Wi' 05 2804 ,18:37 FR 

US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMWSIORI 

RY GUPDE 

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 Systems and Biota ............................ 4.7.5 

6. Lond Ute and 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 Systems and 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 

APPENDIX A: Safety-Related Sitecomldantionr for -8n, SPlitrbitity far Nuclear Power Stations . 4.7-13 

APPENDIX B: Environmntd Considerationsfor heah6 !bS&&tr,for Nuclear Power Stations ... 4.7.19 0 , 

2 
A. INI~~OUUCTION 

The Energq Reareanization Act of 1974 places on the 

sgclear Kepiatc,ry Cur;~:t\lsji~>~i hRC) 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 &le icceptability 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-cooled nuclear power plants; a 

number of these criteria are directly related to site 

characteristics BS well as x) events and conditions outside 

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 FR 20550), 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. A principal objective 

of NEPA IS to require the Federal agency to consider, in 

its decision-making process, the environmental impacts 

of each proposed major action and the available 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 Federal Register c;n January 29, 1973 (38 FR 2679). 

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 for light-water-cooled (LWR)and high 

remperaturr gas-cooled (inLK)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(mtowcrs and hne, rrccrcd 

.Ill i~~nllc~llorl klih Ilk l.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 

selection of a site from among alternative 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. 

llus guide is intended to assist applicants in the initial 

stage of selecting potential sites for a nuclear power 

station. Each site that appears to be compatible with the 

general criteria discussed in this guide will have to be 

examined in greater detail before it can be considered to 

be a "candidate" site, Le., one of the group of sites that 

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 of poss!.ble 

sites. This guide provides a general set of safety and 

environmental criteria which the NRC staff has found to 

be valuable in assessing candidate site identification in 

specific licensing cases. 

The information needed to evaluate potential sites at 

this initial stage of site selection is assumed to be limited 

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 to reconnaissance-type surveys at thsstage in 

the site selection process. 

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~tsite of J number 01 

"c.Jndidatc" sites which rlic applicant prciers and on wtuuch thr. 

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

-1-i 

3 
military tacilities; and population dirufbution and 

densities in the site environs as they relate to protecting 

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 safeguards and plant protection 

requirements for nuclear power plants is not addressed 

in this guide. 

Guidance concerning the siting of offshore nuclear 

stations, liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR),

and advanced siting concepts such as underground aitea 

and nuciear energy centers is not included in this guide. 

A significant commitment of tiine and lesources 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 the cmtruction 

and operation of nuclear power stations on the physical 

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 safety requirements are primary 

determinants of the suitability of a site for nuclear 

power stations, but considerations of environmental 

impacts and public acceptance of nuclear power stations 

an also important and need to be evaluated. 

In the rite rcloaion proem, coordination betwen 

appkrnb for nuclw power :tations and vuioua 

Federal, State, and local agencies will be useful in 

identifying potential problem areas. 

Appendices A and B of this guide summarize the important safety-related and environmental considerations 

aBiological and physical environment includa geology,geomorphology, surface and groundwater hydrology, climatology,

air quality, limnology, water quality. fisheries, wildhfe, and vegetation. Social and cultural features include scenic resources, 

recreation resources, archeological/historicicalresources, and community 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 10sof safety-related functionr. Generrlly, the mQat 

restrictive aafetyrelated rite characteristic: conddemd In 

determining the auitability of a rite are rurfrce faultin 

potential ground motion and foundation condid03 

(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 Nucku Pouer Aurtr," md 

Regulatory Guide 1.59, "Dei@ Basis Fl& for Nucltu Power RM~s."In dditicm to phgk and aehnic 

evrlurtion for amcsslng 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 Extrtmcr and Dirpadw 

The potentid effect of natural atmospheric extremca 

(e.g., tornadoesC and exceptional icing conditionsd) on 

the safety-related structuns of a nudeu station mwt 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 to withstand most atmospheric extremes. 

The atmospheric characteristica at a site are an 

important consideration in evaluating the dispersion of 

radioactive effluents both from postdated rcadents and 

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, "Dedgn Brds Tornado for 

Nuckr Power Plants." 

dRefer to Section 2.4.7 of Regulatory Guide 1.70. 

eRoutinc releases of airborne ndioactive mated must be 

kept "as low as practicable." [See IO CFR Part 20. §20.1(~).) 

