Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: 71e35073-327e-4683-aa43-b361ce1d32b0
Document Type: esrp
Title: HEAT DISSIPATION 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: 9.4.1
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants (40 FR 37110, August 25, 1975) with respect to locating structures affecting navigable waters. ` Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies, on water use, air and water quality, effluent discharge, and land use. Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating alternatives to the applicant’s heat dissipation systems is discussed in the following paragraph: The consideration of alternatives is the essence of the NEPA process. The review conducted under this ESRP section contributes to the consideration of alternatives by addressing alternative means of heat dissipation to determine if there is an obviously superior method in terms of environmental impacts and economic costs when compared to the proposed system. III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The principal objectives of this analysis are (1) to provide assistance to the reviewers for ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 concerned with construction or operational heat dissipation system impacts in identifying and verifying means to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the proposed heat dissipation system and (2) to identify and analyze reasonable alternatives to the applicant’s proposed system to the extent needed to rank them, from an environmental standpoint, as preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the applicant’s proposed system. October 1999 9.4.1-5 NUREG-1555 The depth of the analysis should be governed by the nature and magnitude of proposed heat dissipation system impacts predicted by the reviews of ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0. If adverse impacts are predicted, the reviewers should coordinate in identifying and analyzing means to mitigate these impacts. The proposed system with any verified mitigation schemes (i.e., measures and controls to limit adverse impacts) should be the baseline system against which alternative heat dissipation systems are compared. The nature and adversity of the remaining unmitigated impacts for this baseline system