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:
For those alternatives determined to be environmentally preferable, the reviewer should ensure that economic-cost data are available in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to conduct benefit-cost balance and comparisons with the proposed system leading to a final staff conclusion for heat dissipation-system consideration. The reviewer should also ensure that all comparisons are made on the basis of the proposed system as supplemented with those measures and controls to limit adverse impacts proposed by the applicant and concurred with by the staff. For those alternatives eliminated from consideration on the basis of land-use, water-use, or legislative restrictions, the reviewer should ensure that adequate documented justification for this action has been prepared. (1) General Considerations—If a mitigation measure or alternative heat dissipation system is to be considered, determine that the measure or system being evaluated has a lesser overall environmental impact than the proposed system (i.e., is environmentally preferable). When this is true, the economic costs of mitigation or of the alternative could result in an equivalent or improved project benefit-cost balance. When these criteria are met, the reviewer should verify those mitigation measures proposed by the reviewers for ESRP Chapters 4.0 and 5.0 or should consider an alternative heat dissipation system. The reviewer should be guided by the following general considerations: ` Keep in mind that an environmental review of alternative heat dissipation systems, if conducted in the depth applied to the review of the proposed system, would be expected to find additional impacts and/or increased severity of the impacts already predicted for the alternative. The reviewer should allow for this when evaluating the comparative environmental impacts of each proposed alternative with those of the proposed system. ` Ensure that the level of detail provided for each economic, environmental, and social cost