Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: 2654196f-c25a-40d1-8edc-e828353b6377
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Standard Format and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste + HISTORY - HISTORY 04/1982 – Draft WM 013-4
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 4
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1218/ML12187A698.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-4.18
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
and such as agriculture, recreation, residences, or industry should be noted. 6. The availability of a labor pool for facility operation within commuting distance should be estimated. 8.2 Selection of Candidate Site Alternatives At this point, the number of suitable areas will have been reduced, making possible the investigation of a limited number of alternative sites. These alter- native sites and their corresponding general facility design features should be briefly described. The description should include site plans indicating loca- tions considered for the near-surface disposal of particular types of radioactive 36 waste and any transportation considerations that significantly affect site desirability. The criteria to be used in selecting the candidate site alternatives are similar to the criteria used in selecting candidate areas, as described in Section 8.1. Application of these criteria in greater depth will be required, however, since the relative merits of the various sites may be less obvious than those of the aggregate areas in which they are located. The applicant should conduct preliminary reconnaissance-type environmental investigations at alternative sites. Detailed engineering design studies are not necessary for all alternative sites. However, conceptual designs and trans- portation route studies are appropriate. Provide a discussion of whether the alternatives will comply with appli- cable Federal, State, and local environmental quality standards and requirements. 8.3 Analysis of Candidate Site Alternatives An analysis of realistic alternatives in terms of both economic and environ- mental costs should be made to show why the proposed site is preferred over all other candidate site alternatives. In presenting the analysis, insofar as possible, a tabular format showing side-by-side comparison of alternatives with respect to selection criteria should be used. Quantification may not be possible for all factors because of the lack of adequate data or