NRC-15-0045, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the License Renewal Application - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3

Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the License Renewal Application - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3

ML15141A163
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/08/2015
From:	Kaminskas V DTE Energy
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NRC-15-0045
Download: ML15141A163 (24)

Text

Vito A. Kaminskas Site Vice President DTE Energy Company 6400 N. Dixie Highway, Newport, MI 48166 Tel: 734.586.6515 Fax: 734.586.4172 Email: kaniinskasv@dteenergy.com DTE Energy-10 CFR 54 May 8, 2015 NRC- 15-0045 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Document Control Desk Washington D C 20555-0001

References:

1) Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43 2) DTE Electric Company Letter to NRC, "Fermi 2 License Renewal Application," NRC- 14-0028, dated April 24, 2014 (ML14121A554)3) DTE Electric Company Letter to NRC, "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives," NRC-15-0013, dated January 9, 2015 (ML15009A358)

4) DTE Electric Company Letter to NRC, "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 2," NRC-15-0023, dated March 5, 2015 (ML15064A099)

5) NRC Letter, "Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives," dated April 9, 2015 (ML151509A945)

Subject:

Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 In Reference 2, DTE Electric Company (DTE) submitted the License Renewal Application (LRA) for Fermi 2. In References 3 and 4, DTE responded to NRC staff requests for additional information (RAIs) regarding the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) of the Fermi 2 LRA. The NRC staff issued a follow-up RAI USNRC NRC- 15-0045 Page 2 letter on SAMA in Reference

5. Enclosure 1 to this letter provides the DTE response to the RAI letter in Reference 5.Enclosure 2 provides a CD containing the electronic input and output files requested in Question 3 of Reference

5. DTE has verified with the applicable vendor that the enclosed input and output files do not contain any information considered proprietary.

The file format and names on the enclosed CD do not comply with the requirements for electronic submission to the NRC, but were requested by the NRC staff in the native format required by the associated software.No new commitments are being made in this submittal.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Lynne Goodman at 734-586-1205.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on May 8, 2015 Vito A. Kaminskas Site Vice President Nuclear Generation

Enclosures:

1) DTE Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 2) CD Containing Input and Output Files Requested by Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 Question 3 cc: NRC Project Manager w/o Enclosure 2 NRC License Renewal Project Manager w/o Enclosure 2 NRC License Renewal Environmental Project Manager NRC Resident Office w/o Enclosure 2 Reactor Projects Chief, Branch 5, Region III w/o Enclosure 2 Regional Administrator, Region III w/o Enclosure 2 Michigan Public Service Commission, Regulated Energy Division (kindschl@michigan.gov) w/o Enclosure 2

Enclosure I to NRC-15-0045 Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 Operating License No. NPF-43 DTE Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 1 Question 1 [March 5, 2015, RAI 3 Response (relating to January 9, 2015 response to RAI 2g.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 tindercounting in assessing the impact of the inclusion of Class IIA sequences in the same release category as the Class IV sequences.

Response: a) In Table 3-5 of the DTE RAI response dated March 5, 2015 (NRC- 15-0023), the implementation cost of SAMA 152 was incorrectly identified as $1,000,000.

The correct value is $100,000 (as listed in ER Table D.2-1). SAMA 152 has been added to the SAMA candidates receiving a refined analysis, similar to that performed in Table 3-6 of NRC-15-0023, provided in the response to Question 1(b) below (see Table 2-2).b) Questions 1 (a) and 1(b) are both addressed in this response (i.e., the implementation cost of SAMA 152 is corrected (response to Question l(a)) in the revised cost-benefit analysis performed in this response to Question l(b)).In NRC-15-0023, DTE responded to RAI 2 which related to the undercounting of the Class IHA frequency and performed sensitivity evaluations conservatively assuming that all the undercounted frequency (3.14E-09/yr) was associated with the H/E release category.

In NRC-15-0023, DTE separately responded to RAI 3 addressing combining Class HA sequences with Class IV sequences in the H/E release category.

