

action will be described along with the staff's recommendations on mitigation.

The staff.will.recommend the consideration of alternatives for any proposed

activity that is predicted to result in an adverse impact that cannot be

mitigated. Practices proposed by the applicant for the protection of the

environment will be described if the staff determines that they are necessary.

The staff will make the following recommendation or provide the following information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance".- discussion of any

deficiencies in the site preparation and preoperational monitoring program that should be corrected by additional monitoring provisions

* 2.2, "Alternatives to the Proposed Action" - the recommendation that

alternative locations and facility or component designs be considered if,

in the staff's judgment, a proposed activity results in an adverse environmental impact that cannot be mitigated by alternative practices and

procedures

* 3.6.2, "Aquatic Ecology" - descriptive material on the aquatic ecology

of the site and vicinity needed to support the analyses in Section 3.6.2

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a brief summary of

the unavoidable impacts that are likely to occur during construction,

which will usually be limited to the more significant impacts as, for

example, modification of aquatic habitat-for important species

4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Res3urces" - a

brief summary of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of aquatic

4. 5.2-6 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4. 5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

ESRP 4.5.2 Aquatic Escosystem

resources that are likely to occur during facility construction, operation, and closure

6. REFERENCES

Beasley, R.

sity Press,

P., Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control, The Iowa State UniverAmes, 1A, 1972.

National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, Committee on

Water Quality Criteria, "Water Quality Criteria," Ecological Research Series,

Washington, DC, 1972.

Sherk, J. A., Jr., and L. E. Cronin, "The Effects of Suspended and Deposited

Sediments on Estuarine Organisms: An Annotated Bibliography of Selected

References," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 1970.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Environmental

tion Practices," Corps of Engineers, Seattle

Protection Measures for ConstrucDistrict, Seattle, WA, 1971.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Controlling Erosion on Construction Sites,"

Agriculture Information Bulletin 347, Washington, DC, December 1970.

U.S. Department of the Interior,

U.S. Government Printing Office,

"Environmental Guidebook for Construction,"

Washington, DC, 1974.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Processes, Procedures and Methods To

Control Pollution Resulting From All Construction Activity," EPA-430/9-73-007,

Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC, 1973.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection

and Characterization," April 1982.

--- , Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Content

Waste."

of Environmental

4. 5.2-7 Rev. 0 - April 1987
/S~ NUREG*1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Offeeof Nuclear Mateial Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

_ - . -

ENVIRONMENTACISTANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.6

SOCIOECONOMICS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following-to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

3.7, "Socioeconomics"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 3.7.1, "Labor Force and Employment"

* 3.7.2, "Infrastructure Characteristics"

* 3.7.3, "Tax Base and Revenues"

3.7.4, "Sociocultural Characteristics"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* 29 CFR 1910, "occupational and Health Standards"

* 29 CFR 1926, "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction"

* 40 CFR 50, "National, Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards"

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and-Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's analysis and evaluation of

the social and economic, impacts of construction, operation, closure, and longterm care of the alternatives on the surrounding region and individual communities that could be affected by the proposed action.

The scope of the review will consist of the evaluation of the social,.economic, and physical impacts resulting from the construction of the low-level

waste disposal facility and from the activities and demands of the construction and operational labor force. Categories of impacts-,flowing-directly from

construction are (1) private-sector regional materials, products, and services; (2) regional labor; (3) tax revenues to local jurisdictions; (4) public

facilities and services; (5) social or economic significance of ecological and

4.6-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
__1r_

ESRP 4.6 ,Socioeconomics

ESRP 4.6 Soc i aeconomi Cs

land-use impacts, including human displacement; and (6) local planning- '

political decisionmaking processes. Categories of impacts flowing from the

activities and demands of the construction and operational labor force are

(1) population-settlement pattern, (2) housing, (3) land use, (4) education,

(5) other public facilities and service, (6) transportation, (7) privatesector goods and services, (8) employment and regional income, (9) tax revenues to local jurisdictions, (10) local planning-political decisionmaking

processes, and (11) social structure and community cohesion. Categories of

direct physical impacts resulting from construction will include disturbances

caused by noise, odors, vehicular exhaust, dust, and vibration. The staff

will identify specific impacts and where they will occur and will predict

their relative magnitude. When necessary, the staff will recommend the consideration of alternative practices or procedures that would mitigate the

predicted adverse impacts.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by site- and

station-specific factors, and the degree'of.detail will be modified according

to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. In addition to the

information specified in ESRPs 3.1.1, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, and 3.7.4, the

following information will usually be needed for the review:

(1) distribution of people, buildings, roads, and recreational facilities

that will be affected by construction-related activities (from the ER)

(2) applicable standards for levels of noise, dust, and gaseous pollutants

(from consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies)

(3) predicted noise levels at sensitive areas identified in Item (1) (from

the ER)

(4) predicted air pollutant levels at sensitive areas identified in Item (1)

(from the ER)

(5) annual expenditures within the region for materials and services during

construction (from the ER)

(6) plans to supplement public facilities and services to support construction and the agencies responsible for facility expansion (from the ER and

consultation with State and local agencies)

(7) taxes by type and jurisdiction to be paid during construction and operation (from the ER)

(8) annual construction labor force requirements over the construction

period; where necessary, labor force requirements for the major construction crafts (from the ER)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the social and economic imipacts of the alternatives

will be coordinated with the environmental evaluations in ES Section 3.7,

"Socioeconomics." The staff will ensure that the environmental factors most

4.6- 2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.6 Socioeconomics

ESP46Sc eooiC

likely to be affected by construction are described in sufficient detail to

permit an assessment of the predicted impacts. .On the-basis of these descriptions, the staff will identify and analyze components of the regional and community social, political, and economic systems that might be affected.

The staff will, determine, from the full scope of. potential impacts, those

impacts that are minor and those that are likely to be adverse and thus will

require detailed analysis.. When practicable, quantitative measures. of adverse

impacts will be developed. All impacts identified during the analysis will be

considered, to the extent possible, in terms of location, duration, and magnitude.-. The staff should be-aware that the duration of. some impacts may be

altered because of the completion of construction and dispersal of the construction-labor.force. 'The staffywill also confer with the staff reviewers

responsible for ES Sections 4.1, PLand," 4.5, .!Ecology," and 4.7, "Cultural

Resources" to determine if any of the impacts identified in these sections

are of sufficient social or economic importance-to warrant further evaluation

under this ESRP.. -

For analytical purposes it is effective to'categorize impacts into those

directly resulting from construction and those resulting from the activities

and demands of the construction and operational labor force. The staff will

use the following steps for the analysis of social-and economic impacts directly associated with the construction of the facility:

(1) Estimate the annual value-of themajor categories of-materials and services'to be purchased within the region and compare that value with the

estimated value of.the materials-and services that would have been

produced had there been no construction and operation of the facility.

(2) Estimate the annual construction labor force requirements over the con- .structionperiod and compare;them.with the number of workers available

from within the region. If necessary, the staff may determine these

requirements for the major construction crafts, using standard craft

categories. In addition, estimate.the annual operational labor force .requirements over the facility life time and compare.them with the number of workers available from within the region.

(3) Identify those jurisdictions receiving significant'tax revenues derived

from construction, purchased'services and materials, and the operational

labor force.

(4) Estimate the physical demands placed by construction and operation on

local public facilities.and services (e.g.,.fire, police, sewage, and

water) 'and compare'these.demands with existing facilities and services.

