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:
anagement Act of 1972 (amended 1992) ` Endangered Species Act of 1973 (amended 1988) ` Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 ` Marine Mammal Protection Act (amended 1994) ` Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (amended 1995) NUREG-1555 9.4.2-6 October 1999 Regulatory positions and specific criteria necessary to meet the regulations identified above are as follows: ` Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations (NRC 1976), with respect to alternative systems designs ` Memorandum of Understanding for the Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants (40 FR 37110) with respect to the NRC exercising primary responsibility for the conduct of EISs for nuclear power plants ` Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulations on water use, air and water quality, effluent discharge, and land use. Technical Rationale The technical rationale for evaluating alternatives to the applicant’s proposed circulating water 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 cooling water circulation to determine whether 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 procedure are (1) to provide assistance to those ESRP Chapter 4.0 and 5.0 reviewers concerned with construction or operational circulating water system impacts in identifying and verifying means to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the proposed circulating water systems and (2) to identify and analyze reasonable alternatives to the applicant’s proposed systems to the extent needed to rank them from an environmental standpoint as preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the applicant’s proposed system. The depth