Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: ff0641d9-a372-423d-a595-0b1ffbb956d1
Document Type: esrp
Title: ALTERNATIVE SITES
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 9
Section ID: 9.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
he corresponding ESRP Chapters 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 reviewers. The reviewer need not establish or confirm a relative ranking of candidate sites, but must determine by means of one-by-one comparisons that no alternative site is obviously superior to the proposed site. When the reviewer determines that an obviously superior site can be identified, the reviewer should consult with the applicant to determine the applicant’s reasons (if not already known) for not selecting the obviously superior site. In addition, the reviewer should document the conclusion that an alternative site is obviously superior to the proposed site. ` Impact Predictions—The reviewer should determine that basic impact criteria (e.g., land use, water use) have been developed for each alternative site, using the environmental descriptions established by the applicant and considering the basic construction and operational parameters of the proposed plant. ` Cost Data—The reviewer should determine that economic-cost data associated with each alternative site have been presented, are reasonable, and permit comparison between the candidate sites. The following general guidance is provided for the reviewer in arriving at conclusions: ` The reviewer should determine if the applicant has employed a practicable site-selection process with the principal objective of identifying candidate sites that would be among the best that could reasonably be found for the proposed plant. This standard implies that all such candidate sites should be licensable. The reviewer should determine if the applicant’s proposed site was selected from this list of candidate sites. The reviewer should determine whether the reconnaissance-level information used throughout the site-selection process was complete enough and of sufficient depth commensurate with the level of screening to support the decisions that were made. ` The reviewer should determine if the applicant’s candidate sites represent the best that could