The Cornmission has published a proposed ruk for 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 appears in NRC regulations and regulatory guides. 

Section 50.341 of 10 CFR Part 50 sets forth the requirements for design objectives for equipment to control releues of 

radioactive material in efftuents from nuclear power rraccton. 

(Continued) 

4.7-2 

4 
P 

airborne radioactive material, the station must meet 

State md Federal requirements of the Clean Air 

knendments of 1930 (PL91-604). This is 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 potential for interaction 

of the cooling system plume with a plume containing 

noxious or toxic substances from a nearby facility, or 

(3) the auxiliary generators are 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 consequences of certain postulated accidents 

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 for Evaluating 

the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Los-ofCoolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors;” � 5, 

“Assumptions Used for Evaluating the 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 Evaluating the Potential RadiolGgical Consequences of a Fuel 

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 atmospheric conditions. 

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, in orda to kep powcr 

reactor effluent nle~sesas low Y practicable. ach liccnsc 

authorizing operation of such a facility wiU include technic4 

sptcifications regarding .the estabtishmcnt of effluent control 

equipment and reporting of actual releases. 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, promulgated May 5,1975 

(40 FR 19439). provides numerical guidance for design ob*­

eives and technical spccifEation requirements for limiting cor& 

tions of operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. 

The following regulatory guides are being prepared to assist 

in application of the numerical guidana in Appendix I: 

1. Calculation of Annual Average Dores to Man from 

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of lmple

menting Appendix I. 

2. Calculations of Releases of Radioactive Materials in 

Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Ressurized Water Reactors 

(PWRs),

3. Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in 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 

features such as hills, mountain ranges, and lake or ocean 

shonlines can affect the local atmospheric conditions at 

a site ad may causc the dispersion characteristics at the 

site to be kss favo .abie than those in the perd area or 

region. More strinpnt design or effluent objectives or a 

larger exclusion 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 evaluated term beaw 

it depends only on atmospheric variables and distance 

from the 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 10 CFR Part 100. If under 

assumed unfavorable atmosphtric conditions (see 

Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4) the disperdon of 

radioactivity released following a design basis acadent is 

insufficient at the boundary of the exclusion ma (see 

the following section, “Population Considerations”) and 

the outer boundary of the low population zone, the site 

would not satisfy the requirements of 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 transmission corridors in the vicinity of a site. 

A cooling system designed with special consideration 

for reducing drift may be required due 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 of the site to corrosion by drift from cooling 

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 

5 
ihe sultvbdity of a we, but they could result in special 

.i.,~iii:g sysier:~desigri rcquirements or in the need for a 

!qer site to confine the effects of drift with the site 

)~<.~!~i~&ry The environmental effects of salt drift are

most WV~I-Cwhere salute water or water with high 

inineral content is used for condenser cooling. 

(“uding towers 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~lumcsemitted from coohg towers in the vicinity of 

airports could cause a hazard to aviation. 

3. Population Codaations 

A reactor licensee is required by 10CFRPart 100 to 

designate an exclusion area and to have authority to 

determine all activities within that area, including 

removal of personnel and property. In selecting a site for 

a nuclear pwuer station, it is necessary to provide for an 

exclusion area in wluch the applicant has 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 close to 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 exclusion area in 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 containing more than about 25,000 residents. 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

than certain specified values. 

WASH-1235. “The Site Population Factor, A Technique for Consideration of Population in Site Comparison,” October 1974, discusses a 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 or rivers and d.~cussesthe-phenomena producing 

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@dc Design Classification.” For 

some river valleys, flood plains, or areas almg coostlines, 

there may not be sufficient information .to make 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-and locally 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 1.70 present 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 has been practiced. 

Essential water requirements for nuclear power plants 

are that sufficient water be available for 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 cooling water 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 of state statutory and 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 

1 
d;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 operating license. 

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 or low level period 

should be determined from the historical record and. rf 

the cooling water is to be drawn from impoundmenu. 

from projected operating practices. 

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. Section 401(aXl) of the FWPCA requires. 

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 a complex 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 reliable assessments 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 and its vicinity 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 on water 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 discharge to 

UI estuary. 

