(a) Site characteristics that may directly affect the safety or environmental impact of the ISFSI or MRS must be investigated and assessed.
(b) Proposed sites for the ISFSI or MRS must be examined with respect to the frequency and the severity of external natural and man-induced events that could affect the safe operation of the ISFSI or MRS.
(c) Design basis external events must be determined for each combination of proposed site and proposed ISFSI or MRS design.
(d) Proposed sites with design basis external events for which adequate protection cannot be provided through ISFSI or MRS design shall be deemed unsuitable for the location of the ISFSI or MRS.
(e) Pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this chapter for each proposed site for an ISFSI and pursuant to sections 141 or 148 of NWPA, as appropriate (96 Stat. 2241, 101 Stat. 1330-235, 42 U.S.C. 10161, 10168) for each proposed site for an MRS, the potential for radiological and other environmental impacts on the region must be evaluated with due consideration of the characteristics of the population, including its distribution, and of the regional environs, including its historical and esthetic values.
(f) The facility must be sited so as to avoid to the extent possible the long-term and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.
(a) Natural phenomena that may exist or that can occur in the region of a proposed site must be identified and assessed according to their potential effects on the safe operation of the ISFSI or MRS. The important natural phenomena that affect the ISFSI or MRS design must be identified.
(b) Records of the occurrence and severity of those important natural phenomena must be collected for the region and evaluated for reliability, accuracy, and completeness. The applicant shall retain these records until the license is issued.
(c) Appropriate methods must be adopted for evaluating the design basis external natural events based on the characteristics of the region and the current state of knowledge about such events.
(a) The region must be examined for both past and present man-made facilities and activities that might endanger the proposed ISFSI or MRS. The important potential man-induced events that affect the ISFSI or MRS design must be identified.
(b) Information concerning the potential occurrence and severity of such events must be collected and evaluated for reliability, accuracy, and completeness.
(c) Appropriate methods must be adopted for evaluating the design basis external man-induced events, based on the current state of knowledge about such events.
(a) An ISFSI which is owned and operated by DOE must not be located at any site within which there is a candidate site for a HLW repository. This limitation shall apply until such time as DOE decides that such candidate site is no longer a candidate site under consideration for development as a HLW repository.
(b) An MRS must not be sited in any State in which there is located any site approved for site characterization for a HLW repository. This limitation shall apply until such time as DOE decides that the candidate site is no longer a candidate site under consideration for development as a repository. This limitation shall continue to apply to any site selected for construction as a repository.
(c) If an MRS is located, or is planned to be located, within 50 miles of the first HLW repository, any Commission decision approving the first HLW repository application must limit the quantity of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste that may be stored. This limitation shall prohibit the storage of a quantity of spent fuel containing in excess of 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal, or a quantity of solidified high-level radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing of such a quantity of spent fuel, in both the repository and the MRS until such time as a second repository is in operation.
(d) An MRS authorized by section 142(b) of NWPA (101 Stat. 1330-232, 42 U.S.C. 10162(b)) may not be constructed in the State of Nevada. The quantity of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste that may be stored at an MRS authorized by section 142(b) of NWPA shall be subject to the limitations in § 72.44(g) of this part instead of the limitations in paragraph (c) of this section.
(a) The regional extent of external phenomena, man-made or natural, that are used as a basis for the design of the ISFSI or MRS must be identified.
(b) The potential regional impact due to the construction, operation or decommissioning of the ISFSI or MRS must be identified. The extent of regional impacts must be determined on the basis of potential measurable effects on the population or the environment from ISFSI or MRS activities.
(c) Those regions identified pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be investigated as appropriate with respect to:
(1) The present and future character and the distribution of population,
(2) Consideration of present and projected future uses of land and water within the region, and
(3) Any special characteristics that may influence the potential consequences of a release of radioactive material during the operational lifetime of the ISFSI or MRS.
