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:
dered 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) or where economic costs are greater than those of the proposed system, a tentative conclusion that the alternative is superior should lead to consultation with the EPM and with the appropriate ESRP Chapter 4.0 and 5.0 reviewers. If this consultation establishes that the benefit-cost balances of such alternatives are no more than equivalent to the proposed system, the alternatives should not receive further consideration. When alternatives have significantly decreased benefits or increased economic costs, they should be rejected for any further consideration as alternatives to the proposed systems. October 1999 9.4.2-15 NUREG-1555 IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS This section of the EIS should meet the following objectives: (1) description of alternative circulating water systems considered and results of the staff’s analysis of these alternatives, (2) presentation of the basis for the staff’s analysis, and (3) presentation of the staff’s conclusions relative to alternative circulating water systems. The reviewer should prepare input describing the review and analysis of each alternative intake system, discharge system, water supply, and water treatment system. If desired, each input may be prepared as a separate EIS section (e.g., 9.4.2.1, “Alternative Intake Systems”). Each input to the EIS should normally describe (1) those alternatives considered, (2) those alternatives rejected by the staff as being inappropri- ate for the proposed site, (3) the staff’s analysis and comparison of potentially appropriate alternatives seeking environmentally preferable alternatives to the proposed system, and (4) the staff’s conclusions for consideration of alternative systems. The reviewer should discuss briefly those alternatives rejected because of specific deficiencies and