Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: a10a3c35-4db9-4a81-a9a5-1b4fface972a
Document Type: srp
Title: CHANNEL DIVERSIONS
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0520/ML052070255.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 2
Section ID: 2.4.9
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
findings will 10 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 or combined license reviews, findings will consist of the same material, 11 updated as required to reflect new information available since preparation of the CP or early site permit findings. 12 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 organizations are planning further bank protection 13 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 by potential channel diversions and thus meets this aspect of GDC 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 2.4.9-5 DRAFT Rev. 3 - April 1996 well away from the path of any potential diversion of the A River and well above the level of any resultant flood. Based upon the above evaluation, we conclude that