(a) The proposed site must be evaluated with respect to the effects on populations in the region resulting from the release of radioactive materials under normal and accident conditions during operation and decommissioning of the ISFSI or MRS; in this evaluation both usual and unusual regional and site characteristics shall be taken into account.
(b) Each site must be evaluated with respect to the effects on the regional environment resulting from construction, operation, and decommissioning for the ISFSI or MRS; in this evaluation both usual and unusual regional and site characteristics must be taken into account.
(a)
(1) East of the Rocky Mountain Front (east of approximately 104° west longitude), except in areas of known seismic activity including but not limited to the regions around New Madrid, MO, Charleston, SC, and Attica, NY, sites will be acceptable if the results from onsite foundation and geological investigation, literature review, and regional geological reconnaissance show no unstable geological characteristics, soil stability problems, or potential for vibratory ground motion at the site in excess of an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.2 g.
(2) For those sites that have been evaluated under paragraph (a)(1) of this section that are east of the Rocky Mountain Front, and that are not in areas of known seismic activity, a standardized design earthquake (DE) described by an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.25 g may be used. Alternatively, a site-specific DE may be determined by using the criteria and level of investigations required by appendix A of part 100 of this chapter.
(b) West of the Rocky Mountain Front (west of approximately 104° west longitude), and in other areas of known potential seismic activity, seismicity will be evaluated by the techniques of appendix A of part 100 of this chapter. Sites that lie within the range of strong near-field ground motion from historical earthquakes on large capable faults should be avoided.
(c) Sites other than bedrock sites must be evaluated for their liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion.
(d) Site-specific investigations and laboratory analyses must show that soil conditions are adequate for the proposed foundation loading.
(e) In an evaluation of alternative sites, those which require a minimum of engineered provisions to correct site deficiencies are preferred. Sites with unstable geologic characteristics should be avoided.
(f) The design earthquake (DE) for use in the design of structures must be determined as follows:
(1) For sites that have been evaluated under the criteria of appendix A of 10 CFR part 100, the DE must be equivalent to the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) for a nuclear power plant.
(2) Regardless of the results of the investigations anywhere in the continental U.S., the DE must have a value for the horizontal ground motion of no less than 0.10 g with the appropriate response spectrum.
(a)
(1) East of the Rocky Mountain Front (east of approximately 104° west longitude), except in areas of known seismic activity including but not limited to the regions around New Madrid, MO; Charleston, SC; and Attica, NY; sites will be acceptable if the results from onsite foundation and geological investigation, literature review, and regional geological reconnaissance show no unstable geological characteristics, soil stability problems, or potential for vibratory ground motion at the site in excess of an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.2 g.
(2) For those sites that have been evaluated under paragraph (a)(1) of this section that are east of the Rocky Mountain Front, and that are not in areas of known seismic activity, a standardized design earthquake ground motion (DE) described by an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.25 g may be used. Alternatively, a site-specific DE may be determined by using the criteria and level of investigations required by paragraph (f) of this section. For a site with a co-located nuclear power plant (NPP), the existing geological and seismological design criteria for the NPP may be used. If the existing design criteria for the NPP is used and the site has multiple NPPs, then the criteria for the most recent NPP must be used.
(b) West of the Rocky Mountain Front (west of approximately 104° west longitude), and in other areas of known potential seismic activity east of the Rocky Mountain Front, seismicity must be evaluated by the techniques presented in paragraph (f) of this section. If an ISFSI or MRS is located on an NPP site, the existing geological and seismological design criteria for the NPP may be used. If the existing design criteria for the NPP is used and the site has multiple NPPs, then the criteria for the most recent NPP must be used.
(c) Sites other than bedrock sites must be evaluated for their liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion.
(d) Site-specific investigations and laboratory analyses must show that soil conditions are adequate for the proposed foundation loading.
(e) In an evaluation of alternative sites, those which require a minimum of engineered provisions to correct site deficiencies are preferred. Sites with unstable geologic characteristics should be avoided.
