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:
t adverse impacts) should be the baseline system against which alternative heat dissipation systems are 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. This should permit staff evaluation and conclusions with respect to the environmental preference or equivalence of these alternatives. When no adverse impacts have been predicted for the proposed system, the review should be limited to an analysis of alternative heat dissipation systems in the depth necessary to judge their environmental equivalence to the applicant’s proposed system. When environmentally preferable alternatives have been identified, the review should be expanded to consider the economic costs of any such alternative. This analysis should be done in consultation with appropriate ESRP 10.4 reviewers. Assistance from these reviewers should be requested to establish the economic-cost data to be used to develop a benefit-cost comparison with the baseline (proposed) heat dissipation system. The reviewer should consider the following classes of heat dissipation systems (additional systems, e.g., a combined tower/pond system, may be considered when site-specific conditions suggest that such a system would be environmentally preferable to the proposed system): ` once through systems ` closed cycle systems: - mechanical draft wet cooling towers (including circular towers) - natural draft cooling towers (including fan assisted towers) - wet dry cooling towers - dry cooling towers - cooling ponds - spray ponds. The reviewer should consider these alternatives for construction and operation at the applicant’s proposed site. The analysis should include intake- and discharge-system environmental impacts (and economic costs) when these systems would need to be substantially different than those associated with the proposed heat dissipation system. The reviewer should conduct an