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:
ng restrictions, and environmental restrictions) of the selected candidate areas can be made. (6) Review the potential sites identified by the applicant so that an eventual evaluation can be made with respect to (a) adequacy of the site-identification process, and (b) consistency with the applicant’s criteria for site selection. (7) Analyze the candidate sites proposed by the applicant to the level needed to conclude that they are or are not potentially licensable sites and to identify the potential environmental impacts (adverse and beneficial) attributable to each site that would be used (a) by the applicant to select the proposed site, and (b) by the reviewer to determine the possible existence of an obviously superior site. (8) Recognize that there will be special cases in which the proposed site was not selected on the basis of a systematic site-selection process. Examples include plants proposed to be constructed on the site of October 1999 9.3-7 NUREG-1555 an existing nuclear power plant previously found acceptable on the basis of a NEPA review and/or demonstrated to be environmentally satisfactory on the basis of operating experience, and sites assigned or allocated to an applicant by a State government from a list of State-approved power-plant sites. For such cases, the reviewer should analyze the applicant’s site-selection process only as it applies to candidate sites other than the proposed site, and the site-comparison process may be restricted to a site-by-site comparison of these candidates with the proposed site. As a corollary, all nuclear power plant sites within the identified region of interest having an operating nuclear power plant or a construction permit issued by the NRC should be compared with the applicant’s proposed site. (9) If it appears from the staff’s review of the region that there may be an obviously superior site, the reviewer should alert the EPM to this finding. The following analysis procedure should be used by the