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:
tial significant impacts to spawning grounds or nursery areas of populations of important aquatic species on Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal lists. ` Discharges of effluents into waterways should be in accordance with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulations and would not adversely impact efforts to meet water-quality objectives. ` There would be no preemption of or adverse impacts on land specially designated for environmental, recreational, or other special purposes. ` There would not be any potential significant impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including wetlands, which are unique to the resource area. ` Population density and numbers conform to 10 CFR 100. ` There are no other significant issues that affect costs by more than 5% or that preclude the use of the site. (d) Screening Process—The reviewer should determine if an adequate, well documented process for screening candidate sites was employed, and that all potential sites were screened in a consistent manner. The reviewer should consider all screening criteria employed by the applicant in light of the objective of this process (i.e., to identify potentially licensable sites). The reviewer should compare the applicant’s procedures with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 4.7 and, when inconsistent, should coordinate with the EPM to determine the reasons for the variances. NUREG-1555 9.3-10 October 1999 Based on reconnaissance level information, the reviewer should determine if the candidate sites identified by the screening process may be considered as potentially licensable and should also determine that there is reasonable assurance that no potential alternative sites in this category have been omitted. Although there can be no specific criteria for determining that an adequate number of candidate sites have been identified, the reviewer should make such a determination, based on the ROI, the number of