The potential impact of including Class HA sequences in the H/E release category was evaluated using conservative consequence assumptions (i.e., using bounding offsite dose and economic cost values). The DTE response to RAI 3 in NRC-15-0023 did not include consideration of the additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency addressed in RAI 2 in NRC-15-0023.

This present RAI response considers the potential impact of the additional frequency discussed in RAI 2 (from NRC-15-0023) using the general methodology of RAI 3 (also from NRC-15-0023).

To address the additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency identified in Question 1(b), Table 3-6 of the DTE RAI responses in NRC-15-0023, is revised to include an additional frequency of 3.14E-09/yr.

Additionally, the scope of SAMAs considered in Table 3-6 of NRC-15-0023 is expanded to include a refined analysis for all the SAMA candidates that were listed in Table 3-5 of that same RAI response (i.e., SAMA candidates that may have an impact on Class HA sequences).

This expanded list of SAMAs includes SAMA 152, thereby addressing Question 1(a).

Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 2 The additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency associated with the release undercount is added to the original Class IIA H/E release frequency of 5.32E-08/yr, provided in Table 3-2 of NRC-15-0023, RAI 3. The addition of this 3.14E-09/yr frequency to the Class HA H/E release category is conservative since it would be expected that this additional frequency would be distributed among various release categories that contain Class HA sequences.

The new Class IIA H/E frequency is 5.32E-08/yr

+ 3.14E-09/yr

= 5.63E-08/yr, as provided in Table 2-1 below, which represents an update of Table 3-2 from the previous RAI response.For each of these relevant SAMAs (i.e., from Table 3-5 of NRC-15-0023), the general methodology discussed in RAI 3 and presented in Table 3-2 and Table 3-6 of NRC-15-0023 was maintained and the Class HA H/E frequency was updated to account for the 3.14E-09/yr additional frequency.

Table 2-2 of this response presents the updated version of Table 3-6, with the following aspects noted: 1. The general methodology of Table 2-2 calculates the H/E Class IIA frequency and H/E"Other" frequency that is reduced due to the SAMA candidate.

For all SAMA candidates except 78 and 123 (which are discussed separately below), this reduction in frequency is based on a detailed cutset summation.

The overall percent reduction of the Class HA H/E release category is calculated and included as the third column of Table 2-2, "Class IIA Percent Reduction." 2. In order to calculate the Adjusted Cost Benefit for each SAMA (column 10 of Table 2-2), the fraction of Class IIA frequency reduction for this SAMA candidate is applied to the new (higher) Class IIA H/E release category frequency which includes the 3.14E-09/yr additional frequency identified in the RAI. This assumes the SAMA Class IIA frequency reduction for the additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency is the same as the base Class IIA H/E release category.

This assumption is judged reasonable.

The H/E "Other" release category frequency and contribution to the Adjusted Cost Benefit remains the same.3. The general methodology highlighted in Table 2-2 is used to calculate the new (higher)Adjusted Cost Benefit for comparison to the SAMA Implementation Cost. The higher Adjusted Cost Benefit is due to the increase in the Offsite Benefit portion. The Onsite Benefit portion remains unchanged.

Onsite Benefit is calculated based on Level 1 CDF rather than Level 2 release category frequency.

The 3.14E-9/yr undercounting is due to postulated undercounting of Level 2 frequency not Level 1 CDF.4. An uncertainty factor of 2.5 is applied to the Adjusted Cost Benefit to account for 95%CDF uncertainty (column 11 of Table 2-2).For the original SAMA analysis, SAMA 78 (Flooding of the DW head seal) was assumed to eliminate all Class H or Class IV accident sequences with large drywell failures.

This SAMA was the subject of an RAI (i.e., RAI 6.f). DTE provided a revised benefit and implementation cost estimate in the response to RAI 6.f, dated January 9, 2015 (NRC-15-0013).