(5) In consultation with.appropriate.staff members, determine if any impacts

identified un'der land use,.water.use, ecology, and.'cultUral resources

requir6e further analysis regardigo s'ocial.and economic consequences.

(6) Determine the families or households to be displaced because of plant

construction.

4. 6-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.-.IIESRP 4.6 Socioeconomics

The staff will use the following steps for the analysis of physical impacts

directly associated with the construction of the facility:

(1) Review the distribution of residents and transients who could be affected, including those in sensitive-use areas (e.g., hospitals, residences, and recreational areas) and the allowable limits of impacts.

(2) Identify predicted noise levels and pollutant concentrations particularly

in regard to sensitive-use areas and existing standards.

(3) Identify potential impacts on the community and predict their magnitude.

The staff will use the following steps for the analysis of socioeconomic impacts associated with the construction and operational labor force:

(1) From the previous estimates of labor force requirements and the number of

workers available within the region, predict the number of workers originating from within the region and the number of workers who will be

relocating.

(2) Estimate the number of consturction 'and operations workers who will be

relocating, and predict their temporal and geographic distribution.

(3) Estimate the number of indirect or induced workers who will have to

relocate, and predict their temporal and geographic distribution.

(4) Estimate the overall impact of workers who will be relocating on regional

income, employment, and population. Identify critical services and goods

for the affected region.

(5) Predict potential changes in regional housing patterns (e.g., introduction of mobile homes).'

(6) Estimate the additional level of public facilities and services that will

have to support workers who will be relocating as a function of their

probable location. Types of facilities and services that should be

considered include those pertaining to education, water and sewage,

safety, health, welfare, transportation, and recreation.

(7) Identify potential adverse traffic conditions caused by transportation of

workers and materials to and from the site.

(8) Identify those' jurisdictions expected to receive significant tax revenues

generated by the facility payroll and induced economic activity.

(9) Compare the total flow of tax revenues from the various sources associated with facility construction and operation with the expenditures

required to meet the additional demand for public facilities and

services.

Additional guidance on the analysis of socioeconomic impacts may be found in

Fitzsimmons et al. (1975) (see Section 6 of this ESRP).

4. 6-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.6 Socioeconomics

4. EVALUATION

Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one' of the following

determinations:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required.

(2) The impact is adverse, but-it, can be mitigated by design changes or procedural modifications that the staff has identified and determined are

practicable..

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided.

The staff will categorize impacts as those over which the applicant has some

control and those over which the applicant has little or no control. Those

impacts over which the applicant.has little or no control are indirect results

of construction and are usually associated with the influx of the construction

labor force.

For those impacts over which the applicant has control, the criteria outlined

above will apply.

For those impacts over which the applicant has little or no control and which

in the staff's judgment are adverse, the staff will (1) prepare a description

of these impacts for inclusion in the ES, (2) where appropriate, identify

potential solutions to the problem that are beyond the jurisdiction of the

NRC, and (3) ensure that these impacts will be considered in the staff's final

evaluation of the proposed action.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.6, "Socioeconomics," of the ES. This section

will (1) contain a description of the social and economic impacts resulting

from the proposed action; (2) present the basis for the staff's analysis; and

(3) present the staff's conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding the impacts of the reviewed construction activity on the region's social,

political, and economic structure. The following information will usually be

included in ES Section 4.6:

(1) a statement of the scope of coverage and the objectives of the analysis

(2) a summary of the steps taken in the analysis and the methodologies used

(3) a summary of the findings of the analysis for each impact category, with

the level of detail determined by the severity of the anticipated impact

(4) identification and assessment of potential mitigative measures

The staff will provide the following information or ensure that it has been

provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

4.6-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.6 Socioeconomics

ESRP 4.6 Soc i Qeconomi Cs

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a list of unavoidable adverse social and economic impacts predicted to occur as a result

of the proposed action

4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources" - a

brief summary of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of social

and economic resources predicted to occur as a result of the proposed

action

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, "Labor," and Title 40, "Protection of

Environment," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, revised

annually.

Fitzsimmons, S. J., L. E. Stuart, and P. C. Wolff, "Social Assessment Manual:

.A Guide to the Preparation of the Social Well-Being Account," Abt Associates,

Inc., for the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Contract

No. 14-06-D7342(5), July 1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4. 6-6 Rev. 0 - April 1987
XNUJREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\'" Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.7

CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 3.6, "Regional Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, Scenic, Cultural,

and Natural Landmarks"

* 5.1, "Short-Term Environmental Effects"

* 5.2, "Long-Term Environmental Effects"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration"

* 3.8, "Cultural Resources"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* 36 CFR 800, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"

* Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural

Environment," 1971

* Historical and Archaeological Preservation Act of 1974

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966-

* NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization"

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* U.S. Department of the Interior, The National Register of Historic

Places

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

4.7-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.-.IIESRP 4.7 Cultural Resources

ESRP 4.7 Cultural Resources

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's assessment of the potential

impacts of the proposed construction, operational, and closure activities on

the historic, archaeological, and cultural resources* associated with the

alternatives being considered. The review will be sufficiently detailed to

enable the staff to predict and assess potential impacts and to recommend that

alternative locations, designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate

predicted adverse impacts be considered.

The scope of the review will consist of the following:

(1) evaluation of the applicant's description of the historic, archaeological, and cultural resources within the site boundary and adjacent offsite

areas (both the proposed and alternative sites)

(2) evaluation of the applicant's description of- the historic, archaeological, and cultural resources that are within 10 kilometers of the site and

adjacent offsite areas (both the proposed and alternative sites)

(3) evaluation of the State historic preservation officer's (SHPO's) comments

on the proposed facility concerning important historic, archaeological,

and cultural resources (both the proposed and alternative sites)

(4) evaluation of the compatibility of the proposed project with State laws

and plans for historic preservation

(5) evaluation of the applicant's impact assessment of cultural resources and

any mitigative measures proposed to minimize adverse impacts

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the effects of the construction, operational, and

closure activities of the facility on historic and cultural resources will be

coordinated with the environmental review under ESRP 3.8 to ensure that those

environmental factors most likely to be affected by the facility are described

in that section.

The staff will consult with the Interagency Archaeological Service Division

(IASD) of the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation of the National

Archaeological Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

The staff, with the assistance of the IASD and in consultation with the SHPO,

will consider those cultural and historic resources that are listed or are

eligible for inclusion in The National Register of Historic Places and that

*Historic, archaeological, and cultural resources include districts, sites,

buildings, structures, or objects of historical, archaeological, architectural, or cultural significance.

4. 7-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.7 Cultural Resources

may be affected by the proposed project. The staff will use the information

derived from the appropriate environmental reviews describing the proposed

construction, operational, and closure activities to identify those actions

that could result in potential impacts.- The staffIs assessment of -the potential impacts on these resources-will be guided by 36 CFR 800, which describes

in detail how to assess the effect of a proposed action on properties'that

are listed or are eligible for inclusion in The National Register. It should

be recognized that there are generally two types of impacts on a resource:

direct impacts (e.g., destruction during excavation) and indirect impacts

(e.g., visual impact and denial -of access). Both types of impact will be

considered in this analysis. -

Cultural and historic resources that are neither listed nor eligible for inclusion in The National Register are not protected by the provisions of the

National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 11593, or 36 CFR 800.

Nevertheless, potential impacts on these resources and measures and controls

to avoid adverse impacts must be considered, even though these resources are

not eligible for inclusion in The National Register.

4. EVALUATION

Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following

determinations:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required. When all impacts

are of this nature, the staff will accept the design and construction as

proposed.

i..

