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:
costs exceed those of the proposed system, a conclusion to further consider the alter- native should lead to consultation with the Environmental Project Manager and with the appro- priate ESRP Chapter 4.0 and 5.0 reviewers. If this conclusion establishes that the benefit-cost balances of such alternatives are no more than equivalent to the proposed system, the alternatives October 1999 9.4.3-13 NUREG-1555 should not be considered further. When alternatives have significantly decreased benefits or increased economic costs, they should be rejected for any further consideration as replacements for the proposed system. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Data for the EIS should meet the following objectives: (1) description of the alternative transmission corridor routes and system design, construction, and maintenance practices that were considered and results of the staff’s analysis of these alternatives, (2) presentation of the basis for the staff’s analysis, and (3) presentation of the staff’s conclusions. The reviewer should prepare separate descriptions with respect to the review and analysis of each alter- native route and alternative system design. If desired, each item may be prepared as a separate EIS section, (e.g., 9.4.3.1, Alternative Routes). Each item should normally describe (1) those alternatives considered by the staff, (2) those alternatives rejected by the staff as being inappropriate for the proposed project, (3) the staff’s analysis and comparison of potentially appropriate alternatives seeking environ- mentally preferable alternatives to the proposed system or component, and (4) the staff’s conclusions. For alternative routes, the reviewers should also briefly describe the applicant’s process for identifying and evaluating alternative routes and the staff’s conclusion with respect to the merits of the procedure. The reviewer should discuss briefly those alternatives rejected because of specific deficiencies and state why the alternatives were