Table 2-2 incorporates the revised values associated with the RAI 6.f response for SAMA 78. For this present analysis, SAMA 78 is assumed to eliminate all the H/E Class HA frequency (i.e., Class HA Percent Reduction of 100%).For the original SAMA analysis, SAMA 123 (Filtered Containment Vent) was assumed to Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 3 decrease the concentration of all radionuclides (excluding noble gases) by 50% (i.e., there was no change in core damage frequency or release category frequency calculated).

For this present analysis, SAMA 123 is conservatively assumed to eliminate all the H/E Class HA frequency (i.e., Class HA Percent Reduction of 100%). This approach bounds the 50%radionuclide concentration reduction.

Review of Table 2-2 Adjusted Cost Benefits and Implementation Costs indicates that these SAMA candidates have significant margin to being potentially cost beneficial.

These SAMA candidates remain not cost beneficial even if the 95% uncertainty sensitivity factor (2.5) is included in the cost benefit calculation.

Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 4 Table 2-1 FERMI 2 SAMA DOSE RISK AND COST RISK WITH SEPARATE CLASS IIA H/E RELEASE CATEGORY Offsite Population Offsite Economic Characteristics of Release Mode Population Dose Economic Dose Risk Cost Risk Cost Release Category yr"1 person-rem

$ person-rem/yr

$/yr H/E-BOC 5.93E-08 2.18E+07 3.03E+10 1.29E+00 1.80E+03 Class HA 5.63E-08 2.18E+07 3.03E+ 10 1.23E+00 1.71E+03 H/E Other 2.60E-07 8.1OE+06 2.80E+10 2.11E+00 7.28E+03 H/I 7.20E-08 9.52E+06 5.26E+10 6.86E-01 3.79E+03 H/L 2.46E- 10 8.98E+06 1.67E+10 2.21E-03 4.11E+00 M/E 6.17E-08 2.48E+06 8.39E+09 1.53E-01 5.18E+02 M/A 3.71E-08 2.76E+06 6.1OE+09 1.03E-01 2.27E+02 L/E 4.36E-08 2.26E+05 2.26E+07 9.85E-03 9.85E-01 L/I 5.46E-08 2.14E+06 8.25E+09 1.17E-01 4.51E+02 LL/E 5.02E- 10 1.31E+04 3.81E+05 6.57E-06 1.91E-04 LL/I 7.75E-08 1.29E+05 4.05E+06 1.00E-02 3.14E-01 CI 7.83E-07 6.46E+01 1.96E+00 5.06E-05 1.54E-06 Totals 5.71E+00 1.58E+04 Enclosure 1 to NRC-15-0045 Page 5 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Addition-Addition-Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5 Class IIA Class IIA al Offsite Benefit Benefit Adjusted Uncertain-SAMA Percent Frequency al Offsite Benefit Cost ty Factor Implemen-Descriptio Portio Portini Cos Applied to tation Cost# Description Red- Reduction Dose Cost from from Portion Benefit Ast uction(1 (per/yr)'2) Be Beit from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)(1O)ucin (e/r $() Benefit Offsite Offsite Onie ()s Bnft ($) ($)(4) ($)(5) ($)(6) Onsite Benefit_________($)(7)

