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:
d potential recreational benefits of each alternative system with those of the proposed system. The reviewer should consult with the reviewers for ESRPs 2.5, 3.1, and 5.8 for assistance in making this comparison. (7) Operating and Maintenance Experience—Compare operating and maintenance experience of each alternative with the proposed system to develop a projected reliability factor for each system. (8) Generating Efficiency—Estimate the plant electrical generation efficiency for each alternative heat dissipation system and compare it with the generating efficiency using the proposed system. (9) Costs—Estimate the capital, operating, and maintenance costs for the proposed system and for each alternative considered. The reviewer should use these figures for economic-cost comparisons. The reviewer should determine if there are any site-specific factors that might affect the costs of any alternative and factor these additional costs into the comparison. (10) Other Considerations—When an alternative heat dissipation system will involve the use of intake or discharge systems that would be substantially different from the proposed system, repeat these NUREG-1555 9.4.1-8 October 1999 procedures for both intake and discharge systems. This should supplement the appropriate environmental and economic-cost factors, as needed, to account for any differing intake and discharge system effects. The reviewer should consult with the reviewer for ESRP 9.4.2. The reviewer should ensure that each heat dissipation system alternative has been described in sufficient detail to enable an effective analysis and comparison of environmental impacts leading to a staff conclusion that the alternative system is environmentally preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the proposed system. For those alternatives determined to be environmentally preferable, the reviewer should ensure that economic-cost data are available in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to conduct benefit-cost