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:
ical 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 biological resources, including endangered species ` terrestrial resources and land uses, including endangered species, and areas requiring special consideration ` transmission corridors ` socioeconomic factors, including aesthetics, archaeological and historic preservation, and environmental justice ` population distribution and density ` facility costs ` institutional constraints, as they affect site availability ` additional public concerns. The reviewer should determine how this information was used to predict site-specific impacts, and how the impacts were assembled for a site-to-site comparison. The reviewer should analyze the cost data associated with site acquisition, environmental review, site preparation, and plant construction and should determine how these data were compared. (4) The reviewer’s evaluation of the individual elements of the applicant’s site-selection process should include consideration of both the process (i.e., methodology) used by the applicant and the reasonableness of the product (e.g., potential sites) identified by that process. Evaluation procedures and criteria should include the following: (a) Objectives and Procedures—The reviewer should ensure that the applicant’s site-selection process was based on a documented procedure that includes as a minimum those elements described in the “Review Procedures” of this ESRP. (b) Region of Interest—The reviewer should ensure that the selected region of interest has been adequately described and that its boundaries are consistent with those factors (e.g., deficient power areas) outlined in the “Review Procedures” of this ESRP. In making this determination, the reviewer should consider (1) how the applicant’s ROI compares with the available geographical area, (2) the extent