Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: bb616171-a9c1-425d-8f63-9e4785e3b255
Document Type: esrp
Title: POWER SUPPLY
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 8
Section ID: 8.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
reements for the year of application and for each subsequent year through the 3rd year of commercial operation of the proposed project. NUREG-1555 8.3-4 October 1999 II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for the review of the relevant region’s power supply are based on the relevant requirements of the following: ` 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(4), with respect to discussion of the no-action alternative in NRC environmental impact statements (EISs) ` 10 CFR 51.71(d) with respect to analysis of alternatives ` 10 CFR 51.71(e) with respect to weighing the costs and benefits of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows: ` Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations (NRC 1976), with respect to descriptions of the power system additions, retirements, etc. Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s power supply is discussed in the following paragraphs: The NRC’s regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 10 CFR 51 include Appendix A, containing the format for presentation of material in EISs. Section 4 of Appendix A specifically requires that the no-action alternative be discussed in an NRC EIS. The review conducted under ESRP 8.3 will aid this analysis by providing information to enable an analysis to be made under ESRP 8.4 of the need for power from the proposed power plant. NRC’s regulations implementing NEPA also include 10 CFR 51.71, which specifies the content requirements for draft EISs. It is stated in 10 CFR 51.71(d) that a draft EIS is to include “a preliminary analysis which considers and balances the environmental and other effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental and other effects.” In addition to providing input for analysis of the no-action alternative, the