Use by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the Obviously Superior Criterion for Alternative Sites
Abstract
In its consideration of alternative sites for new nuclear power plants, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses a standard that the applicant’s proposed site will
not be
rejected in favor of an alternative site unless the NRC staff determines that the
alternative site is
“obviously superior” to the proposed site1. In this paper I will summarize the historical
development of this standard and how this standard has fared in the courts. I will
then examine
the extent to which this standard complies with the requirements of National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended2 and the associated regulations published by
the
Council on Environmental Quality3. I will also examine how the standard compares to
the
approaches used by other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which
uses a
standard of the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative). In conclusion,
I will
discuss whether the NRC should consider modifying the standard either because of challenges
to
its past implementation, or foreseeable changes in future implementation.
Type
ReportPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/9559Citation
Kugler, Andrew J. (2015). Use by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the Obviously Superior Criterion
for Alternative Sites. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/9559.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program Capstone Papers
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info