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the staff has identified and determined to be

practicable. For these cases, the, staff will consult with the project

manager and the staff reviewer, responsible for ES Section 2.2.5 to verify

that the staff's recommendations are practicable and will lead to an

improvement.

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are

identified,, the staff will inform the staff reviewerresponsible for ES

Section 2.2.3 that analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or

procedures are required. The staff will participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would result in avoidance of the

impact and that could be considered practicable.- If no such alternatives

can be identified, the staff will be responsible forproviding this information to the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.11 and

4.12.

The staff will evaluate proposed construction activities to ensure that the

applicant has committed to use currently acceptable practices to minimize

impacts. The staff will,.'in consultation with the SHPO, use 36 CFR 800 to

evaluate the potential impacts on properties listed or eligible for inclusion

in The National Register.

4. 7-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.. T.-

ESRP 4.7 Cultural Resources

ESRP 4.7 Cultural Resources

In the case of properties not eligible for inclusion in The National Register,

assistance from the SHPO, the Office of Archaeology and-Historic Preservation,

or other qualified individuals may be needed. The staff will consider alternatives to reduce the impact on the cultural and historic resources' and

determine the cost for each alternative versus the benefit derived. The cost

of the recovery required by the Historical and Archaeological Preservation Act

of 1974 should be included in the consideration of alternatives. When the

evaluation does not justify preservation of the resource, the applicant will

be asked to recover archaeological, historic, architectural, and cultural data

on the resource. This recovery may include recording by photographs and measured drawings, archaeological excavations to uncover data and material,

removal of structures or salvage of architectural features, and other steps

that will ensure full knowledge of Lhe lost resource. Salvaged artifacts and

materials should be deposited where they will be of public and educational

benefit.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.7, "Cultural Resources," of the ES. This

section will contain (1) a description of the impacts; (2) the basis for the

staff's analysis; and (3) the staff's conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding the impacts of the proposed project activities on the historic, archaeological, and cultural resources. The following information

will usually be included' in ES Section 4.7:

(1) a positive statement of no effect for properties listed or eligible for

inclusion in The National Register that will not be affected

(2) description of significant impacts on' those properties that are listed or

eligible for inclusion in The National Register and a discussion of the

steps that led to a determination of whether or not any effects are

adverse

(3) description of any adverse impacts on the cultural and historic resources

not eligible for inclusion in The National Register

(4) description of any measures and controls that are available to limit adverse impacts

The staff will make the following recommendation or provide the following

information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

2.2.3, "Alternative Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features" - the recommendation that alternative plant designs, locations,

or construction activities that would result in avoidance of the impacts

be considered when the staff concludes that proposed construction, operational, and closure activities will result in adverse impacts on historic

and cultural resources that should be avoided

4. 7-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.7 Cultural Resources

2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration" - the recommendation that alternative plant designs, locations, or construction activities that would result in avoidance of the impacts be considered when

the staff concludes that proposed construction, operational, and closure

activities will result in adverse impacts on historic and cultural resources that should be avoided

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a list of the unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed

construction activity

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources" - a brief

summary of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of historic and

cultural resources resulting from the proposed construction activity

6. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Requlations, Title 36, "Parks, Forests, and Public Property,"

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, revised annually.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The National Reqister

of Historic Places, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, revised

periodical ly.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0902, "Site Suitability, Selection

and Characterization," April 1982.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

4.7-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I-, 'ftp,\ NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.8

RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND DOSE ASSESSMENT

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 4.8.1

Appendix A

ESRP 4.8.2

ESRP 4.8.3

Pathways Analysis - Generic Release and Transport Scenarios

Dose to Man

Dose to Biota Other Than Man

4.8-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
V NUREG-130 ft~ }U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commiulon

fOfficeof Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.8.1

PATHWAYS ANALYSIS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s) . 2 7 -

* 2.0, "Alternatives to.Proposed Project"

3.0, "Characteristics of Proposed.Site"

* 4.0, "Design of Proposed Facility"

* 5.0, "Environmental Effects of..Proposed.Facility"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2, "Alternatives Including the-Proposed Action"

* 3, "Affected Environment"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

Regulatory-Guide 4.18, "Standard Format-and Content of Environmental

-Reports for Near-Surface Disposal ofRadioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with regional compacts and State agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

* Staff summary of determinations and conclusions of the scoping process

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the~staff's identification and assessment of the release and transport of radionuclides from each of the alternatives selected for-consideration in ES Section 2.2.5. Three basic time

periods are to be considered for each ,alternative: operations,.closure, and

long term, where "long term" encompasses -the postclosure observation period,

the active institutional control period, and beyond. The scope of the review

is to identify and quantify, as needed, the most significant mechanisms by

which radionuclides (or radiation) may be released from waste and transported

through the environment to a biota access location.- A biota access location

is simply a location whereby-humans (or other biota) may receive an exposure

to ionizing radiation.. Examples of biota:access locationsinclude a well

positioned in groundwater inrthe downstream gradient from the disposal

facility, and the downwind boundary of the disposal facility.

4. S. 1- 1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
- _1T._

ESRP 4.8.1 Pathways Analysis

This section of the ES is used to provide a source term for the determination

of radiation dose rates, which generally will be provided in Section 4.8.2,

"Dose to Man," of the ES. The staff also will coordinate its review under

this ESRP with the reviews under ESRPs 4.2, "Meteorology and Air Quality," and

4.3, "Hydrology," under which the nonradiological impacts from the disposal

facility are being assessed to ensure that assumptions on possible release and

transport mechanisms are not inconsistent.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The basic list of alternatives to be considered will be obtained from the

applicant's ER and Section 2 of the ES. Information on environmental attributes that will influence the potential release and transport of radionuclides

will be obtained generally from the applicant's ER and Section 3 of the ES.

For each alternative for which radionuclide release and transport is to be

considered, the staff will perform the following actions:

(l) Establ o ossible radionuclide release/transDort-cobinations

Iswcanar-iFs). That is, detefmine df en scenarios that could

result in radionuclides being released and transported to a biota access

location. The specific list of scenarios will vary depending on the particular disposal alternative being considered. However, a generic list

of scenarios is included as Appendix A to this ESRP.

(2) Determine the scenarios that warrant more detailed consideration, so that

a concise list of scenarios that are important in terms of decisionmaking

can be compiled. Considerations that would influence this determination

include (a) the comparative significance of a specific scenario in terms

of potential impacts during a particular period of concern, (b) the

degree of public or regulatory concern regarding a specific scenario as

determined through the scoping process, and (c) the representativeness of

the scenario.

(3) Compare the lists against information provided by the applicant. Request

additional information from the applicant as needed.

(4) Assess the applicant's procedures and assumptions for each scenario.

Request additional information from the applicant as needed. Formulate

NRC staff models and assumptions as needed.

In Step (2), it should be noted that the assessment of the comparative significance of potential impacts from specific scenarios should be based on

similar periods of concern. For example, impacts from the various possibleoperational scenarios would be compared against one another to determine those

scenarios that are most significant for the decisionmaking process during the

operational period. At this time one would not be comparing operational

impacts against closure impacts. It is also not necessary to determine long

lists of scenarios that involve only minor modifications to the basic assumptions. Rather, one is looking for a concise list of representative, or bounding, scenarios. Finally, the scoping process for determining those scenarios

that are to be considered in detail should be documented. Where appropriate,

generic studies and analyses may be referenced to eliminate those scenarios

having minimal comparative impacts.