The following are examples of potential mviroannlal effects of station 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 and receiving water; 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 important species 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 of individuals of important ~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 and if one or more of the following criteria 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 system that 

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 the existing mvironmenu conditions 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 

charactsristics of the areas are changed, breeding SUCC~SS 

may be substantially reduced or enhanced. Destruction 

of pact or all of a breeding or nursery area may caw 

population shifts that result in increased competition for 

the remaining suitable arcas. Such population shifts 

cannot compensate for the reduced site of the breeding 

or nursery anas if 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 actual breeding area. 

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 feeding areas in relation to potential construction or 

operation hpacb includes the following considerations: 

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 ndua the quality of feeding areas by destruction of a portion of the food base, 

destruction of cover, or both. 

. (Continued) 

Endangered and threatened speciesare &!in& by PL 93-205, 

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 to become 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 Register by the Secretary 

of the Interior. 

'A compilation of construction practices b provided in 

"General Environmental Guidelines for Evaluating and 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, occurring mainly in the 

aquatic environment. Narrow tones of passage for migratory animals in some rivers and estuaries may be 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 dispcned by 

water currents. It is therefore important in site selection 

that the routes and times of movepent of the immature 

stages be considered in relation to potential effects. 

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 cooling water mtalte structures 

and entrabment of organisms through the coohg 

system an determined by a number of vahblu inchiing site characteristics, intake strvcturc &si@, and 

placement of the structuns at the site. 

Site characteristics should be considered reiative to 

design and placement of cooling system featuno md the 

potential of the cooling system to hold fish in m ana 

longer than the normal period of migration or to 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 during winter can be lethal 

to these fsh because of an abrupt drop in 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 existing topography and forests can be uWd for 

screening station structures from nearby scenic, histor. 

ical, or recreational resources. Restoration of ~atursr) 

vegetation, creative landscaping? and the integration of 

structures with the environment can mitigate adverse 

visual impacts. 

, 

Reconstruction archeological excavaticns can UW~Y 

reduce losses. Short-term salvage archeology may not be 

bStation protection rquuements for nuchu nfcgmds may 

urfluena kndpup design and clearing ofvegetation. 

4.76 

s 
sufficient 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 areas uniquely suited for growing 

specialty crops may be considered a type of land conveision involving unacceptable econorrLic dislocation. 

Sites adjacent to lands devoted to pub!ic use may 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 should be determined by consulting cognizant 

government agencies. 

The following Federal agencies should be consulted 

for the special areas listed: 

a. National Park Service (US.Department of the 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, “Preparation of 

Environmental lmpact Statements: Guidelines.” 38 FR 20549. 

August 1, 1973. 

b. NationJ Park Service Preservation 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 of Agricultule) 

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 

from cognizant State agencies such as State departments 

of nrnrd resources. (Six publications such as the ‘Consenatton Directory 1973: A Listing of Orpnizlltions, 

ALpnc~land Officials Concerned 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 on historic 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 for nuclear power stations at some future timein 

rhcft ueas will depend on the existing impacts from 

mdustrid, commercial, and other developments. 

7 Indlstrinl. Military, and Transportation Fdtirn 

Potential accidents at present or projected nearby industrial, military, and transportation facilities may affect 

the safety of a nuclear power station.’ A site should not 

be selected if, in the event of such an accident, it is not 

possible to safely shut down a plant at that site or if it is 

not possible to have nearby facilities alter their mode of 

operation or incorporate features to 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 1.70lists these safety considerations. 

. 
~CIISWL‘S, hock waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic 

chenucds, or incendury fragments may result. Thew 

may affect the station itself or the station operaton in a 

way that jtoparlzes the safety of the station. 

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 describes criteria that arc generally acceptrblc 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 establishing, among other thin@, that the nuclw power station 

can be designed SO its safety will not be affected by an 

accident at the military inrtrllation. Alternatively, an 

otherwire unacceptabk ate may become acceptable if 

the cognizant military orlpnization tgrarr to change the. 

installation or mode of operation to reduce the likelihood or severity of potential accident, involving the 

nuclear station to an acceptable level. 

An accident during the transport of hazardous materials (e.g., by air, waterway, railroad, highway, or pipeline) 

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 hamdous material per shipment, 

and the layout of the nuclear station. Unkss the station 

can be designed to operate safely in the event of a pmtulated accident or an enforceable agreement can be 

reached to limit the transport of hazardous materials or 

the tansportation link can be relocated, the proposed 

site may not be acceptable. 

