ML15092A945
| ML15092A945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/2015 |
| From: | Brian Wittick License Renewal Projects Branch 2 |
| To: | Kaminskas V DTE Electric Company |
| Keegan E, 415-8517 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML15092A945 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 9, 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 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE FERMI 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONSEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
Dear Mr. Kaminskas:
By letter dated April 24, 2014, DTE Electric Company (DTE) submitted an application pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating license NPF-43 for Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
By letters dated November 18, 2014 and February 3, 2015, the NRC staff issued requests for additional information (RAIs) related to its review of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) at Fermi 2. By letters dated January 9, 2015, and March 5, 2015, DTE submitted its responses to the RAIs. The NRC staff has reviewed the information contained in the RAI responses and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete the review.
The completeness and quality of your responses are essential to maintaining the schedule for publishing the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). This additional round of RAIs will result in a delay of the established SEIS publishing schedule. Once we receive the RAI responses, we will be able to establish a new schedule.
These requests for additional information were discussed with Randall Westmoreland, 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 Ms. Elaine Keegan at (301) 415-8517 or by e-mail at elaine.keegan@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Brian D. Wittick, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-341
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: Listserv
- concurred via email OFFICE LA:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR NAME IBetts EKeegan BWittick DATE 4/8/15 4/9/15 4/9/15
FERMI 2 SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION By letters dated January 9, 2015 and March 5, 2015, DTE Electric Company (DTE) submitted its responses to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs requests for additional information (RAIs) pertaining to the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) review for the Fermi 2 license renewal application. RAIs 1 and 2 request additional clarification of information provided in your March 5, 2015, letter.
RAI 1. March 5, 2015, RAI 3 Response (relating to January 9, 2014 response to RAI 2.g.iii) a) In Table 3-5 (p. 14) the cost of SAMA 152 is erroneously given as $1,000,000. The cost should be $100,000 (as noted in ER Table D.2-1). Provide a refined analysis similar to those in Table 3-6.
b) The assessment of the 3.14E-09/year undercounting of Class IIA accident sequences in the ER cost/benefit analysis discussed in RAI 2 will impact the adjusted cost benefits in the response to RAI 3. Account for this undercounting in assessing the impact of the inclusion of Class IIA sequences in the same release category as the Class IV sequences.
RAI 2. March 5, 2015, RAI 5 (relating to January 9, 2014 response to RAI 5. a. ii, 5. a. vi,
- 5. a. vii, 6.h and 7.a)
The primary purpose of the RAI was to determine how the cost-benefit calculations performed in response to the original RAIs were performed with respect to the external events multiplier. The response for each of the RAI subsections included the statement that the analysis was performed using the same methodology as described in the ER. For all but one (6.h) it was also stated that The same external event multiplier used in the ER was applied to this evaluation.
Confirm that the external event multiplier of 11 was used for all the cited analyses including 6.h?
RAI 3.
Specify the U.S. permanent population, Canadian permanent population, and total transient population that sum to the total estimated population of 6,055,678 reported in Table D.1-22 of the environmental report. Provide tables showing the spatial distribution of these three population components. Justify that the total population and its spatial distribution modeled in the SAMA analysis will not underestimate offsite population doses and offsite economic cost risks, considering prevailing winds blowing from the west-southwest and the corresponding potential for atmospheric plume migration to the east-northeast. Explain how the population distribution and economic values were implemented in the SAMA analysis to account for the non-U.S. population and non-U.S. land areas. Provide WinMACCS code inputs and outputs that would allow confirmation that offsite population doses and offsite economic cost risks have not been underestimated due to these factors.
ENCLOSURE RAI 4.
To support an NRC evaluation of potential replacement power costs from a temporary suspension of Fermi 3 power generation during site cleanup and decontamination activities following a severe accident at the Fermi 2 plant, confirm that 1655 MWe is an appropriate value for the Fermi 3 power output or recommend a more appropriate value.
SUBJECT:
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE FERMI 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONSEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES DISTRIBUTION:
HARD COPY:
DLR RF E-MAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRsrg Resource RidsNrrPMFermi Resource DMeléndez-Colón EKeegan YDiaz-Sanabria BWittick BHarris, OGC MKunowski, RIII BKemker, RIII PSmagacz, RIII VMitlyng, RIII PChandrathil, RIII HLogaras, RIII ABarker, RIII