Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: a6b987fc-c417-44e5-83d7-01df25e2a4f5
Document Type: srp
Title: apply and are checked for consistency.
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0523/ML052340551.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 2
Section ID: 2.4.11.6
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
The above reviews are performed only when applicable to the site or site region. Some items of review may be done on a generic basis. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS -For construction permit (CP) reviews and when applicable, findings will consist of a brief general description of historical channel diversions. If the staff concurs with the applicant that channel diversion is unlikely or that the plant is protected from potential flood effects and that alternate essential water supplies meet the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.27, the findings will so indicate. If the staff evaluation does not support the applicant's contention of channel stability or the effects of channel diversions, flood protection and/or an alternate source of water may be required. For-operating license reviews, findings will consist of the same material, updated as required to reflect new information available since preparation of the CP findings. A sample CP-stage statement follows: Diversions of the A River are well-documented in historical and topographic data. Oxbow lakes, low-lying swamps, and bars, and chutes provide eloquent evidence of historical diversion. Others are planning further bank protec- tion measures, additional to-the existing levee system, in the vicinity of the plant intake structure. However, the diversion of the main channel -by degradation/aggradation within the confines of the levee system, or by breaching the west levee during major floods, cannot be discounted. The staff concludes that the plant's ultimate heat sink will not be endangered 2.4.9-2 Rev. 2 - July 1981 *by potential channel diversions and thus meets this aspect of GOC 44. This conclusion is based upon the fact that the ultimate heat sink (as discussed in SAR Section 2.4.11) is not directly dependent on the river intake. The staff concludes that the plant meets the requirements of GDC 2 with respect to floods caused by channel diversions. This conclusion is based on the fact that the plant is well away from the