Wi' 05 2804 ,18:37 FR



### US.NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMWSIORI 

# RYGUPDE

GENERAL SITE 

### SUITABILITY 

### CRITERJA FOR 

### NUCLEAR 

### POWER STA

### TlONS-- 

### TABLE 

### QF 

### COWTINT$ 

### Page

A. 

### INTRODUCTION



# ........ 

# ... a
. . I..,

# ........ .....

# ... 4.7.1


### B. DISCUSSION

, 

### . 

## . *I..

## ........ ... 

## ...... * * 4.7.2
"1. Ceolow/Seismology



## ............................... 4.7.2 

### 2. Atmospheric Extremes

### and Dispersion



### ........................ 4.7-2 3. Population Considerations



### ............................. 4.74 4. Hy$o?ogy



## ..................................... 4.74

I , 4.1 Flooding



## ............................. :


### .....4.74 

### 4.2 Water Availability



### .............................. 4.74 4.3 Water Quality



## ............................... .4.7.5


### 5. Ecological Systemsand Biota



## ............................ 4.7.5 

### 6. Lond

### Uteand Aesthetics



## ..............................4.76 

### 7. Industrial,

### Military,and 

### Truuportation

### Fadlities



## ..................... 4.7-7 

### 8. Socioeconomics



## ................................4.7-8 9. Noise



# ............. :


## .... .............. .4.7-8


### C. 

### REGULATORY#)SITION



## ........... ................4.7-a

1. 

### Geology/Seismology



## ........... ...............i 4.7-8 

### 2. AtmosphericExtnmesind~spenion



## .... .............. .4.7-9 3. Population Considerations



## ......... ............... .4.7-9 4. 

### Hydrology



## .............. ................ .4.7-9

4.1 

### Flooding



## ............... ............... I4.7.9 

### 4.2 Water Ad8bility



# .......... ................ .4.7-9 43 W8terQurlity



## ............. ................4.7-9


### 5. Eoological Systemsand Biota



## .......... ................4.7-IO 

### 6. Land

### Uw md

### Aesthetics



## ............ ................. 4.7-11 

### 7. Industrial,

### Military,and Trimportation Facilities



### .................4.7.11 

### 8. SocioecbnomiCs



## ............... ................. 4.7-11 9. Noise



## ......

## ;.

.......... ................ .4.7-11


### D. IMPLEMENTATION



## ................................. 4.7-1I

APPENDIXA: 

### Safety-Related

### Sitecomldantionr

### for -8n, SPlitrbitity

### far

### NuclearPowerStations


## . 4.7-13

APPENDIX

### B: Environmntd 

### Considerations

### for heah6

### !b 

### S&&tr,for Nuclear

### PowerStations



## ... 4.7.19

0 ,

2A. INI~~OUUCTION
The Energq Reareanization Act of 1974places on the sgclear Kepiatc,ry Cur;~:t\lsji~>~ihRC) the responsiblllty ior the licensing and reguhtion of private nuclear tacdities from the siandl)oirit of public health and Qfety. i-';irag;zp~-,s i%j ic~h,! 2r:d of. 10CFR Part 

### \OO, "Reactor Sit<Criteru." iequire that the population jcnsity use 

### ,)< sitc ;:,vi:ons. and the physical charactenstics ui thc siir. including seismology, tneteorology, geoiogy. aid hydrolog, be 

### taken into account in determinirig &leicceptability of a site for a nuclear power reactor. Seismic and geologic site criteria for nuclear power plants arc provided in Appendix A to 

### 10CFR Part 

### 100. Appendx A to 10CFR Part 50 establishes the-minimum requirements for the principal &sign criteria for water-coolednuclear power 

### plants; a number of these criteria are directly related to site characteristics BS well as x) eventsandconditionsoutside the nuclear power unit.

Tiic National Entitonmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (83 Stat 

### 852), implemented 'by' Executive Order I 1514 and the Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines of August 1, 1973 (38 FR20550),requires that all agencies of the Federal Government pre. pare detailed environmental statements on proposed malor Federal actions which can significantly affect the quaiity of the human environment. Aprincipal objective of NEPA IS to require the Federal agency toconsider,in
its decision-makingprocess, the environmental impacts of each proposed major action and theavailable alternative actions.

Part 51, "l.ACmSing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures 

### for Environnlental Protection," of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, sets forth the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's policy and procedures for the preparation and processing of environmental impact statements and related documents pursuant to Section 102(2)(CI of the NEPA.

The limitations on the 

### Commission's .au!hority and responsibility pursuant to the NEPA bnpsed by the Federal Water Po!iution Control Act (66 Stat. 916) are Iddressed in an Interjm Policy Statement published in rhc FederalRegister c;n January 29, 1973 (38FR2679).
This guide discusses the maior site characteristics rehted to public health 3nd safety and environmental issues which the NRC staff considers in determining the -,iritabi!ity ut'sites forlight-water-cooled 

### (LWR) and high remperaturr gas-cooled

## (in LK)nuclear power stations.3 The guideiines may be used by applicants in identifying suitable candidate sites for nuclear power stations. The



### - 'I ur tlic purpum ot ttiia g,mit

~ nuclear powcr suric.rr rclcr\ 10 :he nuclcar reactor unitts). nuclcar steam supply.
dciiriL gencrJrin!: unit), ~UUII.II~ iystcms. insludinp rhc cooIiIIc b)rIelll ind birucIurc5 WLII docl. ih31 arc located on pIrn ..Ilc. md Jn! ne\< CIC~ITILJI tr~ii~iili~\i(m towcrs and hne, rrccrcd

.Ill i~~nllc~llorl klih Ilkl.l~liltl~~\ decision that a station may be built on a specific candidste site is based on a detailed evaluation of the proposed site-plant combination and a cost-benefit analysis comparing it with alternative site-plant combinations as discussed in Regulatory Guide 4.2. "Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations. Chapter 9 of Regulatory Guide 4.2 discusses the selectionof a site fromamongalternative sites.Although it is recopzed 

### th. ! planning methodsb will differ among applicants, 

### Chapter 

### 9 states that the applicant should present its site-plant selection process as the consequence of an analysis of alternatives whose environmental costs and benefits were evaluated and compared and then weighed against those 

### of the proposed facility.

llusguide is intendedtoassist applicantsin the initial stage of selecting potential sites for a nuclear power station. Each site that appearsto

### be compatible with the general criteria discussed in 

### this guide will have to be examined in greater detail before it can be consideredto be a "candidate" site, Le., one ofthegroup 

### of sitesthat
are to 

### be considered in selecting a "proposed" 

### or "preferred" site.c



### T?usguide should be used only in the initial stage of site selection because it does not provide detailed guidance on the various relevant factors and format for ranking the relative suitability or desirability ofposs!.ble sites. 

### This guide provides a general set of safety and environmental criteria which the

### NRC staff

### has foundto be valuable in assessing candidate site identification 

### in specific licensingcases.
The information needed toevaluate potential sitesat this initial stageofsite selectionisassumed tobelimited to that information which may be obtained 

### from published reports, public records, public and private agencies, and individuals knowledgable about the locality 3f a potential site. Although in some cases the applicants may have conducted on-the-spot investigations, it is assumed here that these investigations would be limited toreconnaissance-typesurveys at 

### thsstage in the site selectionprocess.
The safety issues discussed include geologc!seismic. hydrolopc. and atmospheric iharacterisws of proposed sites: potential effects ofi [lit. statioi: iiuII1 .rcsidenrs ;\w)siated xith nearby inJ\i~\ii31.\i~ii~por.~tiuii. dnd

bSitc selection methodologies that haw btcn used by the nuclcar power industry die described in "Nuclear Power Plant Siting. A Generaliied Prorcsr." Atomic Industrial Forum. August 1974. N.irional Environineotsl Studics Protect. R-157X. 'Sre Chapier 9 01 Rt*:ula!ory CuiJc 4 2 for a hscussion 111 site wlcction procedures The "proposed" ,ire submitted by m 3pplrcJnt for a constructioii permit is tli~t site of J number 01 "c.Jndidatc" sites which rlic applicant prciers and on wtuuch thr.

J nullcar po~cr \\ariun LLpphLJIlI propci\c> ~'~rn~truc.t

-1-i 

## 3military tacilities; 

### and population dirufbution 

### and densitiesin the site environs as they relate toprotecting the 

### gecerai public from the potential radiation hazards of postulated serious accidents 

### The environmental issues discussed concern potential impacts from the con. struction 

### and operation of nuclear power stations on ecological systems, water 

### use, land use, the atmosphere, aesthetics,and socioeconomics.
This guide 

### docs not discuss details of the engineering 

### &signs required to ensure the compatability of the nuclear station and the site 

### or the detailed information required for the preparation 

### of the safety analysis and environmental reports. In addition, nuclear power reactor site suitability 

### as it 

### my 

### be affected by 

### the 

### Commission's materials safeguardsand plant protection requirements for nuclear power plants is not addressed in 

### thisguide.
Guidance concerning the siting of 

### offshore nuclear stations, liquid metal 

### fast breeder reactors 

### (LMFBR), and advanced sitingconcepts such 

### as underground aitea and nuciear energy centers 

### is not included in this guide.
A significantcommitment of tiine 

### andlesources

### maybe required to select a suitable

### site for a'nucku 

### power station, including safety and environmental considerations,and to develop 

### im acceptable 

### &si@ for that site. Site selection involves considerations of public health 

### and safety, engineering and design, economics, institutional requirements, environmental impacts, and other factors. 

### The potential impacts 

### of thecmtruction and operation of nuclear 

### power stations

### onthephysical and biological environment and 

### on rodrl, cultural, and economic featurd are usdy

### similar to the 

### potentid impacts 

### of any major industrial facility, but nuclear power stations 

### are 

### unique in the 

### degree to which potential impacts of the environment 

### on their safety must 

### be considered.The safetyrequirementsareprimary determinants of the suitability 

### of a site for nuclear power stations, but 

### considerations of environmental impacts and public 

### acceptance

### ofnuclear

### power stations 

### an also

### importantandneed tobeevaluated.



### In the 

### rite rcloaion proem, 

### coordination betwen 

### appkrnb for nuclw 

### power :tations and vuioua 

### Federal, State, and local agencies will be useful 

### in identifyingpotentialproblem areas. Appendices A and 

### B of this guide summarizethe important safety-relatedand environmental considerations

aBiological and physical environmentincluda geology,geomorphology, surface and groundwater hydrology, climatology, air quality, limnology, waterquality. fisheries,wildhfe, and vegetation. Social and cultural features include scenic resources, recreation resources, archeological/historicicalresources,andcommunity resources including land use patterns. From "Develop ment and the Environment: Legal Reforms to Facilitate Industrial Site Selection," final report by the Committee on Environmental Law,American Bar Association, February 1974. 

