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:
This consultation should result in a joint determination of the status of any such alternative. - Environmental equivalence will be established when an alternative that meets CWA require- ments can be shown to have unavoidable adverse impacts of the same or equivalent nature and magnitude as those of the proposed system. - Environmental inferiority will be established when an alternative can be shown to have unavoid- able adverse impacts that are more severe in both nature and magnitude than those of the proposed system or that will not meet CWA requirements. When the reviewer determines that there are environmentally preferable alternatives to the proposed circulating water system, the reviewer should conduct those portions of the analysis instructions of this ESRP that deal with the economic costs of the alternative systems. When environmentally preferable alternative circulating water systems have been identified, the reviewer should ensure that economic-cost data have been developed for the alternatives and that these data are adequate for a benefit-cost balancing and comparison with the proposed system. This portion of the evaluation procedure should be conducted with the assistance of appropriate reviewers for ESRPs 10.4.1 through 10.4.3. The reviewer should complete the economic and reliability portions of Table 9.4.2-1. On the basis of the completed table, the reviewer should balance and compare benefits and costs of the environmentally preferable alternative(s) with those of the proposed system. When an environmentally preferable alternative can be shown to have the same or greater benefits in terms of electrical output as the proposed system with comparable reliability and at the same or lesser economic costs, the reviewer may conclude that it should be considered as an alternative to the proposed system. For those cases in which benefits of the alternative are less than those of the proposed system (e.g., lower electrical output or decreased reliability)