4. 8.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.8.1 Pathways Analysis

ESRP 4.8.1 Pathways Analysis

4. EVALUATION

The staff will evaluate the release/transport scenarios proposed by the applicant and determine their adequacy so that a decision regarding the licensing

of a new disposal facility can be made. Information gaps should be identified, and additional information should be obtained from the applicant as

needed.

The staff also will determine the need for independent confirmatory analyses

by the NRC staff, particularly for those scenarios deemed to be most critical

for licensing a disposal facility. *NRC staff models would be formulated as

needed.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis," of the ES.

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.8.1-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.8.1 - APPENDIX A

GENERIC RELEASE AND TRANSPORT SCENARIOS

The purpose of this appendix is to provide a list of generic scenarios for release and transport of radionuclides from a disposal facility (see Table A.1).

Three periods are concerned: operations, closure, and long term. Some scenarios may begin in one period and continue during the following periods. For

example, the groundwater migration scenario begins during site operations but

continues during closure and over the long term.

Note that there is a certain interdependence among release/transport scenarios.

For example, the activities of burrowing animals and plant roots may not only

disperse waste through air and water pathways, but may also increase percolation of water into disposal units, and thus increase releases through groundwater pathways. Human intrusion events could similarly increase releases

through groundwater pathways. Also note that releases resulting from direct

human intrusion into disposed waste, or impacts due to use of the site surface, would not occur until the end of the institutional control period.

4.8. i-5 Rev. 0 - April 1987
E5RP 4.8.1 Appendix A

ESRP 4.8.1 Appendix A

Table A.1 Generic release and transport scenarios

Release/transport

Scenario Radiation* pathways

Operations

Doses to general population along waste

transport route

Doses to individuals near disposal site

from parked trucks

Doses to individuals near disposal site

from site operations (e.g., hoisting

liners with cranes)

Releases from contaminated surfaces

such as buildings and grounds;

Releases from decomposing waste

(e.g., methane gas)

Uptake and dispersion by plants and

animals

Radionuclide leaching and migration

Closure

Releases from demolition activities

Releases from residual site

contamination

Releases from decomposing waste

(e.g., methane gas)

Uptake and dispersion by plants

and animals

Radionuclide leaching and migration

Long term

Releases from residual site

contamination

Releases from decomposing waste

(e.g., methane gas)

*g = gamma; a = alpha; b = beta.

g

g

g

a,

b

a,

a,

a,

a,

b

a,

a,

a,

b

b,

b,

b,

b,

b ,

None

None

None

g Air, surface water

Air

g Air, surface water

g Groundwater

g Air, surface water

g Air, surface water

Air

g Air, surface water

g Groundwater

b,

b,

b, g Air, surface water

Air

4.8. 1-6 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.8. 1 Appendix A

ESRP 4.8.1 Appendix A

Table A.1 (Continued)

Release/transport

Scenario pathways

Long term (continued)

Uptake and dispersion by plants

and animals

Radionuclide leaching and migration

Releases due to erosion and other

surface processes

Releases due to seismic activity

Dispersion due to human contact with

waste

Doses from human use of site surfaces

*g = gamma; a = alpha; b = beta.

Radiation*

a, b, g

a, b, g

a, b, g

a, b, 9

a, b, g

9

Air, surface water

Groundwater

Air, surface water

Air, surface water,

groundwater

Air, surface water

None

4.8.1-7 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-13D0

fL..J) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commhion

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.8.2

DOSE TO MAN

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s) ;

* 2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

* 3.0, "Characteristics of Proposed Site"

* 4.0, "Design of Proposed Facility"

* 5.0, "Environmental Effects of Proposed Facility"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2, "Alternatives Including the Proposed Action"

3, "Affected Environment"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* ES Section 4.8.1, "Pathways' Analysis"

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct' the staff's identification and assessment of radiological impacts based on the presence of radioactivity at a

"biota access location." A biota access location is simply a location whereby

humans may receive an exposure to ionizing radiation. Examples of biota

access locations include a well positioned in groundwater in the downstream

gradient from the disposal facility, and the downwind boundary of the disposal

facility. Release and transport of radionuclides from radioactive wastes are

considered in ESRP 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis."

The scope of this review will consist of possible radionuclide movement

through various pathways following the occurrence of contaminated material at

a biota access location. For example, assuming that a water well forms a

biota access location, then possible pathways for human exposure include

direct consumption of the water, consumption of plants irrigated with the contaminated water, and consumption of livestock fed contaminated water. For

each of these pathways, the staff must make a number of assumptions on consumption rates and transfer between different components of the pathways

4.8.2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.. N

ESRP 4.8.2 Dose to Man

ESRP 4.8.2 Dose to Man

(e.g., transfer between contaminated soil and plants via root uptake).

Finally, radiation doses resulting from either direct exposure, ingestion,

or inhalation need to be considered.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

For each alternative and scenario, the staff will examine the dose assessment

and pathway transfer models and assumptions presented by the applicant and

determine their adequacy. Information gaps should be identified, and additional information should be obtained from the applicant as needed.

The staff also will determine if the assumptions and models presented by-the

applicant should be adopted for the ES, or if independent confirmatory analysis is needed. If the latter, the staff will perform the calculations.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will determine the reasonableness of the pathways presented and confirm the use of up-to-date. radionuclide transfer coefficients and health physics methodologies (e.g., dose.conversion factors in Publication 30 of the

International Commission on Radiological Protection). The staff will perform

independent calculations as needed.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.8.2, "Dose to Man," of the ES.

6. REFERENCES

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Limits for Intakes of

Radionuclides by Workers; Part 1, Publication 30, Pergamon Press, Oxford,

England, July 1978.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and-Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.8. 2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
* M W\% NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\''/ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.8.3

DOSE TO BIOTA OTHER THANMAN

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to'perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

* 3.0, "Characteristics of Proposed Site"

* 4.0, "Design of Proposed.Facility"

* 5.0, "Environmental Effects of Proposed Facility"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Folowing ESRP(s)

2, "Alternatives Including-the Proposed Action"

* 3, "Affected Environment"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* ES Section 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's identification and assessment of radiological impacts to biota other than humans based on the presence

of radioactivity at a "biota access location." A biota access location is

simply a location whereby biota may receive an exposure to ionizing radiation.

Examples of biota access locations include a well positioned in groundwater

in the downstream gradient from the disposal facility; and the downwind

boundary of the disposal facility. Release and transport of radionuclides

from radioactive wastes are considered in ESRP 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis."

The scope of this review will consist of possible radionuclide movement

through various-pathways following the occurrence of contaminated material at

a biota access location. For example, assuming that a water well forms a

biota access location, then possible pathways for exposure include direct consumption of the water, consumption of plants irrigated with the contaminated

water, and consumption of livestock fed contaminated water. For each of these

pathways, the staff must make a number of assumptions on consumption rates and

transfer between different components of the pathways (e.g., transfer between

4.8. 3-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.8.3 Dose to Siota Other Than Man

contaminated soil and plants via root uptake). Finally, radiation doses

resulting from either direct exposure, ingestion, or inhalation need to be

considered.

Because of the wide variety of biota other than humans, the review will be

limited to a few representative species, in particular endangered species.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

For each alternative and scenario, the staff will examine the dose assessment

and pathway transfer models and assumptions presented by the applicant and

determine their adequacy. Information gaps should be identified, and additional information should be obtained from the applicant as needed.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will determine the reasonableness of the applicant's assessment of

doses to biota other than man.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.8.3, "Dose to Biota Other Than Man," of the

ES.