### for assessing the site suitability 

### of nuclear 

### power rta. 

### tions.
8. DISCUSSION
1. Geology/seignology Nuclear power stations must 

### be designed 

### to prevent the 10s

### of safety-relatedfunctionr. Generrlly, the mQat restrictive aafetyrelated rite characteristic: conddemd

### In determiningthe auitabilityof a rite are rurfrce

### faultin potential ground motion and foundation condid

# 03 (including liquefaction, aubsidma, and 

### h&U& potential), 

### and seismically induced 

### floods.Criteria 

### thbt describe the nature of the inveatigntionr required to obtain the geologic and seirmic 

### data necessary to ' determine aite suitability 

### are provided by 

### Appmdix A, "Seismic and Geologic Criterir for 

### Nucku Power Plants," to 

### 10CFR hrt 100. SIfety-dated 

### rite chrncterirtics ue identified 

### in Section 25 of 

### Rqp ulrtory Guide 1.70, "SStmdud Format and Content 

### of Safety 

### Analysis Reporu for 

### NuckuPouerAurtr," md Regulatory Guide 1.59, 

### "Dei@ Basis 

### Fl& for 

### NucltuPower 

### RM~s." 

### In dditicm to phgk

### andaehnic 

### evrlurtion for 

### amcssln g reirmicrlly induced 

### floodtpe potentid, Sectian 2.4 of -tory Cui& 1.70 md Regulatory Guide 1.59 

### ducribe hydrolo#c criterh, including coincident 

### flood evmts that should 

### be canridered.
2. 

### Atmorpheric Extrtmcrand Dirpadw The potentid effect of natural atmosphericextremca (e.g., tornadoesCand exceptional icing conditionsd)

### on the safety-related structuns of anudeustationmwt

### be considered. However, 

### the atmospheric extremer that my occur at a site are not normally critical 

### in determining the suitability 

### of a site because safetyrelated structures, systems, md 

### components can 

### be designed towithstand most atmosphericextremes.


### The atmospheric characteristica at a site 

### are 

### an important consideration in evaluating the 

### dispersion of radioactive effluents 

### bothfrompostdated rcadentsand from routine releases in gaseous effluenke 

### In addition to meeting the 

### NRC requirements for the 

### dispersion of

~ ~~ b"Clusi!ication, Engheerirq Ropertier and Fidd ExpIontion of Soh,Intact Rock and In Situ Maam," WASH-1301, March 1974. outlines some of the procedurrr used to evduate site foundation properties. cReftr to Regulatory Guide 1.76, "DedgnBrdsTornado for NuckrPowerPlants." dRefer to Section 2.4.7 of Regulatory Guide 1.70. eRoutinc releases of airborne ndioactive matedmust be kept "as low as practicable." [See IO CFR Part 20. §20.1(~).) The Cornmissionhas published a proposed rukfor public corn ment (40 FR 33029) that substitutes "as low as reuonrMy achievable" for the older. less precise term "as low IJ pncticable" where it appearsin NRC regulationsand regulatoryguides. Section 50.341 of 10 CFR Part 50 sets forth the requirements for design objectives for equipmentto control releues of radioactivematerialin efftuents from nuclear power rraccton. (Continued)

4.7-2 

## 4P

airborne radioactive material, the station must meet State md Federal requirements of the 

### Clean Air knendments of 1930 

### (PL91-604).

### Thisis unlikely to be
an inportant consideration for nuclear 

### power station siting unless (1) a site is in an area where existing air quality is near or exceeds the hinits set under the Clean Air hnendments, (2) there is 

### a potentialforinteraction of the cooling system plume with a plume containing noxious or toxic substances from a nearby facility,

### or (3) the auxiliarygeneratorsare operating.

The atmospheric data necessary for adequate assessment 

### of the potential dispersion of radioactive material from design basis accidents are described in Regulatory Guide 1.23, “Onsite Meteorologicai Programs.” Models and assumptions used for evaluating the potential radiological consequencesofcertainpostulatedaccidents
are provided in Regulatory Guides 1.3, “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Luss-of-Coolant Accident for Wing Water Reactors;” 1.4, “Assumptions Used forEvaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a 

### Los-ofCoolant Accident for PressurizedWater Reactors;” 

### �5, “Assumptions Used for Evaluatingthe Potentid 

### Radiological Consequences 

### of a Steam Line Break Accident for Boiling Water Reactors;” 1.24, “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of 

### a Pressurized Water Reactor R?dioactive

### Cu Storas Tank Failure;“ 

### and 1.25, “Asrrumptions Used for Evaluatingthe Potential RadiolGgical Consequences

### of aFuel 

### Handling Accident in 

### the Fuel 

### Handling and StoragF Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors.” However, the atmospheric assumptions in the guides may not be appropriate for sites with unusual atmosphericconditions.


### In the evaluation 

### of potential sites, onsite atmospheric reconnaissance can determine if the atmospheric conditions at a site are adequately represented

(Continued) Section 50.36a further provides that, inorda tokeppowcr reactor effluent nle~ses as low Y practicable. ach liccnsc authorizing operation of such a facility wiU include technic4 sptcifications regarding .the estabtishmcnt of effluent control equipment and reportingofactual releases. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, promulgated May 5,1975 (40FR 19439). provides numerical guidance for design ob*­ eives and technical spccifEation requirementsfor limiting cor& tions of operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. The following regulatory guides are being prepared to assist in applicationofthe numericalguidanain Appendix I: 1. Calculation of Annual Average Dores to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purposeof lmple mentingAppendixI. 2. Calculations of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Ressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), 3. Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materialsin Liquid and ‘Gaseous Effluents from Bohg Water Reactors (BWRs). and 4. Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents irom Routine Releprs. 

### by the availab!e atmospheric 

### data for the ma.Conyom
or deep valleys frequently have atmospheric variables that are substantially different from t!!ose variable3 measured for 

### the general region. Other topographical featuressuch

### ashills,

### mountainranges, 

### and lake or ocean 

### shonlinescan affect the 

### local atmosphericconditions at a site 

### ad may 

### causcthe dispersioncharacteristicsat the site to 

### be kss favo

### .abiethan thosein the perd area 

### or region. 

### More strinpnt design 

### or effluent objectives 

### or a largerexclusion area

### may

### be requind 

### in such

### cases.
While it 

### is 

### the concentration of radioactivity in the atmosphere at any distance from 

### tlae point of 

### reluse, dCi/m3), that must 

### be controlled,the ratio

## dQ, where Q(Ci/sec) 

### is the rate 

### of release of radioactivity from 

### the source,has become a commonly evaluatedterm 

### beaw it depends only on atmospheric variables and distance fromthe

### source.
If the atmospheric conditions 

### arc unfavorable with respect to dispersion cluuactcristics at a propored site, the exclusion ma

### may have 

### to 

### be unusually to satisfy the dose criteria of 10CFR 

### Part 100. 

### If under assumed unfavorable atmosphtric conditions 

### (see Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4) 

### the disperdon 

### of radioactivityreleased

### following a

### designbasis acadent

### is insufficient at the boundary 

### of 

### the exclusion ma 

### (see the 

### followingsection,

### “Population Considerations”) and 

### the outer boundary 

### of 

### the lowpopulation zone,thesite 

### would not satisfy the requirementsof 10

### CFR

### Part 100. Thus, the 

### design 

### of the station 

### would 

### be required to include appropriate and adequate 

### compensating 

### engineered safety features.

Local fogging and icing 

### can result from plumes discharged 

### into the atmosphere from cooling towers, lakes, canals, 

### or spray ponds, but 

### can generally 

### be acceptably mitigated by station design and operational practices. However, so- sites 

### have the potential for
severe 

### fogging 

### or icing due to 

### locd atmospheric conditions. For example, areas 

### of unusually 

### high moisture content that are protected from Iarge-scale 

### airflow patterns are most likely to experience these conditions. The impacts an generally of greatest potentid imporhnce relative to transportation 

### or electrical 

### transmissioncorridorsin the vicinity of 

### a site.

A cooling system designed withspecialconsideration for reducing drift may 

### be requireddue to the sensitivity of the natural vegetation 

### or the crops in the vicinity of the site to damage from 

### airborne salt particles. The vulnerability of existing industries or other facilities in the vicinity 

### ofthe sitetocorrosionby drift fromcooling tower or spray system drift should 

### be considered. Not only are the amount, direction,and distance of the drift from the cooling system important, but the salt concentration above the natural background salt deposition at the site is also important in 

### assessing drift effects. None of these considerations are critical in evaluating

4.7-3 5ihe sultvbdity of a we,but they could result in special
.i.,~iii:gsysier:~ desigri rcquirements or in the need for 

### a !qer site to confine the effects of drift withthe site )~<.~!~i~&ry environmental effects of salt drift are The most WV~I-C where salute water or water with high inineral contentis used for condenser cooling.

(“udingtowers produce cloudlike plumes which vary in size and altitude depending on the atmospheric ionditions. The plumes are often a few miles in length before becorlung dissipated, but the plumes themselves

or their shadows could have aesthetic impacts. Visible i~lumcs emitted from coohg towers 

### in the vicinity of airportscould cause ahazard toaviation.

3. Population Codaations

A reactor licensee is required by 10CFRPart 100to designate an exclusion area and to have authority to determine 

### all activities within that area, including removal 

### ofpersonnel and

### property.

### In selecting asite for


### a nuclear pwuer station, it is necessary 

### toprovide for 

### an exclusion area in wluch theapplicanthas such authority.’ The exclusion area must be 

### of such 

### site that doses to indwiduals at any point on its boundary for 

### 2 hours immediately following the onset 

### of a postulated fission product release are less than certain prescribed values. Transportation corridors, such 

### as highways, 

### reilrcnds, and waterways, are permitted to travene the exclusion
area provided (1) these 

### ue not so

### closeto the 

### facility

### as to interfere with normal 

### operation of the facility and (2) appropriate and effective arrangements an

### made to control traffic on the highway, railroad,,

### or waterway in the case of emergency to protect the public health and safety.



### As set forth in 10 CFR 

### Part 100, a nuclear power btation site must have a low population zone 

### (LPZ) inmediately surrounding

### the exclusionareain which the population 

### is (a)suffciently limited in number and 

### (b) distributed in such a way that then is a reasonable probability that appropriate 

### measures could be taken in their 

### behalf in the event 

### of a serious rccident. A proposed site 

### will also have a “populrtion center distance,” defined 

### as the distance from the nuclear reactor to the nearest 

### boundary of a densely populated center containingmorethan about 25,000residents.The population center distance must be at least one and one-thud times the 

### distance to the outer boundary 

### of the 

### LPZ. However, 10CFR Part 100 requires that the 

### LPZ boundary 

### be sufficiently remote that a release of fission products (calculated 

### as a consequence of a postulated accident) will not result in radiation doses to individuals on the outer boundary of the LPZ greater 

### thancertain specifiedvalues.
WASH-1235. “The Site Population Factor, A Technique for Consideration of Population in Site Comparison,” October 1974, discussesa methodology that is useful in comparing population hstibutions at slternrr!ve sites.

