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:
Act is required. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS NUREG-1555 5.3.3.2-6 October 1999 Input to the EIS should accomplish the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of any expected impact to the terrestrial ecosystem as a result of the operation of the heat dissipation system, (2) presentation of the basis of staff analysis of the project, and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, evaluations, and conditions regarding terrestrial ecosystems. These conclusions should include ` a list of adverse impacts of cooling-system heat dissipation to terrestrial ecosystems ` a list of the impacts for which there are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and associated measures and controls ` the applicant’s commitments to limit these impacts ` the staff’s evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant’s measures and controls to limit adverse impacts. This information should be summarized by the reviewer for ESRP 5.10. Evaluation of impacts should result in one of the following conclusions: ` The impact is minor, and mitigation is not warranted. If the degree of impact falls into the first order category (a few hours of icing or fogging each year or a few kilograms of salt drift per hectare per year), the reviewer may conclude that these impacts are not of sufficient magnitude to warrant further evaluation. ` The impact is adverse, but can be mitigated by design and procedure modifications. If the degree of impact falls within the second-order category (a few tens of hours per year increase in fog or ice or a few tens of kilograms of salt drift deposition per hectare per year), the reviewer may conclude that the effects are adverse and that mitigating actions should be considered. For these cases, the reviewer should consult with the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) and the reviewer for ESRP 9.4.1 for verification that the modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications