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:
` compliance with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal regulations or requirements ` capital costs, annual operating and maintenance costs, and total annual costs. (f) Compare the proposed system with those remaining classes of alternatives not eliminated in an initial screening. Use a format similar to that shown in Tables 9.4.2-1 and 9.4.2-5. General Considerations The reviewer should ensure that each circulating water system alternative has been described in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to make an effective analysis and comparison of environmental impacts NUREG-1555 9.4.2-12 October 1999 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 balancing and comparisons with the proposed system, leading to a final staff conclusion for circulating water system consideration. The reviewer should also ensure that all comparisons were made on the basis of the proposed system as supplemented with those measures and controls to limit adverse impacts proposed by the applicant and concurred with by the staff. For those alternatives eliminated from consideration on the basis of land-use, water-use, or other initial screening criteria, the reviewer should ensure that adequate documented justification for this action has been prepared. If a mitigation measure or alternative circulating water system is to be considered, the reviewer should determine that the measure or system being evaluated has a lesser overall environmental impact than the proposed system (i.e., is environmentally preferable). When this is true, the economic costs of mitigation or of the alternative could result in an equivalent or improved projected benefit-cost balance. When these