4. Hydrologj

4.1 

### Fiooding
Criteria for evaluation of seismically induced floods
are provided in Appendix A to 10CFR Part 100. Regulatory Guide 1.59 describes 

### an acceptable method of determining the design basis floods for sites along streams orrivers and d.~cusses the-phenomenaproducing comparable design basis floods for coastal, estuary, 

### and Great Lakes sites. The effects of a probable maximum 

### flood (as defined in Regulatory 

### Guide 1.591, seiche, surge, or seismically induced flood such 

### as might 

### be caused by 

### dam failures or tsunami on station safety functions can generally be controlled by engineezing design or protection of the safety-related structures, systems, and components which are identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29, “Se@dcDesign Classification.” 

### For
some river valleys, floodplains,or areas almgcoostlines, there may not be sufficient information .tomake 

### the evaluations needed to satisfy the criteria for seismically induced 

### flooding. 

### In such cases, study of the potential for dam failure, river blockage, or diversion 

### in the river system 

### or distantly-andlocally generated sea waves may be needed to determine the suitability of a site. In lieu of detailed investigations, Regulatory Guide 1.59 and Section 2.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.70present acceptable

~~ ~~ - analytical techniques for evaluating seismically induced flooding.
4.2 W8ter Availability
Nuclear power stations require reliable sources 

### ol water for steam condensation, seMce water, emergeircy
core cooling system; and other functions. In regions where water is in short..supply,the recirculation of the hot cooling water 

### through cooling towers, artificial ponds, or impoundments hasbeen practiced.

Essential water requirements for nuclear power plants
are that sufficient water be availablefor cooling during plant operation and normal shutdown, for the ultimate heat 

