ML15062A336

Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application - Set 26

ML15062A336
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	03/13/2015
From:	Melendez-Colon D Division of License Renewal
To:	Kaminskas V DTE Electric Company
Melendez-Colon D, 415-3301
References
DLR-15-0132, TAC MF4222
Download: ML15062A336 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 13, 2015 Mr. Vito Kaminskas Site Vice President - Nuclear Generation DTE Electric Company Fermi 2 - 280 OBA 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE FERMI 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION - SET 26 (TAC NO. MF4222)

Dear Mr. Kaminskas:

By letter dated April 24, 2014, DTE Electric Company (DTE or the applicant) submitted an application pursuant to Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 54, to renew the operating license NPF-43 for Fermi 2, for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff). The staff is reviewing the information contained in the license renewal application and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete the review.

This request for additional information was discussed with Ms. Lynne Goodman, and a mutually agreeable date for the response is within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-3301 or e-mail Daneira.Melendez-Colon@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Daneira Meléndez-Colón, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-341

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: Listserv

ML15062A336 *Concurred via e-mail OFFICE LA:RPB1:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR BC:RPB1:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR NAME YEdmonds DMeléndez-Colón RPlasse YDíaz-Sanabria DMeléndez-Colón DATE 3/11/15 3/13/15 3/13/15 3/13/15 3/13/15

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE FERMI 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION - SET 26 (TAC NO. MF4222)

DATED MARCH 13, 2015 DISTRIBUTION:

E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRsrg Resource RidsNrrPMFermi2 Resource

---

D. Melendez-Colon Y. Diaz-Sanabria E. Keegan B. Wittick D. McIntyre, OPA B. Harris, OGC D. Roth, OGC M. Kunowski, RIII B. Kemker, RIII V. Mitlyng, RIII P. Chandrathil, RIII C. Lipa, RIII S. Sheldon, RIII

FERMI 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SET 26 (TAC NO. MF4222)

RAI B.1.3-1a

Background:

In a letter dated January 26, 2015, the applicant provided the 2013 BADGER test report in of the submittal. The report provides information on the condition of the Boraflex material in the spent fuel pool and by extension the effectiveness of the Boraflex Monitoring Program. The monitoring program is implemented to ensure that no unexpected degradation of the Boraflex material compromises the criticality analysis.

Issue:

The staff reviewed the 2013 BADGER test report and has determined that more information is needed to complete its review. The staff has concerns on whether the program provides reasonable assurance that it can detect unexpected degradation of the Boraflex material in the spent fuel pool.

Request:

1. On page 8 of Enclosure 2 to NRC-15-0008, it states that once a critical dose level has been attained (approximately 2x109 rads), Boraflex becomes susceptible to dissolution by water in the spent fuel pool environment. Please discuss what percentage of Boraflex panels in the Fermi 2 spent fuel pool has attained the critical dose level of 2x109 rads.

2. On page 8 of Enclosure 2 to NRC-15-0008, it states that a RACKLIFE model of the Fermi 2 racks is used to estimate the service history of each Boraflex panel, specifically estimated gamma exposure. The license renewal application further states that the RACKLIFE model is used to calculate the amount of boron carbide loss from the Boraflex panels. Please discuss how the RACKLIFE model predictions compare with the results of the 2013 BADGER test report.

3. In the conclusion section of Enclosure 2 to NRC-15-0008, it states that the areal densities of 3 of 60 panels tested (i.e., 5 percent) fell below the minimum acceptance limit of 0.015656 g-10B/cm2. These panels were subsequently taken out of service. Please discuss whether a similar percentage of the untested panels in the spent fuel pool would be expected to have comparable degradation and thus may not meet the acceptance limit of 0.015656 g-10B/cm2. If so, discuss how this will impact the assumptions found in the criticality analysis. In addition, discuss how the Boraflex Monitoring Program provides reasonable assurance that unexpected degradation of Boraflex panels in the spent fuel pool will be identified.

ENCLOSURE