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4. 8.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.9

IMPACTS OF ACCIDENTS

This ESRP consists of the following:

ESRP 4.9.1 Waste Spillage

ESRP 4.9.2 Fire and/or Chemical Reactions

ESRP 4.9.3 Transportation Accidents

ESRP 4.9.4 Nuclear Criticality

ESRP 4.9.5 Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents

4 9-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG*1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD. REVIEW PLAN 4.9.1

WASTE SPILLAGE

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 6.0, "Environmental Effects of Accidents"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.2, "Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

* 2.1.3, "Waste Disposal Operations"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Waste-manifest information developed during operational history of

container-drop incidents at-present operating sites

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to provide the staff's methodology for assessing

the adequacy of the applicant's projection of the radionuclide and chemical source term for the release of material resulting from waste-spillage

accidents.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will verify that the information provided by the applicant is sufficient to allow an independent calculation of the- radiological and chemical

release'of material'from dr6pped"disposal containers. This will require that

the staff examine the validity of the applicant's methodology and assumptions

regarding the following:

(1) The number and kinds of waste streams that the applicant anticipates will

be received at the disposal facility. These waste streams will be site

specific and will depend on the types of generators (e.g., hospitals,

universities, or nuclear power plants) producing waste that will be

4. 9.1-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.1 Waste Spillage

shipped within and to the region where the waste disposal facility will

be located.

(2) The applicant's assumptions and procedures for determining the frequency

(and corresponding probability) that waste from a certain stream would be

involved in a container-drop accident.

(3) The applicant's assumptions concerning container size and fractional release based on waste forid and container conditions.

(4) The calculated quantities of chemicals and radionuclides released to the

site environs.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will evaluate the accuracy of the applicant's waste stream data

(which should be updated periodically on the basis of site-specific disposal

history) and accident frequency and container waste form packaging assumptions to determine if the release scenarios and calculated chemical and radiological release quantities are reasonable. In addition, following its review

of the applicant's data, the staff will determine if additional information is

needed and ask the applicant to respond as necessary.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.9.1, "Waste Spillage," of the ES. This section will contain a concise description of the environmental effects of waste

spillage for the alternatives identified in ES Section 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for Detailed Consideration." When possible, the staff will quantify

any postulated effects and, to the extent that such effects would result in a

credible dose to the offsite environment, the staff will coordinate this review with that of, and provide pertinent information to, the staff reviewers

responsible for the following:

ES Section 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

* ES Section 4.8.2, "Dose to Man

* ES Section 4.8.3, "Dose to Biota Other Than Man"

* SER Section 6.1.4, "Radionuclide Release - Accidents or Unusual Operational Conditions"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4. 9.1-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
f KNUREG-1300

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL. STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.9.2

FIRE AND/OR CHEMICAL REACTIONS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to-perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 2.0, "Alternatives to Proposed Project"

* 3.1, "Geography and Demography"

* 3.3, "Meteorology and Air Quality"

4.1, "Description of Wastes To Be Accepted"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2.1.4, "Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance"

* 2.2.5, "Summary Alternatives for'Detailed Consideration"

* 3.2, "Meteorology and Air Quality"

* 3.3, "Ambient Radiation Levels"

* 4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 30-1984, "Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code"

NUREG-1200, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application

for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Standard Review

Plan'3.4.3, "Fire Protection System"

* Regulatory Guide 4.'18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-520/1-75-001, "Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents,"

draft revision

Other

* Consultation with State (or regional) compacts and State agencies

* Responses to requests for additional information

4. 9. 2-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.2 Fire and/or Chemical Reactions

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review of the applicant's

assessment of the effects of fires and/or chemical reactions for the alternatives identified in Section 2.2.5 of the ES. The scope of this review will

consist of an evaluation of conceivable accident scenarios proposed by the

applicant for fires and explosions that could be induced by incompatible chemicals, by biological exothermic reactions (e.g., spontaneous combustion), or

by normal site operations (e.g., dropping a waste container in the presence of

an ignition source such as a spark). The discussion by the applicant should

provide a qualitative review, not a formal quantitative risk assessment.

The information needed for the staff's review will usually include the

following:

(1) A qualitative estimate of the probability of fires and explosions (and

the severity of accidents) based on existing data from operating sites

and on the physical and chemical properties of the types of waste characteristically generated in the compact region where the waste disposal

facility will be located.' These probabilities should be reported for

the construction, operational, and postoperational phases. The applicant

should describe the effects of fires and/or explosions postulated for the

waste-receipt area, the waste-storage area, as well as the waste-disposal

area. The applicant should have given special emphasis to the operational phase because the consequences of fire and/or explosion are likely

to be more severe during this phase.

(2) A description of the secondary combustion products produced by chemical

reactions during fires (smoldering or rapid) and an evaluation of their

toxicity and hazards relative to the original source. The applicant

should also identify those radionuclides that may be expected to be

released from the site in the event of rupture, erosion, or diffusion.

(3) Precautionary measures to be followed by the applicant to lower the

probability of occurrence of these accidents. This will include a listing of the instruments to be used in onsite surveys for combustible

vapors and gases and the quality control, quality assurance, and training programs for the staff who will use them.

(4) Meteorological, demographic; and land-use data in an acceptable format

for use as input into mathematical or computer models for predicting the

offsite consequences of the release.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

(1) The staff will consider the expected environmental effects in relation

to the protective action guides developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for radiological contaminants and the relevant codes

developed by the National Fire Protection Association. The staff will

find valuable information in the following publications when performing

an evaluation of the chemical reactions that could possibly result in

fire and/or an explosion:

4.9.2-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.2 Fire and/or Chemical Reactions

(a) Bretherick, L., Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards

(b) Hatayama, H. K., et al., 'A Method for Determining Hazardous Wastes

Compatibility"

(c) National Fire Protection Association, Manual of Hazardous Chemical

Reactions

(2) The staff will determine how protective measures (e.g., sheltering,

evacuation, and decontamination) selected by the disposal-site operator

will reduce the effects of an accident both on site and off site..

(3) The staff will determine if the applicant has addressed (at a minimum)

the following accident scenarios:

(a) Fire in an open disposal trench with the subsequent continued and/or

explosive release of pollutant over a larger area than during normal

operations (because the heated air is more buoyant and vertical dispersion of the plume is greater than under normal operational conditions). This evaluation should consider both particulate and gaseous releases for the operational, closure, and postclosure observation periods.

(b) A potential explosion resulting from overpressurization of a waste

container.

(c) An explosion hazard resulting from the buildup of hydrogen and

methane gas produced by radiolysis or by bacterial action on the

waste.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will determine if the ER contains sufficient information to enable

it to make an independent estimate of the environmental effects of accidents

resulting from fire and explosion. The staff will determine if the applicant

has described an acceptable survey program for the detection of potential fire

and explosion hazards and has considered the offsite effects of such accidents

in the unlikely event they were to occur.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.9.2, "Fire and/or Chemical Reactions" of the

ES. This section will include a concise description of the environmental

effects of a postulated accident related to a fire or a chemical reaction.

When possible, the staff will qualify any effects to the extent that such

effects would result in a credible dose to the environment. The staff will

provide pertinent information to the staff reviewers responsible for the

following ES sections, as necessary:

4.8.1, "Pathways Analysis"

4.8.2, "Dose to Man"

4.8.3, "Dose to Biota Other Than Man"

4. 9.2-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.2 Fire and/or Chemical Reactions

ESRP 4.9.2 Fire and/or Chemical Reactions

6. REFERENCES

Bretherick, L., Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, 2nd ed., Butterworth,

London, 1979.