### sink,a and for fire protection. The limitations imposed by existing 

### laws 

### or allocation policies govern the use and coasumption of coolingwater at potential sitesb for normal operation. Regulatory Guide 1.27

~~~~~ ~~ ~ aReylatory Guide I .27, “Ultimate Heat Sink for Nucleai Power Plants.” provides guidance on water supply for the ulhmate heat sink. ho the extent that site selection is dependent on water diversions for consumptive use. allocation of water supply is a function ofstate statutoryand administrative proadurcs. A discussion of the establishment of state regulation of water use is provided in “Industrial Developments and the Environment, Legal Reforms to Improve tk Decision-MakingProcess rn lndUStiid Site %kction.” Specla1 Committee on Environrnenta! Law of the American Bar Association.August 1973.

4.7-4 

### L 1d;scusses the safety requirements. Consumptive use of water may necessitate 

### an evduation of existing and future water uses in Lie area to ensure adequate water jupply during droughts both for station operation and (;the1 water users (i.e., nuclear power station requirements versus public water supply). Regulatory agencies should be consulted to avoid potential conflicts.

Where r. quired by applicahle law,demonstration 

### of a request for certification of the rights to withdraw or consume water and 

### an indication that the request is consistent with appropriate State and regional programs and policies should 

### h provided 

### as part of the application for a construction permit or operatinglicense.

The avadability of essential water during periods of low flow or low water level is an important initial consideration for identifying potential sites 

### on riven, small shallow lakes, or along coastlines. Both 

### the frequency and duration of low flow orlowlevelperiod should be determined from the historical record and. rf the cooling water is to be drawn from impoundmenu. from projected operatingpractices.

4.3 Water

### Quality

Thermal and chemical effluents discharged to navigable streams are governed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA, 

### PL 92-SOO), 

### 40CFR Part 122, 40CFR Part 423, and State water quality smdards. The applicant should ais0 determine 

### other replations that are current at the time sites are under consideration. Section401(aXl) of the FWPCArequires. in part, that any applicant for an 

### NRC construction permit for 

### a nuclear power station provide 

### to the 

### NRC certification from the State that any discharge mll comply with applicable effluent limitations and other water pollution control requirements. In the absence of such certification, no construction permit can 

### be issued by the 

### NRC unless the requirement 

### is waived by 

### the State 

### or the State fails to act within a reasonable period 

### of time. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

### (NPDES) permit to discharge effluents to navigable streams pupant to 

### Section 

### 402 of the FWPCA may be required 

### for a nuclear power station to operate in compliance with the Act, but is not a prerequisite to 

### an

### NRC construction permit or operating license.

Evaluations of the dispersion and dilution capabilities and potential contamination pathways of the ground water environment under operating and accident conditions with respect to present and future users are required. Potential radiological and nonradiological contaminants of ground water should be evaluated.The suitability of sites in areas with acomplex ground water hydrology or of sites located over aquifers that are or may be used by large populations for domestic 

### or industrial water supplies or for irrigation water CM 

### ody be determined after reliableassessments have ken

### made of the potential impacts of the reactor plants 

### on 

### the ground water. Although management of the quality of surface waters is important, water quality per 

### se is not a determining factor 

### in assessing the suitability of 

### a site since adequate design alternatives can generally 

### be deveiovd to meet the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and 

### the Commission’s regulations implementing 

### NEPA. However, 

### the environmental characteristics or the complexity of 

### the environment at a site anditsvicinity may

### be such 

### thrt it would be difficult to obtain 

### or develop sufficient tnformation to establish, in a timely manner, that 

### the potential environmental impacts 

### onwater quaiity would be acceptable. Examples 

### of situations that could 

### pose unusual impact assessment 

### or design problems are areas of elustvlg marginal water quality, small bays, estuaries, mruficd waten, and sites that would require intake 

### from and discharge to waten of markedly different qurbty, such as intake of marine water and dischargeto
UIestuary.



### The following are examples of potential 

### mviroannlaleffectsofstation construction and operation that must be assessed: physical and chemical environmental ~jlc:ationsin habitats of important spcies, including piant-induced rapid changes in environmental conibtrons;changes in normal current direction or velocity d the cooling water source andreceivingwater; scouring urd slltation resulting from construction and cooling water intake and discharge; alterations resulting from dndgmg and spoil disposal; and interference with rhoreline processes.

Areas of great importanh to the local aquatic ecosystem may present major difficulties in assessing potential impacts on populations 

### of importantspecies

### or ecological systps. Such areas include those used 

### for breeding (e.g., nesting and spawning), wintering, and feeding, 

### as well as areas where there 

### may be seasonally 

### high concentrations 

### ofindividuals ofimportant~pecies.~ Where the ecological sensitivity of a site under consideration cannot 

### be established from existing infomation, more detailed studies, as discussed in Regulatory

‘A species. whether animal or plant, is important (for the purpose of this guide) if a specific causal link can be identified between the nuclear power station and the species andif one or more of the followingcriteria applies: (1) If the species is commercially or recreationally valuable, (2) If the species is endangered or threatened, (3) If the species affects the well-being of some important specks within criteria(1) or (2)or if it is critical to the structure and function of a valuable ecological system or is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment. (Continued)Guide 4.2, 

### may be necessary. Impacts 

### of station constructiona and operation 

### on the biota and ecological systems nay be mitigated by design 

### and operational practices if justifiable relative to costs and benefits. 

### In general, the important considerations

### in the bslancing of costs 

### and benefits iue (a) the uniquenesr df a habitat or ecological system within the region under consideration and (b) the amount of habitat or ecological systemthat would be destroyed 

### or disrupted relative to the total amount of the habitat or ecological system present in the region or the vulnerability of the reproductive capacity of important species populations to the effects of construction and operation of the plant and ancillary facihties. The alteration of one

### or

### mow of theexistingmvironmenuconditions may render a habitat unsuitable 

### as a breeding 

### or nursery area. 

### In some 

### cases,organisms use identical breeding and nursery areas each year; if the charactsristicsof the areas arechanged,breeding SUCC~SS may be substantially reduced or enhanced. Destruction 

### of pact 

### or 

### all of a 

### breeding 

### or nursery area may caw population 

### shiftsthat resultin increasedcompetition for the 

### remaining suitable 

### arcas. Such population shifts cannot compensate for the reduced site 

### of the breeding
or 

### nursery anasif the remaining suitable area

### is already occupied by the 

### species. Some 

### specie wi# desert 

### a breeding area 

### because of

### men's activities

### in the pro&­ ity to the area, men 

### in the 

### absence of physical 

### dkturbance of the actualbreedingarea. 

### Of specid concern relative to 

### site selection 

### an those unique 

### or especially rich 

### feeding areas that might 

### be destroyed, degraded, 

### or made inaccessible to important species by station construction 

### or operation.Evaluation of feedingareasin relation to potential construction or operation hpacbincludes the followingconsiderations: size of the feeding area onsite in relation to the total feeding area offsite, food density, time 

### of use, location in relation to other habitats, topography relative 

### to
access mutes, and other factors (including man's activities). Site modification 

### may nduathe quality of feeding areas by destruction of a 

### portion of the food base, destructionofcover,

### or

### both.

. (Continued) Endangeredand threatenedspeciesare&!in& by

### PL93-205, the Endangered Spedcc Act of 1973, m follows: 'The term 'endangewd specks' means my spedes whkh b in danger of extinction throrrghout rP or a rignirkrnt portion of its nnge other than a spcies of the Qur 1- detennined by the Secretary to coastitute a pert whose protection under the pronsiona of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man." "The term 'threatened sppScier' means any species which is likely tobecome an enduyered species within the foreseeable future throughout dl or a significant portion of its range." Lists of enrhgcnd and threatened species ue pubtished pericdicdiy in the Fedmal Registerby the Secretary of the Interior. 'A compilation of construction practices b provided in "General Environmental Guidelines for Evaluatingand Reporting the Effects of Nuclear Power Plant Site Preparation, Pknt and Transmission Facilities Construction," Atomic Industrial Forum,February 1934. Construction and operation of 

### nuclear power stations


### can create barriers to migration,

### occurringmainly in the aquatic environment.

### Narrow tones 

### of passage for migratory animals 

### in some rivers and estuaries 

### maybe rcathcted 

### or blocked by station operation.Partial or complete blockage 

### of a 

### zone of passage 

### may result from th; dis charge of heat 

### or chemicais to receiving water bodies 

### or the construction and placement of power rtation rtwtures in the water body. Strong-swimhg aa:a-*;­ 

### animals often avoid waters of adverse quality,but larva and immature forms are usually moved and dispcnedby water currents. It 

### is thereforeimportantin site selection that the routes 

### and times ofmovepent ofthe immature stagesbe considered

### in relationtopotentialeffects.

A detailed assessment of potential inpact 

### on the species population would 

### be required for sites 

### when placement 

### of intake 

### or discharge structures woiild markedly disrupt 

### normal current patterns in rnigntion paths of important species. The 

### potentials for iniphgment 

### of 

### organisms 

### on coolingwater mtalte structures and entrabment of 

### organisms 

### through the 

### coohg system

### an determined by a 

### number

### of

### vahbluinchiing site characteristics, 

### intake strvcturc &si@, 

### and placement

### ofthe structunsat the site.

Site characteristics should 

### be considered reiative to design and placement 

### ofcoolingsystemfeatuno mdthe potential 

### of the cooling system to hold fish in

### m ana longer than the 

### normal period of migration 

### orto

### entrap resident populations 

### in enas where they 

### would 

### k akersely affected, 

### either directly 

### or indbecdy, Dy hited food supply 

### or adverse temperatures.

### CM& or areas when co&g waters 

### are 

### &charged may inhe fish to remain 

### in 

### an unnaturally warmed habitst. 

### Thc cessation 

### of station operation duringwinter

### can

### be lethal to these fsh

### because ofan abrupt dropin wate: 

### temper. atute.

Many impacts 

### on land 

### use at the site and 

### h the site neighborhood due to construction and operrtion of 

### the plant, tranunisdon 

### lines, and transportation corridors can 

### be mitigated by appropriate designs and gmticcs. Aesthttic 

### impacts can 

### be reduced by 

### selecting sites where existingtopography 

### and forestscan

### be uWd for screening station structures from nearby scenic, histor. ical, or recreational resources. Restoration of ~atursr) vegetation, creative landscaping? and 

### the integrationof structures with the environment can mitigate adverse visual impacts.



### , Reconstruction archeological excavaticnscan UW~Y reduce losses. Short-term salvage archeology may not

### be

bStation protection rquuements for nuchunfcgmdsmay urfluenakndpupdesign and clearingofvegetation.

4.76



# ssufficient if extensive or valuable archeological sites are foand on the potential site for 

### a nuclear station. 

### For seas of archeologkd concern, the Chief Archeologist of the Mationd ParkService is ar, information source,as are the State Archeologist 

### and the State Liaison Officer responsible 

### for the National Iiistoric Preservation Act activities

### for a particular state. Proposed alternative land use may render a site unsuitable for a nuclear power station. 

### For example, 

### lands specified by a community (1) 

### as planned 

### for other uses or (2) 

### as restricted to compatible uses .vis-a-vis otha lands may be unsuitable. Therefore, official land 

### use plans developed by governrnents at any level and by regional agencies should be cdnsulted for possible conflicts with power station siting. A list of Federal agencies that have jurisdiction 

### or‘expertise in land use planning, regulation, or management has ken published by the Council on Environmental Qualityaa

Another class 

### of impacts involves the preempting 

### of existing land use at the site 

### itseif. For exampie, nuclear power station siting in areasuniquely suited for growing specialty crops may 

### be considered a type 

### ofland conveision involvingunacceptable econorrLicdislocation.

Sites adjacent to lands devoted to pub!ic 

