Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: b0a0b132-269c-48c5-ac4c-6f67298c2f61
Document Type: esrp
Title: TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
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: 9.4.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
construction, and main- tenance should be based on summaries made by the appropriate ESRP Chapter 4.0 and 5.0 reviewers for alternative actions to mitigate predicted impacts. As a general rule, these alter- native designs, practices, and procedures will fall within the categories listed in “Data and Information Needs” in this ESRP. The following guidance should be considered when reviewing these alternatives: ` Alternative voltage levels and/or DC versus AC transmission should only be considered when (1) the reviewer for ESRP 5.6.3 predicts a significant impact associated with the proposed voltage levels and frequency that cannot be mitigated by other alternatives (e.g., increased conductor-to-ground clearance, alternative routes) and (2) the alternatives are consistent with service area and regional transmission network characteristics. ` Alternative tower designs, tower heights, conductor-to-ground clearances, conductor designs, and right-of-way widths should be considered when the reviewers for ESRPs 5.6.1 through 5.6.3 predict adverse transmission system impacts (e.g., aesthetic impacts, electric fields, shock hazards) that could be mitigated by alternatives to these design parameters. ` Underground placement should be considered only for unusual circumstances in which the costs associated with this practice can be justified. ` Alternative construction practices should be considered when advised by the reviewers for ESRPs 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4. Typical alternatives to be considered include methods for vegetation clearing; erosion control; revegetation; access road design and use, tower locations, foundations, and installation; conductor installation; type and amount of equipment in use; and timing of construction activities. (b) The reviewer should consider alternative maintenance practices, particularly with respect to corridor maintenance, when the proposed methods can be predicted to have adverse impacts NUREG-1555 9.4.3-10 October 1999 associated with, for