(f) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of this section, the DE for use in the design of structures, systems, and components must be determined as follows:
(1) Geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics. The geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics of a site and its environs must be investigated in sufficient scope and detail to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed site, to provide sufficient information to support evaluations performed to arrive at estimates of the DE, and to permit adequate engineering solutions to actual or potential geologic and seismic effects at the proposed site. The size of the region to be investigated and the type of data pertinent to the investigations must be determined based on the nature of the region surrounding the proposed site. Data on the vibratory ground motion, tectonic surface deformation, nontectonic deformation, earthquake recurrence rates, fault geometry and slip rates, site foundation material, and seismically induced floods and water waves must be obtained by reviewing pertinent literature and carrying out field investigations. However, each applicant shall investigate all geologic and seismic factors (for example, volcanic activity) that may affect the design and operation of the proposed ISFSI or MRS facility irrespective of whether these factors are explicitly included in this section.
(2) Geologic and seismic siting factors. The geologic and seismic siting factors considered for design must include a determination of the DE for the site, the potential for surface tectonic and nontectonic deformations, the design bases for seismically induced floods and water waves, and other design conditions as stated in paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) Determination of the Design Earthquake Ground Motion (DE). The DE for the site is characterized by both horizontal and vertical free-field ground motion response spectra at the free ground surface. In view of the limited data available on vibratory ground motions for strong earthquakes, it usually will be appropriate that the design response spectra be smoothed spectra. The DE for the site is determined considering the results of the investigations required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Uncertainties are inherent in these estimates and must be addressed through an appropriate analysis, such as a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) or suitable sensitivity analyses.
(ii) Determination of the potential for surface tectonic and nontectonic deformations. Sufficient geological, seismological, and geophysical data must be provided to clearly establish if there is a potential for surface deformation.
(iii) Determination of design bases for seismically induced floods and water waves. The size of seismically induced floods and water waves that could affect a site from either locally or distantly generated seismic activity must be determined.
(iv) Determination of siting factors for other design conditions. Siting factors for other design conditions that must be evaluated include soil and rock stability, liquefaction potential, and natural and artificial slope stability. Each applicant shall evaluate all siting factors and potential causes of failure, such as, the physical properties of the materials underlying the site, ground disruption, and the effects of vibratory ground motion that may affect the design and operation of the proposed ISFSI or MRS.
(3) Regardless of the results of the investigations anywhere in the continental U.S., the DE must have a value for the horizontal ground motion of no less than 0.10 g with the appropriate response spectrum.
[68 FR 54159, Sept. 16, 2003]
(a) During normal operations and anticipated occurrences, the annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other critical organ as a result of exposure to:
(1) Planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its decay products excepted, to the general environment,
(2) Direct radiation from ISFSI or MRS operations, and
(3) Any other radiation from uranium fuel cycle operations within the region.
(b) Operational restrictions must be established to meet as low as is reasonably achievable objectives for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation levels associated with ISFSI or MRS operations.
(c) Operational limits must be established for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation levels associated with ISFSI or MRS operations to meet the limits given in paragraph (a) of this section.
[53 FR 31658, Aug. 19, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 54562, Oct. 13, 1998]
(a) For each ISFSI or MRS site, a controlled area must be established.
(b) Any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area may not receive from any design basis accident the more limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), or the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The lens dose equivalent may not exceed 0.15 Sv (15 rem) and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or any extremity may not exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The minimum distance from the spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste handling and storage facilities to the nearest boundary of the controlled area must be at least 100 meters.
(c) The controlled area may be traversed by a highway, railroad or waterway, so long as appropriate and effective arrangements are made to control traffic and to protect public health and safety.
[53 FR 31658, Aug. 19, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 54562, Oct. 13, 1998; 66 FR 51842, Oct. 11, 2001]
The proposed ISFSI or MRS must be evaluated with respect to the potential impact on the environment of the transportation of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste within the region.
[66 FR 51842, Oct. 11, 2001]