### usemay 

### be considered unsuitable. In particular, the use of 

### some sitts 

### or transmission line or transportation comdon close to special 

### areas admiritered by Federal, State, or local agencies for scenic 

### or recreational usc may cause unacceptable impacts regardless 

### of design parameten. Such cases are mat apt to arisi: 

### in areas adjacent to natural-resource oriented areas (e.&, Yellowstone National Park) 

### as opposed to recreation-oriented areas (e.g., Lake Mead National Recreation 

### Ara).Some

### historical 

### and archeological sites may also fall into this category. The acceptability 

### of sites.near 

### special areas of public use shouldbe determinedby consultingcognizant government agencies.

The following Federal agencies should be consulted for the special areaslisted:

a. National Park Service 

### (US.Department 

### ofthe intixior)

National Parks; International Parks; National Memorial Parks; National Battlefields, Battlefield Parks and Battlefield Sites; National Military Parks; Historic Areas and National Historic Sites; National Capital Parks; National Monuments and Cemeteries; National Seashores,and hkeshores; Natiod Rxvers and Scenic Riverways; National Recreation 

### Areas; National Scenic Trails and Scientific Reserves;National Parkways

’See U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, “Preparationof Environmental lmpact Statements: Guidelines.” 38 FR 20549. August 1, 1973. b. NationJ Park ServicePreservation Program

National Landmarks Program; �bstoric hrican Bulldmgs Survey; National Register of Historic Races; Natiunal fistorical Landmarks Program; National Dark Service Archeological Program

c. Bureau 

### of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 

### (US. Department of Interirlr)

National Wildbfe Refuges

d. Forest Service 

### (U.S.Department 

### ofAgricultule)

National Forest Wilderness, Primitive Areas, National Forests.

indmdurl States and local governments adininistcr pub.recreation areas, and other public 

### use and benefit ut=..Infannation on these areas should be obtained fromcognizant State agenciessuch 

### asState departments of nrnrdresources. (Sixpublicationssuch 

### asthe ‘Consenatton Directory 1973: 

### A 

### Listing of 

### Orpnizlltions, ALpnc~l and OfficialsConcerned with

### Natural 

### Resource &e md Management,’’ published by the National 

### Wddltfe Federation for state-by-state references.) 

### The Advuory 

### Council on Historic Preservation 

### or the appropnrta State historical society 

### should be contacted for tnformrtion 

### onhistoric

### areas.

It should be‘recognized that some areas, 

### as yet 

### undeugnrted. may 

### be unsuitable for siting because of publrc interest in. future dedication to public 

### scenic, recrcrtional, 

### or cultural use. Relatively 

### rare land 

### typa such 

### as sand dunes and wetlands 

### are prime candidates 

### for 

### uch future designation. However, the acceptability of sites

### fornuclear power stationsat some 

### future 

### time

### in rhcft ueas 

### will depend 

### on the existing impacts 

### from mdustrid,commercial,and other developments.

7 Indlstrinl. 

### Military,and

### TransportationFdtirn

Potential accidents at present 

### or projected nearby industrial, military, 

### and transportation facilitiesmay affect the safety 

### of a nuclearpower station.’ Asiteshouldnot 

### be selected if, 

### in the event 

### of such

### an accident,it 

### is

### not possible to safely shut downa plant at that site 

### or

### ifit 

### is not possible to have nearby facilitiesalter their 

### mode of operation or incorporate featuresto reduce to

### an acceptable level the likelihood and severity 

### of such potential accidents.

In the event of an accident at a nearby industrial facility such 

### as a chemical plant, refinery, mining and quarrying operation, 

### oil 

### or 

### gas well, 

### or gas and petroleum product storage installation, it is possible that

bScction 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.70liststhesesafetyconsiderations. .~CIISWL‘S, hock waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic chenucds, or incendury fragments 

### may result. 

### Thew may affect the station itself 

### or the station operatonin a way thatjtoparlzes the safety 

### of thestation.
Kigulatory Guide 1.78, “Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control 

### Room During a Postulated Hawdous Chemical Release,” describes assumptions acceptable to the 

### NRC staff for use in asswing the habitability of the control room during and after a postulated external nlease of hazardous chemicals and describescriteriathat 

### arc generallyacceptrblc to the 

### staff for the protection of the control room 

### operators. Nearby military facilitits, such 

### as munitions storage areas and 

### ordnance test ranges, may threaten station safety. The acceptability of a site depends on establish

### ing, among other 

### thin@, that the nuclw power station
can 

### be designed SOits safety willnot 

### be affectedby 

### an accident at the military inrtrllation. Alternatively, 

### an otherwire 

### unacceptabk ate 

### may become acceptable if the cognizant militaryorlpnization tgrarr tochange the. installation 

### or 

### mode of 

### operation to reduce the likelihood or severity 

### of potential accident, involving the nuclear station to

### an acceptablelevel.

An accidentduringthe 

### transport 

### ofhazardousmaterials(e.g.,by air, waterway, railroad,highway,orpipeline)
near a nuclear power plant may generate 

### shock waves, misriles, and toxic 

### or corrosive gases which can affect the safe operation of the station. The consequences 

### of the accident will depend on the proximity of the transportation facility 

### to the site, the nature and 

### maximum quantity of the 

### hamdousmaterial per shipment, and the layout 

### of the nuclear station.Unkss the station
can 

### be designed to operate safelyin the event of a 

### pmtulated accident or 

### an enforceable agreement can 

### be reached to limit the transport of hazardous materialsor the tansportation link can be relocated, the proposed site may not be acceptable.


### Airports are transpottation facilitiesthat pose 

### special. ized hazards to nearby nuclear power stations.Potential threats to stations from aircraft result from the aircraft itself 

### as a missile and from the secondary effects of a crash, e.&!., 

### fut.

8. 

### Sociaconomb

Social and economic issues are important deter

### minants of siting policy. It is difficultboth 

### to assess the nature of the impacts involved and to determine value schemes for predicting the level 

### or the acceptability of potential impacts.

The siting, construction, and operation of a nuclear power station may Rave significant impacts on the socioeconomic structure of a community and may place 

### seven strma

### on the 

### locrl kbor auppiy, trontportation facilltisr,

### md commUntty renicet 

### in general.There 

### may 

### k chpngoa 

### in the tax b~b 

### and In community expendi tures, 

### md problemsmy occur in determisungequitable 

### level8 of cornpenration for 

### persons relocated as a result 

### of 

### the stationsiting. It 

### isusUypossible to reso!ve 

### such difficulties 

### by pruper coordination with impacted 

### communities; however, some impacts 

### may be locdiy 

### unacceptabk and too costly to evoid by any reasonable 

### progun for 

### their mitiption, Evaluation 

### of the suitabilityofa

### rite nhouldthereforeinclude consideration

### of purpose and probable adequ8cy of socioeconomic impact mitiption plm for ruch ecdnomicimpactson any community 

### whert 

### id acceptance 

### problems can be 

### redly fanreen. 

### cerkincommunitlen

### in a ate ndghborhood 

### may be 

### subject 

### to uIL\uuJ impncts thrt wdd

### be excessively costly 

### to mitipte. hoq such 

### mmmmitles are towns that parm 8notably dktinctivccultunlcharacter,Le., toms that have prwnved 

### or rentored 

### numerous plrccs 

### of hhtcdc 

### interest, have specialized in in 

### unusual in

### dustry ot wocationrl activity, 

### or 

### have otherwise 

### markedly &tb@ltad themielves from other communities.

9. 

### wdr


### Noirehehat nucku stations occur during both the 

### construction and 

### opention phases and could have un

### rccsptabk impacts. 

### Coolingtowm, turbines, and tnnsformen 

### contribute to the noise levels during station 

### operation.



## l*rHkYiQ-W

Sites thrt indudeapabk faults, 

### as definedin Appen. dix 

### A to 

### 10CFRPart 100, mnot suitable for nuclear power

### stations.Thestateof the arthas not progressed to 

### the point at which it 

### is possible to design 

### a nuclear 

### power station 

### for surface 

### or near-surfacedisplacement with I suffidentiy high b’el 

### of confidence to ensure 

### that the integrity of the safety-related features of the plant will remain intact.


### Sites within about 5 miles of 

### a surface capable fault greater th~ 

### loo0 feet in length are usually not suitable for a 

### nuclear power station. 

### in any case, extensive and detailed geologic and 

### seismic field studies and analyses should

### be conducted forsuch aproposed site.

Sites located near geologic structures for which 

### an adequate data base to determine “capabitity” 

### does not exist at the timeof applicationare likely to be subject io
a longer licensing process in view of the need for extensive and detailed geologic and seismic investigationsof the siteand surroundingregion

### and for therigorous analyses of the site-plantcombination.

4.7-82. AtmosphericExtremesand Dispersion

As noted in Section B.2 of this guide. site atmosphericconditions are ute suitability characteristicsprincipal!~ with respect to the calculation ofradiation doses resulting from the release of fission products 

### as a consequence of a postulated accident and theestablishment of exclusion area boundary, low population zoneboundary. and distance to a population center. Accordingly.
ttii. iegtilatiiP: position on atmospheric dispersion of iacitologicd efiiuents is incorporated into the following section, “Population Considerations.”
Nonradio!ogical atmospheric considerations such as local fogging and icing, cooling tower drift, cooling tower plume lengths 

### and plume interactions between coaling tower plumes, arid plumes from nearby industrial facilities should be considered in evaluatingthe siiirabiiity ofpotential sites.

3. PopulationConsiderations

Areas of low population density are preferred for nuclear power station sites. 

### High population densities projected for any time during.the lifetime 

### of a station
are considered duringboth the

### NRCstaffreview andthe public hearingphases ofthelicensingprocess. 

### Ifthe pop dation density at the proposed site is not acceptably low. then the applicant will be required to give special attention to alternative sites with lower population densities.



### lr the population density, including weighted transient population, projected at the time ofinitial operation of a nuclear power station exceeds 500personsper square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided by the area at that distance). or the projected population density over the lifetime of the facility exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles, special attention should be given to the consideration 

### of alternative sites with lower population densities

Transient population should be included for those sites where a significant number of people (other than those just passing through the area) work, reside put. time, or engage in recreational activities and arc not permment residents of the area. The transient popula­ [ion should be taken into accountby weighbng the transient population according to the fraction of time the transients are in the area.

Based on past experience, the NRC staff 

### ha found that a minimum exclusion distance of 0.4 mile, even with unfavorable design basis atmospheric dispersion characteristics, usually provides assurance that engineered safety features can be designed to bring the calculated dose from a postulated accident 

### within the guidelines of 10

### CFR Part 

### 100. If the minimum exclusion distance isless than 0.4mile,it may be necessary to place special conditions on the station design (e.g., added engineered safety features) before the requirements of 10

### CFR Part 100 are met.

### Also,based on past experience, the staffhas foundthat a distanceof3 miles to the outer boundary of the low population zone is usually adequate.

4. Hydrology

4.1 Flooding

To evaluate sites located in river valleys, on flood plains, or along coastlines where there is a potential for flooding, the site suitability studies described in Regulatory Guide 1.59. “Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants,” shouldbe made.

4.2 Water Availability

A highly dependable system of water supply sources must be 

### shown to be available under postulated occurrences of natural and site.related accidental phenomena


### or combinations 

### of such phenomena as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.

To evaluate the suitability of sites, there should be reasonable assurance that permitsforconsumptive use of water in the quantities needed for a nuclear power plant of the stated approximate capacity .and type of cooling system can be obtained by the applicant from theappropriate State,local, or regional bodies.

4.3 Water Quality

The potential impacts of nuclear power stations on water quality are likely to be acceptableifeffluent limitations, water quality criteria for receiving waters. and



### . other requirements promulgated pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are applicable and satisfied.

The criteria provided in 10CFR Parts 20 and 50will be used by the NRC staff for determining permissibleconcentrations 

