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:
the applicant is unable to provide precise candidate site boundaries, and if the reviewer determines that the reasons for this are valid, the reviewer should evaluate the general site area instead. ` Environmental Descriptions—The reviewer should determine that environmental descriptions for the alternative sites are adequate to assess environmental impacts of plant construction and operation, and that the basic sources of information described in Section III of this plan have been used to provide these data. The reviewer should determine if all sources of information reasonably available to the reviewer and providing useful environmental description data were used. ` Site Comparison—The reviewer should determine that the applicant’s final site-selection process is reasonable, makes full use of the candidate site data available, and presents the data in a manner that permits valid comparisons between sites. The objective of this evaluation of the applicant’s process is not to determine that the applicant has selected the best site (since on the basis of previous evaluations, the reviewer has determined those candidate sites that can reasonably be expected to be licensable), but is to determine if any candidate site can be judged as obviously superior to the applicant’s proposed site. The criterion for making this determination is that one or more important aspects, either singly or October 1999 9.3-11 NUREG-1555 in combination, of a reasonably available alternative site are obviously superior to the corresponding aspects of the applicant’s proposed site, and the alternative site does not have offsetting deficiencies. Because reviewer judgment is required for the decision that a site attribute is obviously superior, any such conclusion must be supported by the corresponding ESRP Chapters 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 reviewers. The reviewer need not establish or confirm a relative ranking of candidate sites, but must determine by means of one-by-one comparisons that