Hatayama, H. K., et al., "A Method for Determining Hazardous Wastes Compatibility," Grant No. R804692, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,

Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Cincinnati, OH, 1980.

National Fire Protection Association, Manual of Hazardous Chemical Reactions,

5th ed., 491-M, Boston, MA, 1975.

--- , NFPA 30-1984, "Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code," in National Fire

Codes, Vol 1, Quincy, MA, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Manual of Protective Action Guides and

Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," EPA-520/1-75-001, draft revision,

Washington, DC, June 1980.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1200, "Standard Review Plan for the

Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Facility," January 1987.

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

4. 9.2-4 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG--1300 ( S)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commnisson

<' W Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.9.3

TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS

1.' REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 6.0, "Environmental Effects of Accidents"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

-- 2.'.L, "Location" -

* '2.1.3, "Waste Disposal Operations"

* 2.2.2, "Alternative Sites"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Reguldtory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports-for New-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal'agencies

* Responses to requests for additional 'information

* Site visit

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and assessment of

potential impacts resulting from accidents associated with the transportation

of radioactive waste. The scope of this review will consist of an (evaluation

of transportation accident risks in relation to the alternatives being considered, the potential severity of accidents, and-the environmental 'impacts

of such accidents.

The- information-'needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and.the'degree of':detail'will 'be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The information needed-for -the review will usually include the

following: -'

(1) identification of credible transportation accident scenarios and their

probability (from the ER)'

'4. 9.3- 1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.3 Transportation Accidents

(2) severity of the accident and potential environmental impacts, including

any quantitative estimates of injuries and/or deaths (from the ER)

(3) evaluation of the alternatives with respect to comparative environmental

impacts (from the ER)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will review and assess the transportation accident scenarios identified by the applicant for each alternative being considered to verify that

they are reasonable and that the probability of occurrence has been considered. In addition, the staff will independently assess the severity of the

accident and the effects of that accident on the environment. The analysis is

expected to be primarily a qualitative one, although quantitative data may be

included.

4. EVALUATION

The impacts of postulated transportation accidents are not considered to be

major inputs to the evaluation of alternatives by the staff. However, the

staff will assess the impacts on the basis of probability and estimated

severity and categorize them as follows:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be successfully mitigated by specific

design or procedural modifications that the staff has identified and

determined to be practicable. -

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided.

When no mitigation or avoidance practices can be identified, the staff will

provide a summary of the adverse impacts of transportation accidents to the.

staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts."

5. -INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.9.3, "Transportation Accidents," of the ES.

This section will contain (1) a description of the potential impacts of transportation accidents associated with the alternatives being considered, (2) the

basis of the staff's analysis of the alternatives, and (3) the staff's conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding transportation accidents.

The staff's analysis may be.presented in a narrative summary that highlights

the impacts resulting from potential transportation accidents. The staff's

discussion should identify important impacts and mitigative actions.

The staff will provide the following information or ensure that it has been

provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

4.9.3-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.3 Transportation Accidents

ESRP 4.9.3 Transportation Accidents

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a summary of the

unavoidable impacts that may occur as a result of postulated accidents

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources" - a summary of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4. 9.3-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
NUREG-1300

U.S.,Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\.,/ Office of Nuclear Material Safet and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTALSTANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.9.4

NUCLEAR-CRITICALITY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will.use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s). ..

* 6.0, "Environmental Effects of Accidents"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.2, "Description of Disposal Facilities, Disposal Units, and Design

Features"

* 2.1.3, "Waste Disposal Operations"

Standard(s) and Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Responses to requests for additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and assessment.of

potential impacts resulting from .a'postulated nuclear criticality event. The

scope of this review will-consist of an assessment of the potential severity

of such an event as well as the environmental impacts resulting from it.

The information needed for the staff's review may.be affected by site-specific

factors, and the degree of detail.will be modified:according to the results of

the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact.

The information needed for the review will usually.include the following:

(1) identification of the types and concentrations of special nuclear material..(SNM) (if any) to be-received aswaste.(from the ER)

(2) procedure's for the receipt, handling, anid disposal of SNM waste (from the

ER)

(3) the applicant's estimates and calculation of the probability, severity,

and potential environmental impacts of a nuclear criticality event (from

the ER)

. 4. 9.4-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.4 Nuclear Criticality

ESRP 4.9.4 Nuclear Criticality

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will review and assess the applicant's procedures and analyses related to criticality to. verify that they are reasonable and that the probability of occurrence has been considered. In addition, the staff will independently assess the severity of the accident and the potential impacts on the

environment.

4. EVALUATION

The likelihood of a nuclear criticality accident is considered to be extremely

small given the low concentrations of SNM in most shipments of low-level

waste, and, therefore, the results of this accident analysis are not considered to be major inputs to the evaluation of the alternatives being considered.

However, the staff will assess the impacts of the accident and categorize them

as follows:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be successfully mitigated by specific

waste form, design, or procedural modifications. that the staff has identified and determined to be practicable.

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided.

When no mitigation or avoidance practices can be identified, the staff will

provide a summary of the adverse impacts of a criticality accident to the

staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts."

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.9.4, "Nuclear Criticality," of the ES. This

section will contain (1) a description of the potential impacts, (2) the basis

of the staff's analysis of the impacts, and (3) the staff's conclusions and

recommendations.

The staff's analysis may be presented in a narrative summary that highlights

the impacts resulting from a postulated criticality accident. This discussion

should identify important impacts and mitigative actions.

The staff will provide the following information or ensure that it has been

provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a summary of the

unavoidable impacts that may occur as a result of a criticality accident

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.9.4-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
42> \NUREG-1300 _ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.9.5

ONSITE EFFECTS OF OFFSITE ACCIDENTS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 6.0, "Environmental Effects of Accidents"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 2.1.1, "Location"

* 3.1.1, "Population Distribution and Characteristics"

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Responses to requests fdr additional information

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and assessment of

potential impacts resulting from offsite accidents. The scope of this review

will consist of an evaluation of the relative risks from offsite accidents

for the alternatives being considered, the potential severity of accidents,

and the: environmental impacts of such-accidents.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree'of detail wil .be modified according to the

results of the scoping process and the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The.information,needed for the.review will.usually include the

following:.

(1) identification of credible offsite accident scenarios and their probability (from the ER)

(2) severity of the accident and potential impacts on the environment, including any quantitative estimates of injuries and/or deaths. (from the

ER)

4.9.5-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.-R_

ESRP 4.9.5 Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents

ESRP 4.9.5 Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents (3) evaluation of the alternatives with respect to the potential environ-

(3) evaluation of the alternatives with respect to the potential environmental effects of offsite accidents (from the ER)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will review and assess the offsite accident scenarios identified by

the applicant for each alternative being considered-to verify that they are

reasonable and comprehensive and that the probability of occurrence has been

considered. In addition, the staff will independently assess the severity of

the accident and its potential environmental impacts. The analysis is expected to be primarily a qualitative one, although quantitative data may be

included.

4. EVALUATION

The impacts of postulated offsite accidents are not considered to be major

inputs to the staff's evaluation of the alternatives being considered. However, the staff will assess the impacts on the basis of probability and estimated severity and categorize them as follows:

(1) The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required.

(2) The impact is adverse, but it can be successfully mitigated by specific

design or procedural modifications that the staff has identified and

determined to be practicable. -

(3) The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such

magnitude that it should be avoided.

