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:
rnatives 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 of the analysis should be governed by the nature and magnitude of proposed circulating water system impacts predicted by the ESRP Chapter 4.0 and 5.0 reviewers. When adverse impacts are predicted, the reviewer should coordinate with these reviewers 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 circulating water systems will be compared. The nature and adversity of the remaining unmitigated impacts for this baseline system should establish the level of analysis required in the review of alternative systems to permit staff evaluation and conclusions with respect to the environmental preference or equivalence of these alternatives. If no adverse impacts have been predicted for the proposed system, the review should be limited to an analysis of alternative circulating water systems in the depth necessary to judge their environmental equivalence to the applicant’s proposed system. (a) Alternative heat dissipation systems are the subject of ESRP 9.4.1. When the reviewer of that section considers potential alternative heat dissipation systems that involve circulating water system components other than those proposed, the reviewer of this plan should provide assistance in determining appropriate circulating water system components for such heat dissipation systems. October 1999 9.4.2-7 NUREG-1555 When environmentally preferable alternatives have been identified, the review should be expanded to consider the economic costs of any such alternative. The reviewer should estimate the capital, operating, and maintenance costs for each circulating water system component considered and for each