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:
pecies of concern ` Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 with respect to marine and other restricted habitats ` National Historic Preservation Act with respect to avoiding historic properties in site selection ` Executive Order 12898 with respect to location of minority and low-income populations. ` The Federal sources included in Table 4.1.1-1. Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the acceptance criteria include: ` Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations (NRC 1976), with respect to alternative suitable plant sites ` Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office Letter No. 906, Revision 1, with respect to methods for including environmental justice in site selection. NRR Office Letter No. 906 is revised periodically. Obtain the latest revision for current guidance. ` Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. 2, General Site Suitability for Nuclear Power Stations (NRC 1998), with respect to evaluating site selection in terms of ecological systems, biota, and environmental justice (a) See Appendix B to this ESRP for a checklist of selection process factors. October 1999 9.3-5 NUREG-1555 ` Other Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal acts, ordinances, requirements, and standards for land use, water use, water quality, and air quality ` State siting laws ` The Louisiana Energy Service Claiborne Enrichment Center decision. Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s alternative sites is discussed in the following paragraph: The consideration of alternatives is the essence of the NEPA process. The review conducted under this ESRP section contributes to the consideration of alternatives by addressing alternative sites to determine if there 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: