Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: f0baf50b-5bb7-4783-b2f9-9586e09c97e1
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations + HISTORY - HISTORY 02/2017 – DG-4026 , Proposed Revision 3 09/2014 – Periodic Review of Revision 2 – Revise (Rev. 3)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 4
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1611/ML16116A068.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-4.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
and fill, (3) ecological and cultural resource surveys, (4) the ongoing cost of establishing and operating a new emergency plan (if the proposed site already has such a plan in place), (5) the cost of obtaining the alternative site, and (6) the cost of any delay associated with changing sites. Institutional constraints could include items such as (1) known objections of regulatory agencies, (2) grid stability issues at the alternative site, (3) lack of franchise privileges and eminent domain powers, (4) the need to restructure existing financial and business arrangements, and (5) the feasibility of obtaining the alternative site. For background, see Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155 (1978)” (Ref. 98), Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al. (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-471, 7 NRC 477 (1978)” (Ref. 99); and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, (1st Cir. 1978) (Ref. 100). If the applicant were to determine that an alternative site was obviously superior to the proposed site, then the NRC staff expects that the applicant would modify its choice of the site. If the applicant determines that an environmentally preferable site is not obviously superior to the proposed site, then the ER should explain in detail the bases for that conclusion. If the proposed action requires an individual permit from the USACE, then USACE will perform its own analysis to determine whether the proposed site is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) using criteria in 40 CFR, Part 230, Section 404(b)(1), “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (Ref. 101). While the USACE evaluation of the LEDPA site, and the NRC staff’s evaluation as to whether there is an obviously superior alternative site considers similar factors, there are some differences in the focuses of the two evaluations. Regardless, experience has shown that early coordination