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:
er 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 with the USACE on issues related to siting and LEDPA, will reduce the likelihood of significant problems and delays during the review. In addition, because the NRC staff and USACE staff will both review the information in the applications to the NRC (the ER) and the USACE, the applicant should ensure that the information provided in these documents is consistent. The following sections describe the specific resource area information that should be provided for each alternative site. The impacts described in Chapter 6 of the ER (e.g., nuclear fuel cycle, decommissioning), would not vary significantly from one site to another. Typically, all of the alternative sites and the proposed site are in low-population areas, and the review team assumes the same reactor plant design is applicable for each of the sites. Therefore, the same fuel cycle technology, transportation methods, and decommissioning methods would be used. Because of this, these impacts would not differentiate between the sites and would not be useful in the determination of whether an alternative site DG-4026, Page 141 is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. For this reason, these impacts are not discussed in the evaluation of the alternative sites. Similarly, the nonradiological waste impacts described in Chapters 4, and 5 would not vary significantly from one site to another. The types and quantities of nonradiological waste would be about the same at any of the alternative sites. For each alternative site, all wastes destined for land-based treatment or disposal would be transported offsite by licensed contractors to existing, licensed disposal facilities operating in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. All nonradioactive liquid discharges would be discharged