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:
commended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA Section 102(2)(E) (42 U.S.C. 4321)). To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be presented in comparative form (10 CFR 51.45(b)(3)). A key aspect of the alternatives analysis is that the alternatives presented in the ER should be capable of meeting the purpose and need of the proposed project. Assume, as an example, that the purpose and need for the project includes generating approximately 1,500 MWe of baseload power by the year 2030 in the region of interest (ROI). Then an alternative that cannot generate approximately 1,500 MWe of baseload power, or cannot be in service by year 2030, or cannot effectively deliver power to the ROI, cannot meet the purpose and need and should not be retained as an alternative. For example, a given project will have its own unique purpose and need statement. Some projects may have very different statements of the purpose and need; however, any alternative that will be evaluated must meet the purpose and need. Another key aspect of this analysis is that the alternatives presented in the ER should be reasonable17 as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (46 FR 18026) (Ref. 93). In other words, there should be a reasonable expectation that the alternative could be implemented. For example, if a proposed plant requires 60 Mgd of cooling water, then an alternative site for which no such source exists or is likely to be developed is not a reasonable alternative. As another example, it is theoretically possible to generate electricity using a fusion reactor. However, as of the date of publication, commercial power generation with a fusion reactor is no closer to reality than it was 30 years ago. So fusion power is not a reasonable alternative. While these are extreme examples, they illustrate the point that to be considered an