Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: 16604a64-6695-4720-bec2-ad1221e0c8df
Document Type: esrp
Title: PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF STATION OPERATION
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 5
Section ID: 5.8.1
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ite is remote from communities and does not represent a visual intrusion, and it is found that the applicant can operate in compliance with appropriate guides and standards, then these facts should be stated with only a very brief discussion noting that under these conditions physical socioeconomic impacts should be minor. If the foregoing conditions are not met, or if there are no applicable standards, then predicted impacts should be described along with conclusions regarding the significance of the effect on the community. Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations: • The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement of the following type: The staff reviewed the available information on the operations of the proposed facility. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant physical socioeconomic impacts as a result of plant operations. • The impact is adverse, but can be mitigated by design or procedure modifications that the reviewer has identified and determined to be practical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager and the reviewers for ESRP 9.4 to verify that the reviewer’s NUREG-1555 5.8.1-6 October 1999 proposed modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and identified measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10. • The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewers for ESRPs 9.3 and 9.4 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative sites, designs, or procedures is needed. The reviewer should participate in any such analysis and