When no mitigation or-avoidance practices can be identified, the staff will

provide a summary of the adverse impacts of transportation accidents to the

staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts."

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.9.5, "Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents,"

of the ES. This section will contain (1) a description of the potential

impacts from offsite accidents, (2) the basis of the staff's analysis of the

alternatives being considered, and (3) the staff's conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding offsite accidents.

The staff's analysis may be presented in a narrative summary that highlights

the impacts resulting from potential offsite accidents. The discussion will

identify the important impacts and mitigative actions.

The staff will provide the following information or ensure that it has been

provided to the staff reviewers responsible for following ES sections:

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" - a summary of the

unavoidable impacts that may occur as a result of postulated offsite

accidents

4. 9. 5-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.9.5 Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents

ESRP 4.9.5 Onsite Effects of Offsite Accidents 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources" - a sum4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources" - a summary of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4. 9. 5-3 Rev 0 - April 1987
sf atNUREG-130 ( By U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.10

RELATIONSHIPS TO LAND;USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

5.0, "Environmental Effects of Proposed Facility"

* 6.0, "Environmental Effects of Accidents"

7.0, "Summary Evaluation of Proposed Project"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 1.2, "Scoping Process"

* 1.3, "Status of Required Permits and Approvals"

* 3.1.2, "Current and Projected Land Use"

* 4.1, "Land"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Local land-use plans, policies, and controls

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard 'Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of'this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and assessment of

potential conflicts between the alternatives being considered and existing

local, State, regional, and/or Federal land-use plans, policies, and controls

for the areas under consideration. The scope of this review will consist of

both the direct and indirect (induced) conflicts resulting from the alternatives and the concomitant planning efforts.

The information needed for the staff's review will be affected by sitespecific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the

anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The information needed for

the review will usually include the folowing:

(1) land-use plans, policies or controls for the areas under consideration

(from the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 1.3 and 3.3.2)

4. 10-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
N. cq I.

ESRP 4.10 Relationships to Land-Use Plans

(2) impacts on land-use plans, policies, or controls, both short term and

long term (from the staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.1)

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff will consult with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 1.3 and 3.1.2 to identify the primary land management and/or land planning agencies that have jurisdiction over the areas under consideration for

the alternatives being considered, as well as the nature of existing land-use

plans, policies, and controls. The staff also will consult with the staff

reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.1 to confirm any conflicts with such

plans identified in the course of that review. The staff will verify that the

relationships of the alternatives to existing land-use plans, policies, and

.controls have been adequately considered and will prepare a summary description of the nature of those relationships.

4. EVALUATION

This section is a summary description and requires no technical evaluation

or findings. The information in this section will be included in ES Section 2.3, which will contain the summary staff assessment of alternatives and

recommendations.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.10, "Relationships to Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Controls," of the ES. The staff's summary description of the nature

of these relationships will constitute' the narrative of this section. The

staff will also provide pertinent information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

* 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4. 10-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
( y N UREG-1300.

{s }U.S. Nuclear Reguatory Cormmbion.

Office of Nuclear Matedal Safeyand Saufguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL- STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.11

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

7.'1, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

2, "Alternatives Including the.Proposed Action"

* 4.1, "Land"

* 4.2, "Meteorology and Air>Quality"

4.3, "Hydrology"

* 4.4, "Geology"

* 4.5, "Ecology"

* 4.6, "Socioeconomics"

* 4.7, "Cultural Resources"

* 4.8, "Radiological Impacts'and Dose Assessment"

* 4.9, "Impacts of Accidents"

Standard(s) and/or Guides

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* None

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's'summary identification and

description of the predicted adverse environmental'impacts of construction,

operation, closure, and long-term care that cannot be a'voided and for which no

practicable means of mitigation are available. The scope of.the review will

consist of (1) a tabulation"6f iipacts identified by the staff as being adverse, (2) organization of these impacts-by environmental-categories_, and

(3) preparation-of'a summary describingIthenature and magnitudeibf each

impact category.L 8 , . , I

The results of this review will'be'-used-(1) to provide a-suimmary3of those unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that will remain after all practicable

4.11-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
all -

.. 1r,

ESRP 4.11 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

mitigative measures have been taken and (2) as input to the staff's assessment

of the alternatives and recommendations in ES Section 2.3.

The information needed for the staff's review will be limited to descriptions

of those predicted adverse impacts identified by the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.1 through 4.9.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis and summary of adverse environmental impacts of construction and operation will be based on project design, construction, operation,

closure, and long-term care of the alternatives proposed by the applicant.

The analysis will also incorporate those measures and controls identified and

recommended by the staff to limit adverse impacts. The staff will identify

these impacts, organize them by environmental categories, and summarize each

category for inclusion in the ES. The following analysis procedure will be

used:

(1) The staff will consult'with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.1 through 4.9 and will obtain from them a listing of adverse

environmental impacts. The staff will organize these impacts as follows:

(a) staff-identified adverse impacts based on the alternatives proposed

by the applicant

(b) staff-recommended design modifications or modified procedures and

practices to mitigate or avoid these impacts

(c) the unavoidable adverse impacts that will, remain after all practicable means to avoid or mitigate the impacts have been taken

(2) The staff will categorize the identified impacts as follows:

(a) land-use impacts

(b) meteorological and air quality impacts

(c) hydrological impacts

(d) geological impacts

(e) ecological impacts

(f) socioeconomic impacts

(g) cultural resources impacts

(h) radiological impacts

(i) impacts of accidents

(3) The staff will-ensure that the time scale for each impact is identified

(e.g., 4-65months during construction, throughout the facility's lifetime, indefinitely), will identify (for the staff reviewer responsible

for ES Section 4.12) any impacts that result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, and will include (for the staff reviewer responsible for ES Section 4.13) those impacts that are to be considered short term or long term.

4. 11-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4. 11 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

4. EVALUATION

The staff will consult with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.1 through 4.9 to ensure that adequate documentation, including the

applicant's commitments to avoid adverse impacts, is available to support the

staff's conclusions on adverse impacts.

The staff will ensure that each identified impact has been appropriately categorized. When a particular action or operation results in multiple impacts

(e.g., access-road construction and use may have impacts affecting land use,

terrestrial ecology, and socioeconomics), the staff will ensure that the impacts are addressed in each appropriate category.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts," of the ES. The staff's summary of adverse impacts for the alternatives being considered will constitute the narrative for this section. The

staff-also will provide the following information or ensure that it has been

provided to the staff reviewers responsible for the following ES sections:

* 2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations" - a summary

description of direct and indirect unavoidable adverse environmental

impacts

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources" - a list

of the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result in irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources

* 4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity" - a list categorizing

the unavoidable adverse impacts of the alternatives as short term or long

term

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.11-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
.NUREG-1300

* s ) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commuisson

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.12

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

7.2, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

* 4.1, "Land"

* 4.2, "Meteorology and Air Quality"

4.3, "Hydrology"

* 4.4, "Geology"

* 4.5, "Ecology"

* 4.6, "Socioeconomics"

4.7, "Cultural Resources"

* 4.8, "Radiological Impacts and Dose Assessment"

* 4.9, "Impacts of Accidents"

* 4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format 'and Content of Environmental

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

* None

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's summary identification and

description of the predicted irreversible And irretrievable commitments of re-

,sources involved in the construction and operation of "the proposed low-level

waste disposal facility that cahnot'be:avoided by practicable means. The scope

of the review will consist of (1) a tabulation of all environmental resource

commitments identified byt the staff as being irreversible, (2) i tabulation of

all materials used in construction and operation that are irretrievably committed, (3) organization of these commitments by category, and (4) the preparation of a" summary describing the nature' and magnitude of each commitment

category.

