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:
re is an obviously superior site in terms of environmental impacts and economic costs when compared to the proposed site. III. REVIEW PROCEDURES This review should accomplish the following objectives: (1) a brief description and evaluation of the applicant’s process for evaluating alternative sites,(a) (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions regarding alternatives to the proposed site. The fact that State authorities have approved the environmental acceptability of a site or a project after extensive and thorough environmentally sensitive hearings is properly entitled to “substantial weight” in this review. The review involves a two-part sequential test for obvious superiority. The first stage of the test determines whether there are environmentally preferred sites among the candidate sites. The second stage of the test considers economics, technology, and institutional factors among the environmentally preferred sites to see if any is obviously superior. If there is no environmentally preferred or obviously superior site, the proposed site prevails; if an obviously superior site is found, the reviewer must identify this site and consult with the Environmental Project Manager (EPM). The staff analysis of alternative sites is a critical element of the environmental review. However, a staff conclusion that an alternative site is obviously superior to the applicant’s proposed site should normally lead to a recommendation that the application be denied. (a) The environmental review of alternative sites should include all major aspects of environmental impacts of construction and operation, economic costs, and safety considerations. Accordingly, the activities and inputs of reviewers for all of the above technical disciplines should be required in the conduct of this review. “Reviewer,” as used in this ESRP, refers to any discipline that may be affected. NUREG-1555 9.3-6 October 1999 Under the general