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:
ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 to miti- gate adverse environmental impacts predicted for the proposed transmission system, the reviewer’s verification of the desirability of the measure should reach the following conclusions: ` The measure provides the desired mitigation and does not introduce other adverse environ- mental impacts not predicted for the proposed system. ` The measure will result in an overall benefit-cost balance equivalent to, or better than, that of the proposed project. ` The measure is not precluded by Federal, State, regional, local, or affected Native American tribal regulations or ordinances. (3) Alternative Transmission Systems (a) The initial step in the evaluation of those alternative transmission systems identified by the analysis procedure of this ESRP should be to categorize these systems as environmentally pref- erable, equivalent, or inferior to the proposed transmission system as modified by measures and controls to limit adverse impacts. The following criteria should be applied to this evaluation: ` When the reviewer determines that the proposed system (with mitigation measures, if necessary) will have no unavoidable adverse impacts and will comply with applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulations or requirements, the reviewer should conclude that there is no environmentally preferable transmission system alternative. When this conclusion is reached, the reviewer should evaluate the alternatives to identify those that may be considered environmentally equivalent. For this condition, environmental equivalence means that an alternative has no unavoidable adverse impacts and meets applicable regulatory requirements. The reviewer should not indicate a preference between environmentally equivalent alternatives, nor should a benefit-cost analysis be made when this condition prevails. Alternatives having unavoidable adverse environmental impacts or that do not meet regulatory requirements should