ML070320680: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Monette, Frederick A.From: Avci, Halil 1.Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:58 AM To: Monette, Frederick A.
{{#Wiki_filter:Monette, Frederick A.
From:                     Avci, Halil 1.
Sent:                     Friday, October 06, 2006 8:58 AM To:                       Monette, Frederick A.


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Susquehanna Acceptance Review Fred, The ER has all the usual sections but the information in Section 2.1, Location and Features, and Section 3.1.1, Reactor and Containment Systems, that I need to write my sections of the SEIS are pretty sketchy. We can always supplement it with information from other sources but it would have been nice to find more of it in the ER.There is not enough information in the application package about the proposed extended power uprate. That information has to be made available before we can write the SEIS. We would need the EA and the FONSI that accompany the EPU. We would need a description of the current status of the reactor and the rest of the power train and the expected conditions after the EPU. Right now, the Reactor and Containment  
Susquehanna Acceptance Review
 
: Fred, The ER has all the usual sections but the information in Section 2.1, Location and Features, and Section 3.1.1, Reactor and Containment Systems, that I need to write my sections of the SEIS are pretty sketchy. We can always supplement it with information from other sources but it would have been nice to find more of it in the ER.
===System Description===
There is not enough information in the application package about the proposed extended power uprate. That information has to be made available before we can write the SEIS. We would need the EA and the FONSI that accompany the EPU. We would need a description of the current status of the reactor and the rest of the power train and the expected conditions after the EPU. Right now, the Reactor and Containment System Description given in Section 3.1.1 of the ER lists only the power rating of the two units after the EPU.
given in Section 3.1.1 of the ER lists only the power rating of the two units after the EPU.The applicant provided a redacted version of the FSAR. One of the sections they have deleted is a section on gaseous radioactive waste management in Chapter I1. We need that section to write Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS. We should request a complete version of Chapter II in the FSAR from the applicant.
The applicant provided a redacted version of the FSAR. One of the sections they have deleted is a section on gaseous radioactive waste management in Chapter I1. We need that section to write Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS. We should request a complete version of Chapter II in the FSAR from the applicant.
In summary, for the purposes of conducting an environmental review of the application for radiological impacts assessment, the LRA can be considered acceptable provided that the applicant provides additional information as discussed above.Halil 1}}
In summary, for the purposes of conducting an environmental review of the application for radiological impacts assessment, the LRA can be considered acceptable provided that the applicant provides additional information as discussed above.
Halil 1}}

Latest revision as of 10:54, 23 November 2019

Email from Avci Regarding the Environmental Report Acceptance Review on the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Application Review
ML070320680
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/06/2006
From: Avci H
Argonne National Lab (ANL)
To: Monette F
Argonne National Lab (ANL), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC MD3021, TAC MD3022
Download: ML070320680 (1)
v • d • e


Text

Monette, Frederick A.

From: Avci, Halil 1.

Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:58 AM To: Monette, Frederick A.

Subject:

Susquehanna Acceptance Review

Fred, The ER has all the usual sections but the information in Section 2.1, Location and Features, and Section 3.1.1, Reactor and Containment Systems, that I need to write my sections of the SEIS are pretty sketchy. We can always supplement it with information from other sources but it would have been nice to find more of it in the ER.

There is not enough information in the application package about the proposed extended power uprate. That information has to be made available before we can write the SEIS. We would need the EA and the FONSI that accompany the EPU. We would need a description of the current status of the reactor and the rest of the power train and the expected conditions after the EPU. Right now, the Reactor and Containment System Description given in Section 3.1.1 of the ER lists only the power rating of the two units after the EPU.

The applicant provided a redacted version of the FSAR. One of the sections they have deleted is a section on gaseous radioactive waste management in Chapter I1. We need that section to write Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS. We should request a complete version of Chapter II in the FSAR from the applicant.

In summary, for the purposes of conducting an environmental review of the application for radiological impacts assessment, the LRA can be considered acceptable provided that the applicant provides additional information as discussed above.

Halil 1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML070320680&oldid=2181710"