Airports are transpottation facilities that 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 determinants of siting policy. It is difficult both 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~band In community expendi 

tures, md problems my occur in determisung equitable

level8 of cornpenration for persons relocated as a result 

of the station siting. It is usUy possible 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 suitability of a rite nhould therefore include consideration of 

purpose and probable adequ8cy of socioeconomic impact mitiption plm for ruch ecdnomic impacts on any 

community whert id acceptance problems can be 

redly fanreen. 

cerkin communitlen 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 8 notably dktinctivc cultunl character, Le., 

toms that have prwnved or rentored numerous plrccs

of hhtcdc interest, have specialized in in unusual industry ot wocationrl activity, or have otherwise markedly &tb@ltad themielves from other communities. 

9. wdr 

Noire heh at nucku stations occur during both the 

construction and opention phases and could have unrccsptabk impacts. Cooling towm, turbines, and tnnsformen contribute to the noise levels during station 

operation. 

l*rHkYiQ-W 

Sites thrt indude apabk faults, as defined in Appen. 

dix A to 10CFR Part 100, m not suitable for nuclear 

power stations.The state of the art has not progressed to 

the point at which it is possible to design a nuclear 

power station for surface or near-surface displacement 

with Isuffidentiy 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 for such a proposed site. 

Sites located near geologic structures for which an 

adequate data base to determine “capabitity” does not 

exist at the time of application are likely to be subject io 

a longer licensing process in view of the need for extensive and detailed geologic and seismic investigations of 

the site and surrounding region and for the rigorous analyses of the site-plant combination. 

4.7-8 
2. Atmospheric Extremes and Dispersion 

As noted in Section B.2 of this guide. site atmospheric conditions are ute suitability characteristics principal!~with respect to the calculation of radiation doses 

resulting from the release of fission products as a consequence of a postulated accident and the establishment 

of exclusion area boundary, low population zone boundary. 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 evaluating the 

siiirabiiity of potential sites. 

3. Population Considerations 

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 during both the NRC staff review and the 

public hearing phases of the licensing process. If the 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 of initial operation of a nuclear power station exceeds 500 persons per 

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 account by 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 is less than 0.4 mile, it may be necessary to 

place special conditions on the station design (e.g., 

added engineered safety features) before the requirements of 10CFR Part 100 are met. Also, based on past 

experience, the staff has found that a distance of 3 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,” should be 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 permits for consumptive 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 the appropriate State, local, or regional bodies. 

4.3 Water Quality 

The potential impacts of nuclear power stations on 

water quality are likely to be acceptable if effluent 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 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 will 

be used by the NRC staff for determining permissible 
concentrations of radioactive materials discharged to surface water or to ground 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 sites located 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 Systems and Biota 

The ecological systems 2nd biota at potential sites 

md their environs should 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~exceptionally complex ecological systems 

will have to be studied in detail to determine the appropriate plant designs, proposals to use such sites should be 

deferred unless sites with less complex 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 should bc? 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 total population of the species.

The destruction of, or sublethal effects on, a number of 

individuals which would not adversely affect the reproductive capacity and vitality of a populatibn or the 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 entire range of the species 

as noted in the literature. 

aAppendix IIO 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guidance 

for design objectives and technical specification requirements for 

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 hpnant species habitats, such as breeding 

areas (e.&, nesting and spawning rea ass), nursery, feedinp 

resting, and wintering areas, or othtr areas of seasordy 

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 the region under 

consideration, the amount of the habitat or ecological 

system destroyed or disrupted relati& to the total 

amount in the region, and the vulnerability of the reproductive capacity of important species popultiom 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 or habitats that are unique, 

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 ficdity desigr. chxacteristics that would satisfac­

:only mitigate the potential ecological impacts hme 

ken &tined. In areas where reliable and sufficient data 

art PO( avdrble, the collection ana evaluation of appro. 

pnatc rrond data may be required. 

kriyrtions of importarit species and migration routes 

that pass through the site or its environs shouid be identified Gcncrdly, the most critical migratory routes relative to nuclear power station siting are those of aquatic 

spem m water bodies associated with the cooling sysfern%Site conditions that should be identified and evalua;ed UI assessing potential impacts on important aquatic 

migratory species include (1)nanow mnes of passage. 

(2) migntion periods that are coincident with maximum 

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, or blocking of migration by 

facility structures or effluents. 

