Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: 16efba2d-597d-4734-84e7-046c257d75c3
Document Type: esrp
Title: HEAT-DISCHARGE SYSTEM
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 5
Section ID: 5.3.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
nt of ground level fogging and icing - annual and/or monthly amount of drift deposition in gm/m2 or drift concentration in mg/m3 - cloud development and cloud shadowing - weather modification in terms of increased precipitation - humidity increase - interaction of the heat dissipation system plume with existing pollutants. Predictions should be compared with recorded climatological data and observations from operating sites with similar climatological features. Evaluation of each identified impact should result in one of the following determinations: ` The impact is minor, and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer should include a statement in the EIS of the following type: The staff reviewed the available information on heat dissipation to the atmosphere from cooling system operation. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts. ` The impact is adverse, but can be mitigated by design or procedure modifications that the reviewer has identified and determined to be practical. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager and the reviewer for ESRP 9.3.1 for verification that the reviewer’s modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists should be provided to the reviewer for ESRP 5.10. ` The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should inform the reviewer for ESRP 9.3.1 that an evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is required. The reviewer should participate in any such evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer should provide