Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: f52daa09-fd60-41f5-a4d7-437161ee5649
Document Type: esrp
Title: CIRCULATING WATER 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: 9.4.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary—Appendix B Secondary—Appendix B I. AREAS OF REVIEW This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) directs the staff’s analysis of alternatives to the applicant’s proposed circulating water systems. This includes evaluation of alternatives, in comparison with the proposed system, to identify those systems that are (1) environmentally preferable to the proposed system and (2) environmentally equivalent to the proposed system. Environmentally preferable alternatives should be compared with the proposed system on a benefit-cost basis to determine if any such system should be considered as a preferred alternative to the proposed system.(a) The scope of the review directed by this plan should be limited to alternative circulating water systems considered feasible for construction and operation at the proposed plant site and that (1) are not prohibited by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agreements, (2) are consistent with any of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA) findings, and (3) can be judged as practical from a technical standpoint with respect to the proposed dates of plant construction and operation. This review should also include the investigation of alternatives proposed by other reviewers to mitigate impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed circulating water system. The review should include (1) alternative intake designs and locations, NUREG-1555 9.4.2-2 October 1999 (2) alternative discharge designs and locations, (3) alternative water supplies, and (4) alternative water treatment. The reviewer should consider the kind and magnitude of environmental impacts and the efficiencies and economics of the alternatives. This plan provides the basis for staff conclusions with respect to the environmental preference or equivalence of alternative