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 of alternative routes that would provide for maintenance of the 

species’ breeding population should be assessed. 

If justifiable relative to costs and benefits, potential 

impacts of plant construction and operarion on the biota 

and ecological systems caii generally be mitigated by 

adequate eagineering design and site planning and by 

proper construction ani aperation practice when there is 

4.7-10 

12 

I 
JdLzquate 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 and ecological systems will 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.to specialty 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 and resolved. 

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 sites is dependent on consideration of 

specific station design layout. However, existing aesthetic impacts at potential sites should be taken into account 

as mitigating any requirements for further special design. 

7. Industrial, Mitary, and Transportation Fa&ties 

Potentially hazardous facilities and activities within 5 

des of 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 the region‘ 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 oi risk imposed by the potential hazard. 

The identification of design basis events resulting 

from the presence of hazardous materials or activities in 

the vicinity of a nuclear power station is acceptable if 

the design basis events include each postulated type of 

accident fw which a realistic estimate of the probability 

of Occurrence of potential exposures in excess of the 

10 CFR Part 100 guidelines exceeds 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. 

In view of the low probability events under consideration, the probability of Occurrence of the initiating 

events leading to potential consequen.ces in excess of 

10 CFR Part 300 exposure guidelines should be based on 

assumptions that are as realistic as is practicable. In addition, because of the low probability evefits under consideration, valid statistical data are often not wailable to 

permit accurate quantitative calculation of prcbabilities. 

Accordingly, a conservative calculation showing that the 

probability of occurrence of potential exposures in excess of the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines is approximately 

10-6per year is acceptabie if, when combined with reasonable qualitative arguments, the realistic probability 

can be shown to 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 of the proposed 

nuclear station have been performed and appropriate 

measures (e.g., hardening, fire protection) to mitigate 

the corisequences of such events have been taken. 

To evaluate the suitability of sites in detail for potential accidents involving hazardous materials and activities 

at nearby industrial, military, and transportation faciiities, the studies described in Section 2.2 of Regulatory 

Guide 1.70 should be made. 

8. Socioeconomics 

The NRC staff considers that an evaluation of the 

suitability of nucelar power station sites near distinctive 

communities should demonstrate that the construction 

and operation of the nuclear station, including transmission and transportation corridors, and potential problems relating to community services, such as schools, 

police and fire protection, water and sewage, and health 

facilities, will not adversely affect the distinctive character 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 to a proposed site. 

9. Noise 

Noise levels at proposed sites must comply with applicable Federal, State, and local noise 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~sguide reflects current NRC staff practice ately 10 inhcate ionsiderations that should be 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 fvr nuclear power stations 
APPENDIX A 

!;A FETY-RELATED SITE CONSIDERATIONS 

FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY 

FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS 

lhiJ dppediA pfobides a checklist of safety-related site characteristics, relevant regulations and regulatory guides, and 

regulatoiy cxprmie artd posttion for assessing ste suitability for nudear power stations. 

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, and landslide 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 should be 

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 for a nuclear power station. 

Sites should be selected in areas for 

which an adequate geologic data 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 sites are not available, it is 

prudent to select sites in 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 Atmospheric Dispersion 

The atmospheric conditions at a 

site should provide sufficient dispersion of radioactive materials 

released during a postulated accident to reduce the radiation exposures of individuals at the 

exclusion area and low population 

zone boundaries to the values prescribed in 10CFR Part 100. 

Relevant Regulations and 

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 

~adi010giczlcm~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 

Stem Line Break Acddatt for Boiling Water Rertom.“ 

Regulatory Guide 124, “Assumptions Used for Evllua$q the Potential RadioIogicJ coartgwnca of a 

Pressurized Water Reactor Radioactive Gas Storrlp Tmk FIPurt.” 

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 

atmospheric dispersion of radiological 

effluents is incorporated 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 to minimize exposure of individuals outsi& the station to any radioactive 

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 to determine 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 measuns could be taken in their behalf 

in the event of a serious accident;” 

e At any point on the exclusion area 

boundary and on the outer boundary of the LPZ the exposun of individuals 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 

popated center having mon than 

25,000 residents, be at least one 

and one-third the distance from the 

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 to the consideration of alternative sites with 

the 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 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 10 CFR 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 area and LPZ are based on historical siting expenence oi light-water-cooled reaciors. In certain 

instances different dimensions have been established for high temperature gas-cooled reactors. 