### of radioactive materials discharged 

### to 

### surface water or toground water.a ,\quifers that are or may be used by large populations for domestic, municipal, industrial, or irrigation water supplies provide potential pathways for the transport of radioactive material to man in the event of an accident. To evaluate the stlitability of proposed siteslocated over such aquifers, detailed studies of factors identified in Section 2.4.13,of Regulatory Guide 1.70, “Standard Format 

### and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,” should be completed.

5. 

### Ecalogid Systemsand 

### Biota

The ecological systems 2nd biota at potential sites md their environsshould be sufficiently well known to allow reasonably certain predictions that there would 

### be
no unacceptable or unnecessary deleterious impacts on populations of important species 

### or 

### on ecological systems with which they are associated from the construction 

### or operation of a nuciear power station at tile site.

When early site inspections and evaluations indicate that cdticd 9~exceptionallycomplex ecological systems will have to be studied in detail to determinethe appropriate plant designs, proposals to use such sitesshould be deferred unless sites with lesscomplex characteristics are not available



### . It shodd be determined whether any important species (as defined in Section 

### B.5 of this-guide) inhabit or use the proposed site or its environs; and the relative abundance and distribution 

### of their populations should be considered. Potential adverse impacts 

### on important species should be identified and assessed. 

### The relative abundance of individuals 

### of 

### an important species inhabiting a potential site shouldbc? compared to available information in the literature concerning the total estimated local population. Any predicted impacts on the species should be evaluated relative to effects OR the 

### local population and the 

### totalpopulation 

### ofthe species. 

### The destruction of, or sublethal effects 

### on,anumber 

### of individuals which would 

### not adversely affect the reproductive capacity and vitality 

### ofapopulatibn orthe crop of an economically important harvestable population 

### or recreationally impoitant population should generally be acceptable, except in the case of certain endangered species. if there are endangered or threatened species at


### a site, the potential effects should be cvaluated relative to the impac! on the local population and the total estimated population over the entirerange of the species
as noted in the literature.

aAppendix I IO 10 CFR Part 50provides numericalguidance for design objectivesandtechnical specificationrequirementsfor Limiting conditions of operation for hght-water<ooled nuclear power gtations. 

### It shouid be determined whether thee ue 

### my

### important ecological syktems at 

### a site Dr 

### in itJ environs. 

### If 

### so, determination should be made as to whether the ecological 

### systems are especially vtilnersbie to change or if they contain hpnantspecies habitats, such as breeding
areas (e.&, nesting and spawning rea ass),nursery, feedinp resting, and wintering areas, 

### or othtr areas 

### ofseasordy 

### high concentrations of individuais of important species.

The important considerations in the bdmuiib costs and benefits include the following: the uniqukess of a habitat or ecological system within theregion under consideration, the 

### amount of 

### the habitat or ecological system destroyed or disrupted relati& to the total amount in the region, and thevulnerability ofthe reproductive capacity of important 

### speciespopultiom to the effects of construction and operaion 

### of the stztion and ancillary facilities.

1: uter contain, .re adjzcent to, or may impact 

### on important ecological systems

### orhabitats that areunique, lmited UI extent, 

### or necessary to ,the productivity 

### of popuktrm 

### of important species (e.g., wetlands and esturncr). they cannot be evaluated 

### as 

### to suitability 

### for
a nullcar power station until adequate assessments for !he nbbk prediction of impacts have been completed 2nd the ficditydesigr. chxacteristics that would satisfac­ :only mitigate the potential ecological impacts hme ken &tined. Inareas where reliable and sufficientdata art PO( avdrble,the collection 

### ana evaluation of appro. pnatc rronddata may be required.
kriyrtions ofimportarit species 

### and migration routes that pass through the site oritsenvirons shouid beidentified Gcncrdly, the most criticalmigratory routesrelative to nuclear power station siting are those of aquatic spem 

### m water bodies associated with the coolingsysfern%Siteconditions that should be identified andevalua;ed UI assessing potential impacts 

### on important aquatic migratory species include (1)nanow 

### mnes of passage. (2) 

### migntion 

### periods that 

### are coincident

### withmaximum ambeet temperatures, 

### (3) ps!ential for

### major modificotlon of currents by station structures, (4) potential for increased turbidity during construction, and (5)potential 

### fo: entrapment, entrainment, 

### or inpingement by 

### or In the cooling water system,orblocking 

### ofmigration by facility structures

### oreffluents.



### The potentid blockage 

### of movements 

### of important tenestrial animal populations due 

### to the 

### usc of the site for a nuclear power stktion and the availability 

### ofalternative routes that would provide formaintenance of the species’breeding population should be assessed.

Ifjustifiable relative to costs and benefits, potential impacts

### ofplant construction 

### and operarion onthebiota and ecological systems caii generally be mitigated by adequate eagineering design and site planning and by proper construction aniaperation practice when there is

4.7-10
12 IJdLzquate inforniation about the vulnerability of the :Inportant species and ecolog~c~! systems.

‘4summary of snnronrnznial considerations, paralneters. aild regulaiory positions for use in evaluating the s1.utabihIy of sites for nuclear power stations is provided

II? Appendix 8 to this guide. A discussio!i of ecological systems and habitats,‘(he level of detail that should be addressed in tht site seiection process. and rhe survey, moni:onng, anrl analytiial techniques for assessing impacts on impoitant species andecological systemswill be siimmzrized in subseqwnr appendices to this guide.

4. Land Use and Aesthetics
‘Land use plzns adopted by Federal, Stare,regional,or !ocd goverrimenral entities should be examined,and

### my conflict between these plans and use of a potential site should be iesolved by consultation with the appropriate goveinmenla! entity.

For potential sites on iznd devoted.tospecialty crop production where chmges in land use might result in market dislocations, a detailed investigation should be provided to demonstrate that potential probjems have been identified andresolved.

The potmtial aesthetic impact of nuclear power stations at sites ne2r natural-resource oriented public use areas is of particular concern, and evaluation of the suitability of swh sitesis dependent on consideration of specific station design layout.However,existing aesthetic impacts atpotential sites shouldbe taken intoaccount
asmitigating any requirements forfurther special design.

7. Industrial, Mitary, and

### Transportation

### Fa&ties Potentially hazardous facilities andactivities within 5 desof a proposed site should be identified. 

### If a pleIirninary evaluation of potential accidents at 

### these facilities indicates that the potential hazards from 

### shock
waves and missiles approach or exceed those of the design basis tornado for theregion‘ 

### or potential hazards such as flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or 

### incendiary fragments exist, the suitability 

### of the site shocld be determined by detailed evaluation of the degree oirisk imposed by the potential hazard.

The identification of design basis events resulting from the presence of hazardous materials or activitiesin the vicinity of a nuclear power station is acceptable if the design basis events include each postulated type of accident fw which a realisticestimate of the probability of Occurrence of potential exposures in excess of the 10CFR Part 100guidelinesexceeds approximately lo-’ per year. Because of the difficulty of assigning precise

aThe design basis tornado IS described in Regulatory Guide I 76,“Deslgn Basis Floods for Nucfear Power Plants..” wmerical values to the probability of Occurrence of the rypes of potential hazards generally considered in deternining the acceptibiiity of sites for nuclear stations, judgment must be used as to the acceptability of ti overall risk presented by an event.

Inview of the lowprobability events under consideration, the probability of Occurrence of the initiating events leading to potential consequen.ces in excess 

### of 10

### CFRPart 300exposure guidelines should be based on assumptions that are 

### as realisticas is practicable. 

### In addition, because of the low probability evefits under consideration, valid statistical data are often not wailable to permit accurate quantitative calculation ofprcbabilities. Accordingly, a conservative calculation showingthat the probability of occurrence of potential exposuresin excess of the 10

### CFRPart 100guidelinesis approximately 1

### 0-6per year is acceptabie if, when combinedwith reasonable qualitative arguments, the realistic probability
can 

### be 

### shownto be lower.

The effects 

### of design basis events have been appropriately considered if analyses of :he effects of those accidents on the safety-related features ofthe proposed nuclear station have been performed 

### and appropriate
measures (e.g., hardening, fire protection) to mitigate the corisequences 

### of sucheventshave 

### been taken.



### To evaluate the suitability of sitesin detail forpotential accidentsinvolving hazardous materials

### and activities at nearby industrial, military, and transportation faciiities, the studies described in Section 

### 2.2of Regulatory Guide 1.70should bemade.

8. 

### Socioeconomics

The NRC staff considers that 

### an evaluation 

### of the suitability of nucelar power station sitesnear distinctive communities 

### should demonstrate that the construction and operation of the nuclear station, including 

### transmission and transportation corridors,andpotential problems relating to community services, such 

### as schools, police and fire protection, water and sewage, and 

### health facilities, will not adversely affect the distinctivecharacter of the community., A preliminary Inyestigation should be made to identify and analyze problems that may arise due to the proximity of a distinctive community toa proposed site.

9. Noise

Noise levelsat proposed sitesmust comply with applicable Federal, State, andlocalnoise regulations.



### D. IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this section is to provide information to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staffs plans fgr using this regulatory guide.Since 

### th~s guide reflects current 

### NRC staff practice ately 10 inhcate ionsiderations that 

### shouldbe addressed

' with regard to the 

### implementation of existing regula- in the initial stape of the site selection process 

### to identions concerning site suitability, it CM be used imrnedi- tify poteritial sitcs fvrnuclear power stationsAPPENDIX A !;A 

### FETY-RE

### LATEDSITE CONSIDERATIONS FOR 

### ASSESSINGSITE SUITABILITY FOR 

### NUCLEAR 

### POWER STATIONS

lhiJdppediApfobides a checklist of safety-related site characteristics,relevantregulationsand regulatoryguides,and regulatoiy cxprmieartd posttion for assessingstesuitability for nudearpowerstations.

4.7.13



### \

### 5'Conaiderations

A.1 Geoloqy/Saismology Geologc 

### and seismic characteristics of a site, such 

### as surface faulting, ground motion, and foundation conditions (including liquefaction. subsidence, andlandslide potential), may affect the safety of a nuclear power station. Ralevrnt Regulations and Rsgulatory Guides

10 CFR 

### Part 100, Appendix A, “Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power 

### Plants.” Regulatory Guide 1.70, Chapter 2 (identifies safety-related site characteristics). Regulatory Guide 1.29 (discusses plant safety features which shouldbe controlled

### by engineering design). Rseulstory Exparienm and Position

Sites that include capable faults are not suitable for a nuclear power station.

Sites within about 

### 5 miles of a SUIface capable fault (greater than lo00 feet in length) are generally not suitable fora nuclear power station.

Sites should be selected in areas for which an adequate geologicdata base exists to determine “capability.” Delay 

### in licensing 

### can result from a need for extensive geologic and seismic investigations. Conservative design 

### of safety-related structures will be required when geologic, seismic, and foundation infomation is questionable.

Sites with competent bedrock gen. erally have suitable foundation conditions.



### If bedrock sitesare not available,it 

### is prudent to select sitesin areas

### known to have a low subsidence and liquefaction potential. Investigations wilt 

### be required to determine the static and dynamic engineering prpperties of the material underlying the site

### as stated in 

### 10CFR Part 100, Scc. IV(ax4) 

### and Sec. V(d) 

### of Appendix A.A.2 AtmosphericDispersion

The atmospheric conditions at a site should provide sufficient 

### dispersion of radioactive materials released during a postulated accident toreduce theradiationexposures of individuals at the exclusion area and lowpopulation
zone boundaries tothevalues prescribedin 10

### CFRPart 

### 100. Relevant Regulationsand Rsgrlrtory Guih

10 CFR 

### Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria.” Regulatory Guide 1.23, +‘Onsite Meteorological 

### Progmns.” Regulatory Guide 

### 1.3. “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences 

### of a 

### Lots 3f 

### Coolant Acddcnt for 

### Boiling Water Reactors.” Regulatory Guide I .4,“llrrwnptions Used 

### for Evdurting the Potential 

### ~adi010giczl cm~aa~r or 8 

### bs of Coolant Acadcat for Prsrrurized Water 

### Reacton.“ Regulatory CUI& 1 5, “Assumptions Used 

### for EvJucttby 

### tho Potential 

### Radiological of 

### a StemLine 

### Break Acddatt 

### for 

### BoilingWater

### Rertom.“
Regulatory Guide 124, 