4. 12-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
* *r~

ESRP 4.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

Thc results of this review will be used to provide a summary of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that will be used as input to

the staff's assessment in ES Section 2.3 of alternatives and recommendations.

The information needed for the staff's review will include descriptions of the

irreversible commitments of environmental resources identified by the staff

reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.1 through 4.9 and the irretrievable

commitments of material sources identified by the applicant. Information

needed for the review will usually include the following:

(1) Environmental Commitments

* unavoidable adverse environmental impacts (from the staff reviewer

responsible for ES Section 4.11)

(2) Resource Commitments

* commitments of materials used during construction, operation, closure,

and long-term care (from the ER)

"Irreversible commitment" applies to environmental resources and the commitment of the environment that cannot be altered at some later time to restore

the order of environmental resources that is current at the time of the commitment. "Irretrievable commitment" applies to material resources and the

commitment of materials that, when used, cannot by practicable means be recycled or restored for other use.

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis and summary of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources will consist of two sections dealing with the following:

(1) irreversible environmental commitments (e.g., land-use productivity) predicted by the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.1 through 4.9 and

(2) irretrievable material resources (e.g., steel) proposed by the applicant

for use in project construction and operation. The staff will identify and

summarize these commitments for inclusion in the ES. The following analysis

procedure will be used:

(1) The staff will consult with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sec-.

tions 4.1 through 4.9 and will obtain from them a listing of irreversible

commitments of environmental resources based on (a) the applicant's proposed project and (b) the project with staff-recommended modifications.

The staff will organize these commitments as follows:

(a) staff-identified commitments based on the project as proposed by the

applicant

(b) staff-recommended design modifications or modified procedures and

practices to minimize or avoid these commitments

(c) the unavoidable commitments that will remain after all practicable

means to avoid or minimize them have been taken

4. 12-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
ESRP 4.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

(2) The staff will identify those materials that will be irretrievably committed as a result of the proposed action.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will consult with the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.1 through 4.9 and 4.11 to ensure that the staff's conclusions on the

irreversibility of environmental commitments are appropriate and can be supported. * The staff will consider irreversible commitments as they may apply

to the categories identified in ESRP 4.11.

The staff will ensure that the irretrievable commitments of material resources

identified by the applicant are reasonable and that any other material resources identified by the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.1

through 4.9 have been included.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources," of the ES. The section will usually consist of a brief

paragraph and a table describing the resource commitments in quantitative

and/or qualitative terms. In additio6, the staff will provide pertinent

information or ensure that it has been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES section:

2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4.12-3 Rev. 0 - April 1987
" A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commwon - Ofice of N"',-ear Material Safety and Safeguards

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL LICENSING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 4.13

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

1. REVIEW INPUT

The staff will use the following to perform its review under this ESRP:

Environmental Report Section(s)

* 7.3, "Relationships Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of

Man's Environment"

Environmental Review(s) Performed Under the Following ESRP(s)

4.11, "Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts"

* 4.12, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources"

Standard(s) and/or Guide(s)

* Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste"

Other

None

2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this ESRP is to direct the staff's review and assessment of

the local short-term uses of the environment stemming from the alternatives

being considered and the effects of these uses on long-term environmental

productivity. The scope of the review will-include an analysis of the predicted short-term unavoidable adverse environmental impacts (or environmental

benefits) of each alternative as well as the predicted long-term environmental

impacts (or benefits). For the purposes of this ESRP, "short-term" represents

the period from the start of construction to the completion of site closure,

and "long-term" represents the period extending beyond the completion of site

closure. The review also will include an evaluation of the extent to which

the proposed project's use of the environment will foreclose any options for

other future use of the environment.

Information on the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that represent short-term and

long-term use of the environment needed for the staff's review will be obtained from the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.11 and 4.12,

respectively.

4. 13-1 Rev. 0 - April 1987
I at

ESRP 4.13 Short-Term Use/Long-Term Productivity

3. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The staff's analysis of the relationship between short-term uses and long-term

productivity will be based on the tabulation of unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources

prepared by the staff reviewers responsible for ES Sections 4.11 and 4.12.

The staff will identify through consultation with the appropriate staff reviewers those other uses of the environment that will be foreclosed by the

proposed action (e.g., loss of productive farmland) and will classify these

as either short-term or long-term preemptions. As necessary. the staff will

consult with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies to make these

determinations.

4. EVALUATION

The staff will evaluate the project's effect on short-term use and the longterm productivity capabilities of the environment and will determine if the

information provided by the reviews is complete, accurate, and applicable.

5. INPUT TO THE ES

The staff will prepare Section 4.13, "Relationships Between Short-Term Use of

the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity,"

of the ES. The section will contain a summary and analysis of the predicted

short-term unavoidable adverse impacts (or environmental benefits) of the

alternatives and the predicted long-term adverse environmental impacts (or

benefits) resulting from the alternatives.

In addition, the staff will provide pertinent information or. ensure that it

has been provided to the staff reviewer responsible for the following ES

section:

2.3, "Staff Assessment of Alternatives and Recommendations"

6. REFERENCE

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 4.18, "Standard Format

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive

Waste."

4. 13-2 Rev. 0 - April 1987
"me FRM t US IEUCLEAR IEGULATORYCOMMISION I REPORT NUMBER (AsrW Dr tOC . IfI aesoy)

12 #41

3201.22n BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

' INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE NUREG-1300

LE ANO SUtTITLE 3 LEAVE BLANKt

nvironmental Standard Review Plan For The Review Of A

license Application For a Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility 4 DATE REPORT COMPLETED

MONTH | YEAR

5 AUTHORIS, March 1987

B DATE REPORT ISSUED

MONTH | YEAR

G.C. Pangburn and Others April 1987

7 PERFORMING ORhANIZATIO1N NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS tI/hme Z. c.; a PROJECTITASKIWORK UNIT NUMBER

Division of Waste Management 9 FINOR GRANT NUMBER

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

10 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS IsttJ.I C0*1 II& TYPE OF REPORT

Same as above b PERIOD COVERED nIdcf,*J.efwI

12 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

13 ABSTRACT E?7 wa., or but

The Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NUREG-1300) provides guidance to staff

Feviewers in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards who perform

Lnvironmental reviews of Applicant's environmental reports prepared in support of

license applications to construct and operate new low-level radioactive waste disposal

facilities. The individual ESRP's which make up this document identify the information

considered necessary to conduct the review, the purpose and scope of the review, the

analysis procedure and evaluation, the formal inputs made to the Environmental Statement

and the references considered appropriate for each review. By providing this information

to the staff, the ESRP is intended to assure quality and uniformity of approach in

individual reviews as well as compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969. In addition, the ESRP will make information about the environmental component of

the licensing process more readily available and thereby improve the understanding of

this process among the public, States and Regional Compacts and the regulated community.

14 DOCUMENT ANALYSIS-a KEYWORDSIOESCRIPTORS 15 AVAILABILITY

Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) STATEMENT

Environmental Statement Unlimited

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility

National Environmental Policy Act

DENTIFIERSIOPEN ENDED TERMS

16 SECURITYCLASSIFICATION

tT*,# P"01

Unclassified

nTA's monlJ

17 NUMBER OF PAGES

18 PRICE

*u.S G P.O. 1987-181-682t6Oot