Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: f0baf50b-5bb7-4783-b2f9-9586e09c97e1
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations + HISTORY - HISTORY 02/2017 – DG-4026 , Proposed Revision 3 09/2014 – Periodic Review of Revision 2 – Revise (Rev. 3)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 4
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1611/ML16116A068.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-4.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
tion on system design alternatives for the heat-dissipation and circulating-water systems. Specific information to include in the ER is covered in the following subsections. 9.4.1 Heat Dissipation The applicant should discuss alternatives to the proposed heat-dissipation system at the proposed site. Alternatives that should be considered include once-through cooling, mechanical draft wet cooling towers, natural draft cooling towers (including fan assisted towers), wet/dry cooling towers, dry cooling towers, cooling ponds, and spray ponds. The applicant should assess, and document in the ER, whether each alternative (1) is feasible and practical given conditions at the proposed site, and (2) could meet the requirements of Section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and associated Federal and State implementing regulations. For alternatives which satisfy those two criteria, information should be included in the ER that compares the environmental impacts of the proposed heat-dissipation system with the alternative system(s). If an alternative system is found to be environmentally preferable to the proposed system, comparative information on the estimated capital and operating cost of the proposed system vs. the estimated capital and operating cost of the environmentally preferable system should be included in the ER. The applicant should state the basis for choosing the proposed system over the environmentally preferable system. 9.4.2 Circulating-Water System Alternatives The applicant should discuss alternatives to the proposed circulating-water system at the proposed site. The evaluation should address alternatives for the intake, discharge, water-supply, and water- treatment portions of the system. Applicants should assess, and document in the ER, whether each alternative (1) is feasible and practical given conditions at the proposed site, and (2) could meet the requirements of Section 316 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and associated