### “Assumptions 

### Used for 

### Evllua$q the 

### Potential RadioIogicJ 

### coartgwnca of a Pressurized 

### Water 

### Reactor Radioactive GasStorrlp

### TmkFIPurt.” Regulatory Guide 1.25. ”Amimp 

### tions 

### Used for Evrhrathg the 

### Potential 

### Radiological Comequenccs 

### of a Fuel 

### Handling f i t in the Fuel Handling and Stomp Fadity 

### for 

### Boiling and 

### Pressurized Water Reactors.”

4.7-15 

### iq Rsgrktory Expsriencg and Position

Unfavorable safety-related desigrr basis atmospheric 

### dispersion characteristics can 

### be compensated 

### for by


### an adequate exclusion distance 

### and engineered safety features. 

### Accordingly, the regulatory position on atmosphericdispersionofradiological effluents

### isincorporated into

### the sction “Population Considerations” (see A3

### of

### thisappendix).Considerations

A.3 Population Considerations



### In the event of’a serious accident at a nuclear power 

### ration, effective action must be taken 

### tominimize exposure of individuals outsi& the station to anyradioactive materials which may 

### be released during the accident. 

### To ensure that exposun to populations will be minimized in the went 

### of 

### an accident, the nuclear 

### power station should not 

### be located in a densely populated area. 10 

### CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” requires the following:

An “exclusion area” surrounding the reactor in which the reactor licensee has the authority todetermine all activities, including wrcludon or removal of personnel and property;



### eA “low population zone” 

### (LPZ)

which immediately surrounds the exclusion area in which the population 

### number md distribution is such 

### that “&ere 

### is a reasonable probability that appropriate mea

### suns could be taken in theirbehalf 

### in the event 

### of a 

### seriousaccident;”

eAt any point 

### on theexclusion area

boundary and 

### on the outerboundary of the 

### LPZ the exposun ofindividuals to a postulated release of 

### fission products 

### (as a consequence of 

### an accident) 

### be less than 

### certain prescribed values,


### .That the “population center

distance,” defmed 

### as the 

### distance from the nuclear reactor 

### to the nearest boundary of a densely popatedcenter having 

### mon than 25,000 residents, be at least one and one-third the distance fromthe 

### reactor to the outer boundary of the

### LPZ. Regulatory Guides 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.24, and 1.25 give calculational methods (see A.2 

### of 

### this appendix.) Regulatory Experienw and Position

If the population density, including weighted transient population, projected at the time of initial operation of a nuclear power station exceeds 

### 500 persons per square mile averaged
over any radial distance out to 30 miles (curnulatibe population at a distance divided by the area at that distance), or the projected population density over the lifetime of the facility exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles, special attention.should be given tothe consideration 

### of alternative sites with the lower population densities.

Transient population should be included for those siteswhere a 

### significant number of people (other than those just passing through the area) 

### work, reside part-time, or engase in recreational activities, and are not permanent residents 

### of the area. The transient population should be taken into account by weighting the transient population according to the fraction 

### of time the transients are in the area.


### Based on past experience, the NRC staff has found that a minimum exclusion distance of 0.4 mile? even with the most unfavorable design basis atmospheric dispersion characteristics, provides assurance that engineered safety features 

### can be added thst will bring the calculated doses from a postulated accident within the guidelines

### of 10CFR Part 100.

### If the minimum exclusion distance is less than 0.4 mile, it may be necessary 

### to place special conditions on station design (e&, added engineered safety features) before the site can be considered acceptable. Also based on past experience, the 

### NRC staff has found that a distance of 3 miles to the outer boundary of the 

### LPZ is usually adequate.a

‘The guidelines numbers for exclusion areaand LPZ are based onhistorical siting expenence oilight-water-cooled reaciors. In certain instances differentdimensionshavebeen established for high temperature gas-cooled reactors.

4.7-16 

## 11L t.’4fj<J*a .Vd J I >.L5llllidily m;lL.czd flmdiitp, (eg :esulting

tlitrll dm fdiire, tiom river blnchpOTiiversion, or from dis­ (MU~ and fxally generated sea wrves) can affect the safety of a riuclear power station.

A.4.2 %tar SupPry

A s;liety-rel~ed water supply is ioquired for 

### normal oremergency shutdownand cooldown.

A.4.3 Water Quality Relevrnt‘Regulationsand Regulatory Guides

IO CFK Part 100, Appendix A, ‘%Seismicand GeologicSiting Criteria forNuclear Power Plants.’’ Regulatory Guide 1.59, “Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants.” Regulatory Guide 1.70, “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports 

### for Nuclear Power Rants,” (Section 2.4).

10CFR Part 50,Appendix A, ‘General 

### Design Criteria for Nuclear Power 

### Plants;” Criterion 

### 2, “Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena.*’

1.0 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, “Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nudear Power Plants.” Regulatory Guide 1.59, “Design 

### his Floods for Nudear Power 

### Rants.”
Regulatory Guide 1.27, “Ultimate Heat 

### SinkforNuclear Power Plants.”



### 10 CFRPart 20, “Standards For 

### Protection Against Radiation. ”
10 CFR Part 50, “Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” Regulatory Expa:iecz and Position

To evaluate sites located in river vi1­ leys, on flood piains. or along LOA: :. lir;es where there is a potentid f.;r flooding, the studies described :, Regulatory Guide 1.59 should !e made.

A highly dependable system of

### warn supply sources should 

### be shown (0 be available under pGstulated occurrences 

### of natural phenomena and site-related accidental phenomena or combinations of such phenomena as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.59.



### To evaluate the suitability of 

### a site, there must be reasonable assurance that permits for water use and for water consumption in the quantities needed for a nuclear power plant of the stated approximate capacity and 

### type of cooling system can 

### be obtained by the applicant from the appropriate State. local, or regional bodies.

The criteria provided in 10CFR Parts 20 and 50 will be used by the NRC staff for determining permissible concentrations of radionuclides discharged to surface water and ground water.

4.7-17 

# r?

## -
Cansidsrations

A.5 Indurtrirl, Military, and Trans. portation Facilities New tho Site

Accidents at present or projected nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities may affect the safety of the nuclear power station. Relevant Rowktionsand Reguluto9 Guidrr

10

### CFR Part 50, Appendix A, “Genera1 

### Design Criteria 

### for Nuclear Power 

### Plants,”Criterion4, “Environmental and Missile

### Design Bases.” Regulatory Guide 1.70, “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports,” Secti&n 

### 2.2 (lists types of facilities and potentid accidents). Regulatory Guide 1.78, “Auuaptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room 

### During a Postulated HazardousChemicalRekase.” Ragulatory Exprirnsa and Position

Potentially hazardous facilities and activities within 5 miles of a proposed site must 

### be identified. 

### If a preliminary evaluation 

### of potential accidents of these facilitiesindicates that the potential hazards from 

### shockwaves andmissiles approach or exceed 

### those of the design basis tolnado for 

### the region (the design basis tornado 

### is 

### described in Regulatory Guide 1.76), or potential hazards such 

### as flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, 

### or incendiary frag 

### ments exist, the suitability 

### of the site should be determined by detailed evaluation ofthe potential hazard.

The identification 

### of design basis events resulting from the presence 

### of nearby hazardous materials 

### or activities in thevicinity 

### ofanuclear power station 

### is acceptable 

### if the design basis events include each postulated type 

### of accident 

### for which arealistic 

### estimate 

### of 

### the probrbility 

### of occurrence 

### of potential expotuns in excess of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines exceeds approximately io-’ per year.


### To evaluate the suitability of sitesin detail for potentid accident situations involving hazardous materials and activities from 

### nearbyindustrial, military, and transportation facilities, the studies described in Section 

### 2.2 

### of Regulatory Guide 1.70 should be made.

4.7-18 

### ’2.0APPENDIX 6


### ENVIRONMENTAL

### CONSIDERATIONS FOR

### ASSESSING SITE 

### SUlTABlLlTY 

### FOR NUCLEAR POWER 

### STATIONS

his appendi; summarizes environmentaI considerations related to site characteristics that should 

### be addressed in the early site selection process. Therelative importance of the different facton to 

### be considered varies with the region or State in which the potential sites are located.

Site selectionprocessescan be facilitatedby establish

### ing limits for various parameters based 

### on the best 

### judgment of specialists knowledgeable of the region under consideration. For example,limitscan 

### be chosen for the fraction of water that can be diverted in certain situations without adversely affecting the 

### local popuhtions of important species. 

### Althoughsimplistic

### because important factors such

### asthe distributionofimportant species in the water body arenot 

### takenintoaccount, suchlimits
can

### be useful

### in a screeningprocessfor ateskction.

A discussion of perfoimance chamcteristicsof lightwatercooled reactor 

### stations which may affect 

### the 

### environment 

### is given 

### in WASH-1355, "Nuckar Power Facility PerformanceCharacteristicsfor 

### MakingEnviro:v 

### mental 

### Impact Assetsments," Rcember 1974.\

--__I_ Coniikrrtionr

B.1 Raorvrtion of Important Habitats Important habitats are thor that

art essential tomaintaining the

### reproductive capacity andvitality 

### of important species populations‘ or the hamstable crop 

### of 

### econom. icdlly or recreationally important 

### species. Such habitats include breeding mas (e.&, nesting and spawning areas), nunery, 

### feeding, resting,‘ and Wintering mas 

### or other areas 

### of seasonally

### highconcentrations 

### of individuals 

### of important species.



### The construction andoperation 

### of nuclear power 

### stations (including new tnnsmbsion 

### lines and 

### access corridors constructed in 

### conjunction with 

### the

### station)

### can resultin 

### the destruction 

### or alteration 

### of habitats 

### ofimportantspecies

### leading to 

### cbprin the abundance 

### of a species 

### or in the 

### species composition

### ofa community.

a& definedforthhyideinSection8. PInmatrrr



### Theproportion ofan unportant habitat that would be destroyed or significantly altered in relation to the total habitat within the region in which the proposed we is to be located is a useful parameter for estimating potential imprts of the construction 

### or operation of a nuclear power station. 

### Thevduc of the pro~ portion varies m o spares 

### and mOng habitats 

### The RQOn considered in deternunmg proporuons is the 

### normal geographr nnp of the specificpopulation 

### m quatmn.


### If endangered or thnrtmed Ipecies


### occur at a site. the powrorleffects 

### of the construcuon rad 

### omtionof
a duclear powa sutlon &odd be evaluated relative $0

### thr poraeulimpact 

### on the 

### local popularion 

### and the total estimated popiirum over the 

### entire 

### range of the r(~tcr
See also Chapter 2 of Regulatory 

### Guide 4.2, “Prepurtiocr ofEnviroo

### mend Reports for 

### Nudcu Power Stations.” Rwulrtory Position



### In general. a detailed justification should be provided when the destruction or significant alteration ofmore than a few percent of important habitat types.is proposed,

The reproductive capacity of populations of important species and the harvestable crop of economically or recreationally important populations must be maintained unless justification for proposed or probable changes can be provided.

### Seuond 

### or Mymigrations are 

### arentirl to 

### maintainingthe reproductive capacity 

### of some important

### speciespopulations. Disruption 

### of migratory patterns can result 

### from partial 

### or complete

### blockrge 

### ofmigmtwyroutes by structuns, 

### dischqp 

### plumes, environmental alterations, or nun's activities (e.g., trmsporta

### tion or tnnsmiPion corridor dmingand sitepreparation). The width 

### orcross-sectional area 

### ofa water 

### body at aproposed site relative to the gtneral width or crosssectional ana in the portion 

### of the water body used by migrating species should

### be estimated. Suggestedminimum zones

### ofpasrage lnnge 

### from 1/3 to 3/4 

### of the width
or cross-sectional areas of narrow water

Some species migrate 

### in central, deeper anas while othen use marginal, shallow 

### mas. Rivers, streams, 

### and estuaries are seldom homogeneous 

### in their lateral dimension 

### with respect to depth, current velocity, and habitat type. Thus, the ux 

### of width 

### or cross-sectional 

### am cri

### teria 

### for determiningadequate 

### zona of pssssge should 

### be combirred with
a 

### Imowkdge of important 

### species and their migrrtoryrequinmcnts. RogulctoryPosition

Narrow reaches of water bodies should usually 

### be avoided as sites for locating intake or discharge structures.
A zone of 

