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:
appears from the staff’s review of the region that there may be an obviously superior site, the reviewer should alert the EPM to this finding. The following analysis procedure should be used by the reviewer: (1) Criteria should be developed for both construction and operational impacts, the criteria should consider both the site and vicinity and any needed transmission corridors. The reviewer should analyze the applicant’s selection criteria from the viewpoint of their applicability to a wide variety of candidate sites, their value in permitting comparisons of potential impacts, and the practicality of obtaining the required data. (2) In analyzing the site-selection process, the reviewer should consider how the impact data were obtained, how they were applied to each candidate site, and how the comparisons between sites were made. As a general rule, the EPM and specific reviewers for appropriate technical disciplines (e.g., land use, hydrology) should make an onsite inspection of each proposed alternative site. If necessary, this inspection may be extended to all alternative sites. The reviewer should determine the extent to which the following basic sources of impact information were used: ` review of the literature ` reports from Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies such as State geological agencies, EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, or county extension offices ` regional scientific, engineering, economic, and planning studies ` aerial photographs and topographic maps of candidate sites ` site-specific information from local citizens and from authorities associated with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies, universities, and museums ` onsite inspections (if any) by technical specialists. (3) The reviewer should consider the following topics addressed by the applicant in the ER: NUREG-1555 9.3-8 October 1999 ` hydrology, water quality, and water availability ` aquatic