4.7-16 

11 
L t.’4fj<J*a .Vd J I >.L5llllidily 

m;lL.czd flmdiitp, (e g :esulting 

tlitrll dm fdiire, tiom river 

blnchp OT iiversion, 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~edwater supply is 

ioquired for normal or emergency 

shutdown and cooldown. 

A.4.3 Water Quality 

Relevrnt ‘Regulationsand 

Regulatory Guides 

IO CFK Part 100, Appendix A, 

‘%Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria 

for Nuclear 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). 

10 CFR 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 Sink for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 CFR Part 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 vi 1­

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 10 CFR 

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,”Criterion 4, “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 Hazardous Chemical Rekase.” 

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 facilities indicates 

that the potential hazards from 

shock waves and missiles 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 of the potential hazard. 

The identification of design basis 

events resulting from the presence of 

nearby hazardous materials or activities in the vicinity of a nuclear power 

station is acceptable if the design 

basis events include each postulated 

type of accident for which a realistic 

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 sites in 

detail for potentid accident situations involving hazardous materials 

and activities from nearby industrial, 

military, and transportation facilities, 

the studies described in Section 2.2 

of Regulatory Guide 1.70 should be 

made. 

4.7-18 

’2.0 
APPENDIX 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. The relative 

importance of the different facton to be considered 

varies with the region or State in which the potential 

sites are located. 

Site selection processes can be facilitated by establishing limits for various parameters based on the best judgment of specialists knowledgeable of the region under 

consideration. For example, limits can be chosen for the 

fraction of water that can be diverted in certain situations without adversely affecting the local popuhtions 

of important species. Although simplistic because important factors such as the distribution of important species 

in the water body are not taken into account, such limits 

can be useful in a screening process for ate skction. 

A discussion of perfoimance chamcteristics of lightwatercooled reactor stations which may affect the environment is given in WASH-1355, "Nuckar Power 

Facility Performance Characteristicsfor Making Enviro:v 

mental Impact Assetsments," Rcember 1974. 
\ 

--__I_ 

Coniikrrtionr 

B.1 Raorvrtion of Important 

Habitats 

Important habitats are thor that 

art essential to maintaining the reproductive capacity and vitality 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 high concentrations of individuals of important species. 

The construction and operation of 

nuclear power stations (including 

new tnnsmbsion lines and access 

corridors constructed in conjunction with the station) can result in 

the destruction or alteration of 

habitats of important species leading to cbpr in the abundance 

of a species or in the species composition of a community. 

a& defined for thh yide in Section 8. 

PInmatrrr 

The proportion of an 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. The vduc of the proportion varies m o spares ~ and 

mOng habitats The RQOn considered in deternunmg proporuons is 

the normal geographr nnp of the 

specific population m quatmn. 

If endangered or thnrtmed Ipecies 

occur at a site. the powrorl effects 

of the construcuon rad omtion of 

a duclear powa sutlon &odd be 

evaluated relative $0 thr poraeul impact 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 of Enviroomend Reports for Nudcu Power 

Stations.” 

Rwulrtory Position 

In general. a detailed justification 

should be provided when the destruction or significant alteration of more 

than a few percent of important 

habitat ty pes.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 My migrations are 

arentirl to maintainingthe reproductive capacity of some important species populations. 

Disruption of migratory patterns 

can result from partial or complete blockrge of migmtwy routes 

by structuns, dischqp plumes,

environmental alterations, or 

nun's activities (e.g., trmsportation or tnnsmiPion corridor 

dming and site preparation). 

The width or cross-sectional area of a 

water body at a proposed site relative 

to the gtneral width or crosssectional ana in the portion of the 

water body used by migrating species 

should be estimated. 

Suggested minimum zones of pasrage 

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 criteria for determining adequate zona 

of pssssge should be combirred with 

a Imowkdge of important species 

and their migrrtory requinmcnts. 

Rogulctory Position 

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 populations and maintenance of 

the harvestable crop of economically 

important populations should be provided. 

aWterQuality W&,1972, National Adany of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 1912. 

bHadlmok of Environmend Conhol, VdumcXll: Water Supply and 12artmmt, R.G.Bond and 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 discharge plumes. 