### passage that will permit nod movement of important species populationsand maintenance of the harvestable crop 

### ofeconomically importantpopulationsshould

### be provided.

aWterQuality

### W&, 1972,NationalAdanyofSciences-National Academy of Engineering,Washington,D.C., 1912. bHadlmok ofEnvironmend Conhol, VdumcXll: WaterSupplyand 12artmmt, R.G.Bondand C.P. Straub (Editors),CRS Press, acVdand. Ohio, 1973.B.3 Entrrinmnt and Impingr. mdnt of Aqwtic Oplnbmo
Plankton, includtng 

# em, Lrvae, and juvenile 

### flah, can be Wd 

### or injured by entrainment 

### through 

### power station cooling systems 

### or in dischargeplumes.



### The reproductive capacity of important species popuktiona may be impairedby

### lethal strewea
or by sublethal

### stressesthat affect reproduction 

### of individuals 

### or result in increased predation on the affected species population.

Fish and other aquatic 

### organisms
can be killed 

### or injured by 

### im. pingement on cooling 

### wdcr intake screens’ 

### or by entrainment in 

### dischargeplumes. 

### The 

### depth of 

### the water 

### body at the paint 

### ofintake relative to the 

### @nerd Mth

### oftho 

### waterbodyin thevicini

### ty ofthe 

### dtc.


### The proportion of water withdrawn relative to 

### the net new available Wrter at the 

### dtC 

### k Ln hdirect 

### msuulc of the destruction of plank. ton which 

### in 

### turn is indicative of possible effects on populations of important species. It 

### has been sug. gated 

### thrt the fraction 

### of available new 

### water that CM

### he diverted 

### is 

### In the 

### mge 

### of 10% 

### io 2016 offfow.b*c


### ThLdmpkticpuuneter

### (proportion of 

### water withdrawal) is suitable for 

### un in a 

### rcnaning 

### procew 

### for aite 

### selection. 

### However, other factors 

### such I dbtribution 

### of important 

### tpecbr ahodd be conddend and 

### in 

### dl mea the advice 

### of

### experts

### onthe 

### local fhhexiesshould

### beconsultedto 

### enawe that proposed 

### withdrawals Will

### not

### be excessive. 

### The site &odd have characteriatlcs that allow placement 

### of inulce struc

### tures when the relative abundance

### of important 

### species 

### la small 

### and where low approach velocitks can be attained. @ap 

### re@onsM

### gtnerally less 

### productivethan shallow areas. It 

### is not 

### Imptied that benthic intakes


### are nscessuy.) 

### Important habitats 

### (see 

### B.1) should 

### be avoided 

### as locations 

### for intake structures.

‘Approach velocity urd screen-face volodty we da&n criteh that may affect the impingementoflarger orgminru,principally fish, on intake ccrsen* hmbbapporrchandwoezkfacevelocitkr KO Mt&onAshrwim speed8whkhwillwyvith th! rpcciw, site md

### rcwn. bZ%eWutcr’xE*: &ftfc8iploblmuof thec;ort@lZone, B.H. Ketchum(Editor),MITPres,Cambridge,Mass., 1972. cEngineaiM for RaduHon

### oftheEn~8nvbnmmt Dikmmo,National Academyof �@wring, Washington,

### D.C..197~Considerations

8.4 Entrapment of Aquatic OrgPnitmr Cooling water intake and 

### discharge system features, such 

### as canals and thermal plumes, can attract and entrap 

### organisms,pMcipally 

### fish. The resulting concentration 

### of important 

### fish 

### species
near the station site can result in higher mortalities from stationrelated causes, such as impingement, cold 

### shock, or 

### gas bubble disease, than would otherwise
occur. Entrapment can dso interrupt 

### normalmigratorypattehs. Paramotors

Site characteristics that will wcommodate design features that mitigate
or prevent entrapment. Regubtmy Position

Sites where the construction of intake or discharge canals’would be 

### necessary should 

### be avoided unless 

### thesite and important speciescharacteristics 

### an such that entry 

### of important species to the canal can 

### be prevented

### orlimited

### by screening.Cotnidsrrtionr

8.6 Wetor Uuriity

Effluents discharged 

### from nuclear power plants are governed under 

### the authority 

### ofthe FederalWater 

### Pollution Control Act 

### (FWPCA)­ 

### (PL92.500). Ptnmrtrrc

Applicable EPA-approved State water quahty standards.



### For states witkout EPA-approved water quality standards, the water quality criteria listed in Water Qality Chteria, 1972awill be used for evaluation. Regulatory Position

Pursuant to Section 401(a)(l) of the FWPCA, certification from the State that any discharge will comply with appljcable effluent limitations and other water pollution control re quirements is necessary before the 

### NRC can issup a construction permit unless the requirement is waived by the State or the State fails to act within areasonable length of time.

Issuance of a permit 

### pursuant to Section 402 of the Act 

### is not a prerequisite to 

### an 

### NRC license 

### or 

### permit.

Where station construction or operation 

### has the potentia! to degrade water quality to the possible detri. ment of other users, more detailed anaiyses 

### and evaluation of water quality may be necessary.

'&fer QuofifyOirefiu. 1972,NationalAcademy of Sciences-National Academy ofEngineering,Washington,D.C. 1972.

4.7-24 

# 2-tpEL6 Water Availlbility

The consumptive use 

### of water 

### for cooling may be restricted by statute, may 

### be inconsistent with water use planning, or may lead to
an unacceptable impact to the Waterresource. Applicable Federal, State, and local statutory requirements. Compatability with water use plan of cognizant water resource planning agency.

In the absence of 

### a water use plan, the effect on other water users is evaluated considering flow or volume reduction and the 

### resultantability of all users to obuin adequate supply 

### and to meet applicrbk water quality standards (see B 5.Water Quality). Repul8tory Position

Water use and consumption must comply with 'statutory requirements and be compatible with water use plans 

### of cognizant water resources planning agencies. Consumptive use should be restricted such that the supply 

### of other 

### users is not impaired and that applicable surface water quality standards could be met, assuming normal station operational discharges and extreme low flow conditions defined by generally accepted engineering practices.

For multipurpose impounded lakes and reservoirs, consumptive use should be restricted such that the magnitude and frequency of drawdown will not result 

### in unacceptable damage to important habitats (see 

### B. 1,Preservation of Important Habitats) orbe inconsistant with the management goalsfor thewater body.

### Corutdrrcltlonr

8.7 Established Public Amenity Arms

Areas dedicatedby Federal, State,
or local governments to scenic, recreational, or cultural purposes are generally prohibited areas for sitingpower stations. Siting nuclear power stations in the vicinity of established public amenity areas could result in the loss or deterioration of important public amenities.

B.0 Prorpwtivr hiquadArnenity Anas

Areas containing 

### important
resources for scenic, recreational,
or cultural use may not currently be designated 

### as such by public agencies but may involve a net loss to the public if converted to power generation. 

### These areas may include locally rare land types, such 

### as sand dunes, wetlands,

### or coastalcliffs. 

### Pwometrrr

Proximity to public amenity ana. Viewability (see 

### B.10, Visual Ammitles).

Comparison of possible amenity areas 

### in number and extent with othor similar areas available on a local. regional, 

### or national basis, as appropriate. Regulatory Position

Siting 

### in the vicinity 

### of designated public amenity areas 

### will generally requireextensive evaluation andjustification.

The evaluation 

### of the suitability 

### of sites in thevicinityof publicamenity
areas is dependent on consideration of 

### a specific plant design and station layout in relation to potential impacts on the public amenity ana.

Public amenity areas that are distinctive, unique, or rare in 

### a region should be avoided

### as sites for nuclear power stations.

4.7.26 

## 2%

# ..

ConaicbraPionr

B.9 Public Planning

Land use 

### for a nuclear power station 

### should be compatiblewith established 

### land use or 

### zoning plans 

### ofgovernmental entities.

B.10 Vnud Arnenitisr

The presence 

### of power station structures may introduce adverse visualimpactstoresidentid, recreational, scenic,

### orculturalanas

### or other areaswith significantdependence 

### on desirableviewingcharacteristics. Paramerr

OfficiaIly adoptedland uxplans.

The solid angle subtendedby itation structures at critical viewing points. Land 

### use plans adopted by Federal, State, regional, 

### or local government entities must be examined, 

### and any conflict between thew ph and use of a proposed site must be resolved by consultationwith the appropriate governmentalentity.



### Thevisualintrusion

### ofnuclear

### power station structures 

### as viewed from nearby residential, recreational, 

### scenic, or cultural artas should 

### be controlled by selecting sites where existing topography and forests can 

### be utilized 

### for screening station structuns from those masin which visual impacts would Dtherwise be unacceptable.

4.7-27 

## 2QConaidrrations



### B.11 Loa1 Fogging rnd Icing

Water and water 

### vapor 

### releasedto the atmosphere fromrecirculating cooling systems 

### can lead 

### to ground fog and ice resulting in tI8nsportation hazards 

### and damage to electric transmission systems.

at2 CodingTowDrift


### Concentrations 

### of chemic&, 

### dissolved

### solids,and

### suspendedsolids in cooling tower drift could affect terrestrial biota 

### and result in 

### unacceptable dsunage to vegetation 

### andother

### rerources. Pinmotart

Increase in number 

### of hours 

### of fog. ging or icing caused by operation of the station.



### The percent drift 

### loss from recirculating condenser cooling water, particle size distribution, salt deposition rate, local atmospheric conditions, and loss of 

### sensitive 

### terrestrial biota affected by salt deposition from cooling tower drift. Rqulitory Position



### Tht hazards on transportation 

### routes from fog or ice that result from station operation should be evaluated. The evaluatior!should include estimates of frequency of occurrence of station-induced fogging and icing and their impact on transportation, electrical transmission, and other activitiesand functions.



### The potential loss of important ternstrial species and other resources shouldbe considered.

4.7-28


### 3Q

# .'

j 8.13 Cimiing Tower Plume Lertgthr

Natuid i:;,i11 L.<:I:~J~ t :wenproduce cloudlike pltirw which vary m sue and diltjt%kdependrng 

### on the atrnusphcric C:.-~:idr:ioI~s. The pltin~es 3re usually a few miles in length 

### before becoming dissipated, although plume lengthsof 20 to 30 miles have been reported from cooling towers. Visible plumes emitted from cooling towers could cause a hazard to commercial and military aviation in the vicinity of commercial and milimy airports. The plumes themselves

### or their shadowscould have aestheticimpacts.

8.14 Plumlntrnction

Water vapor from cooling tower plumesmay interact with industrial emissions from nearby facilities to form noxious or toxic substanceswhich could cause adverse public health impacts, or resultin unacceptable levels of damage to biota, structures, and other 

### resources. The number of houn per year the 

### . - plume is visible as a function of direction and distance from the coolingtowers.

The degree to which impacts may occur will vary depending on the distance between the nuclear and fossil-fueled sites, the hours per year of plume interaction, the type and concentration of chemical reaction products, the area of chemical falout, and the local atmospheric conditions. The visibility of coolinn tower plumes as a functionof dire&ion and distance from cooling towers should 

### be considered. Theevaluationshould include estimates of frequency of
occurrence for plumes as 

### well as potential hazards to aviation in the vicinity of commercial 

### and military airports.

The 

### hazards to public health, structures, and other resources from potential plume interaction between cooling tower plumes and plumes from fossil-fueled site: and industrial emissions from nearby facilities shouldbe considend.

4.7-29Coruidrrstions

Undesirable noise levelsatnuclear power stations could occur during. both the construction and 

### operation phasesand have unacceptable impactsnear the plant.



### B.16 Economic Impmet 

### of Proemptive Land Urn

Nuclear power stations can preempt 

### luge land 

### mas, especially when 

### large cooling lakes

### are constructed. 

### The land requirement 

### is likely to be an important hue 

### when a proposed site 

### is on 

### productive land (e& lgricultunl land) that 

### is locally limited 

### in availability and is hportrnt to the 

### local economy, or

### which may 

### be needed to meet foreseeable national demands for agricultunl products.

UNITED STATE8 AppUcable Federd, 

### State, and local 

### ndrs

### regulations.

The level of loud econani dhloca

### don, 

### such 1 

### loss of Income, Jobs, and production, 

### cad 

### by pn

### amptive ult 

### of produatn 

### Lad md 

### its effect 

### on meeting 

### latertable 

### national &man& for qdcultun 

### products. 

### Noise levels at propacd sites must comply with statutory requiremects.

If a pnllminuy evaluation of ne 

### local economic impact of 

### the use of productive 

### lrnd for a nuclw

### powr station indicatesa potential for large economic dislocation,the 

### NRC staff will 

### require a detailed evaluation of the potentialimpact andjustification for the 

### us? of the site badon 

### a castcffectiveness comparison of alternative station designs 

### and site. station combinations. 

### To complete its evaluation, the

### staffwillrljoneed information 

### on whether 

### and towhat extent the land 

### w sffats national nquinments for agiculturd products.

NUCLEAR RCOUU'IORY COMMI86IO(Y. WASHINOTON,0. C. 2OSW
OCCICIAL WSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE.

4.7-30 

### 3%