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:
ower plant at a site that was not selected on the basis of a systematic site-selection process (e.g., at the site of an existing nuclear power plant or a site identified by the State). In such a case, the applicant should still follow the process shown in Figure 9-1 for the selection of alternative sites. The site comparison should be performed in such a case by comparing each of the alternative sites to the proposed site. DG-4026, Page 140 In general, the applicant should consider the same plant design (e.g., cooling-system design and transmission-line voltage) at all of the alternative sites. However, changes to the design may be considered on a site-specific basis if the proposed design could not be used. The applicant’s review should also take account of the reactor site criteria in 10 CFR Part 100 and RG 4.7. The applicant should state in the ER whether any of the alternative sites would be environmentally preferable to the proposed site, and provide an explanation for the determination. An environmentally preferred site is a site for which the environmental impacts are sufficiently less than for the proposed site, so that environmental preference for the alternative site can be established. For any environmentally preferable site, the applicant should indicate whether it is obviously superior to the proposed site. Whereas the evaluation for an environmentally preferable site considers only environmental impacts, the determination whether a site is obviously superior also considers costs and institutional constraints. Costs should include any additional costs associated with building and operating the proposed unit(s) at the environmentally preferable site. These costs could include items such as the cost of (1) modifying the plant design, (2) additional grading and fill, (3) ecological and cultural resource surveys, (4) the ongoing cost of establishing and operating a new emergency plan (if the proposed site already has such a plan in place), (5) the cost of