The reproductive capacity of 

important species popuktiona 

may be impaired by 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 discharge plumes. 

The depth of the water body at the 

paint of intake relative to the @nerd 

Mthof tho water body in the vicinity of the 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 of ffow.b*c 

ThLdmpktic puuneter (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 on the 

local fhhexies should be consulted to 

enawe that proposed withdrawals 

Will not be excessive. 

The site &odd have characteriatlcs 

that allow placement of inulce structures when the relative abundance of 

important species la small and where 

low approach velocitks can be 

attained. @ap re@onsM gtnerally

less productive than 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 impingement of larger orgminru, principally 

fish, on intake ccrsen* hmbb apporrch and woezkface velocitkr KO Mt&on Ash rwim speed8 whkh will wy vith th! rpcciw, 

site md rcwn. 

bZ%eWutcr’x E*: &ftfc8iploblmuofthe c;ort@lZone, B.H. Ketchum (Editor), MIT Pres, Cambridge, Mass., 1972. 

cEngineaiM for RaduHon of the En~8nvbnmmtDikmmo, National Academy of �@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 

normal migratory pattehs. 

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 

the site and important species characteristics an such that entry of important species to the canal can be 

prevented or limited by screening. 
Cotnidsrrtionr 

8.6 Wetor Uuriity 

Effluents discharged from nuclear 

power plants are governed under 

the authority of the Federal Water 

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, 1972a will 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 a reasonable 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 Quofify Oirefiu. 1972, National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering,Washington,D.C. 1972. 

4.7-24 

2-tp 
EL6 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 

Water resource. 

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 resultant ability 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) or be inconsistant with the management goals for the water body. 
Corutdrrcltlonr 

8.7 Established Public Amenity 

Arms 

Areas dedicated by Federal, State, 

or local governments to scenic, 

recreational, or cultural purposes 

are generally prohibited areas for 

siting power 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 hiquad Arnenity 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 coastal cliffs. 

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 

require extensive evaluation and justification. 

The evaluation of the suitability of 

sites in the vicinity of public amenity 

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 compatible with 

established land use or zoning 

plans of governmental entities. 

B.10 Vnud Arnenitisr 

The presence of power station 

structures may introduce adverse 

visual impacts to residentid, recreational, scenic, or cultural anas or 

other areas with significant dependence on desirable viewing characteristics. 

Paramerr 

OfficiaIly adopted land ux plans. 

The solid angle subtended by 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 consultation with the appropriate 

governmental entity. 

The visual intrusion of nuclear 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 mas in which 

visual impacts would Dtherwise be 

unacceptable. 

4.7-27 

2Q 
Conaidrrations 

B.11 Loa1 Fogging rnd Icing 

Water and water vapor released to 

the atmosphere from recirculating

cooling systems can lead to 

ground fog and ice resulting in 

t I 8 nspo rt a tion hazards and 

damage to electric transmission 

systems. 

at2 Coding Tow Drift 

Concentrations of chemic&, dissolved solids,and suspended solids 

in cooling tower drift could affect 

terrestrial biota and result in 

unacceptable dsunage to vegetation and other 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 activities and functions. 

The potential loss of important ternstrial species and other resources 

should be 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%k dependrng on 

the atrnusphcric C:.-~:idr:ioI~s. The 

pltin~es3re usually a few miles in 

length before becoming dissipated, although plume lengths of 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 shadows could 

have aesthetic impacts. 

8.14 Plum lntrnction 

Water vapor from cooling tower 

plumes may interact with industrial emissions from nearby facilities 

to form noxious or toxic substances which could cause adverse 

public health impacts, or result in 

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 

cooling towers. 

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 function of dire&ion and 

distance from cooling towers should 

be considered. The evaluation should 

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 

should be considend. 

4.7-29 
Coruidrrstions 

Undesirable noise levels at nuclear 

power stations could occur during. 

both the construction and operation phases and have unacceptable 

impacts near 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 dhlocadon, such 1loss of Income, Jobs, 

and production, cad by pnamptive 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 indicates a potential for large 

economic dislocation, the NRC staff 

will require a detailed evaluation of 

the potential impact and justification 

for the us? of the site bad on a 

castcffectiveness comparison of 

alternative station designs and site. 

station combinations. To complete 

its evaluation, the staffwill rljo need 

information on whether and to what 

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%