($)(9)Use firewater system as a 21 backup 58.34% 3.29E-08 106,618 8,950 241,689 357,257 15,257 372,514 931,285 2,000,000 source for diesel cooling Training for offsite 24 power 0.00%(11) 0.00E+00(11) 0 0 2,839 2,839 3,429 6,268 15,670 50,000 recovery after SBO Change procedures to allow cross 50 connect of 2.88% 1.62E-09 5,258 441 11,967 17,667 1,187 18,854 47,134 50,000 motor cooling for RHRSW pumps Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 6 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Addition-Addition-Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5 Class IIA Class IIA al Offsite Benefit Benefit Ben Adjusted Uncertain-SAMA Percent Frequency al Offsite Economic Portion Portion Cost ty Factor Implemen-Desd-iptioon Dose Cost from f Applied to tation Cost ut(1) (pe (2) Benefit from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)uto pry) ($)(3) Benefit Offsite Offsite ($)(4) ($)(5) ($)(6) Onsite Benefit ($)(7) ($)(9)Enhance procedural guidance for use of cross-54 tied 0.02% 1.07E- 11 35 3 2,239 2,276 998 3,275 8,186 50,000 component cooling or service water pumps Enhance procedure to trip 67 unneeded 0.00%"I 0.00E+00(11) 0 717 717 468 1,185 2,963 50,000 RHR or CS pumps on loss of room ventilation Enable 78 flooding of 100.00% 5.63E-08 182,763 15,341 97,454 295,559 0 295,559 738,897 1,000,000 drywell head seal Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 7 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Addition-Addition-Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5 Class IIA Class IIA Addite al Offsite Benefit Benefit Ben Adjusted Uncertain-SAMA Percent Frequency al Offsite Economic Portion Portion Benefit Cost ty Factor Implemen-Description Dose Portion Applied to tation Cost Red- Reduction Cost from from Benefit Ast Bn) (2stBenefit from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)(10)

($)(3) Benefit Offsite Offsite ()8 (6) Onsite Benefit ($)4)($)5)($)6)

($)(71 (s)(9)Install an ATWS sized filtered 123 containment 100.00% 5.63E-08 182,763 15,341 1,102,769 1,300,874 0 1,300,874 3,252,185 40,000,000 vent to remove decay heat Increase training and operating 145 experience 11.94% 6.73E-09 21,828 1,832 275,160 298,820 34,605 333,425 833,562 1,000,000 15 feedback to improve operator response Procedur-alize all 152 potential 4- 6.01% 3.39E-09 10,991 923 23,149 35,063 2,189 37,251 93,128 100,000 kV AC bus cross-tie actions Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 8 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Addition-Addition-Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5 Class IIA Class IIA al Offsite Benefit Benefit Case Adjusted Uncertain-SAMA Percent Frequency al Offsite Economic Portion Portion Cost ty Factor Implemen-Portion Applied to tation Cost Red- Reduction Bene Cost from from Benefit Ast Bnf (t Benes t from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)(10)(per/yr)(2

($)(3) Benefit Offsite Offsite ()8 ($)(4) (s)(5) ($)(6) Onsite Benefit IIII11($)(7)

($)(9)Provide an alternate means of 177 supplying 15.84% 8.92E-09 28,949 2,430 91,376 122,755 8,084 130,839 327,098 489,300 the instrument air header Provide ability to maintain 194 suppression 4.74% 2.67E-09 8,660 727 24,515 33,903 4,359 38,261 95,653 100,000 pool temperature lower Notes to Table 2-2: 1. Class HA Percent Reduction calculated based on detailed cutset summation, except for SAMAs 78 and 123 where 100% H/E Class IHA reduction is assumed.2. Calculated as Class HJA Percent Reduction times the H/E Class RA release frequency of 5.63E-08/yr (which includes the 3.14E-09/yr additional frequency).

3. These values are derived by taking the difference between the H/E Class IIA release category population dose (2.18E+07 rem, using the BOC MACCS2 results) and the "Other" H/E release category population dose (8. 10E+06 rem) to calculate the additional benefit (1.37E+07 rem) to the population dose reduction and applying a dose benefit of $2000 /person-rem and the Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 9 Class HIA frequency reduction listed in Column 4. These values are multiplied by the external hazards factor (11) and the 7%discount rate factor (10.76).4. These values are derived by taking the difference between the H/E Class HA release category economic cost ($3.03E+10) and the "Other" H/E release category offsite economic cost ($2.80E+10) to calculate the additional benefit ($2.30E+09) to the offsite economic costs assuming the Class HA frequency reduction listed in Column 4. These values are multiplied by the external hazards factor (11) and the 7% discount rate factor (10.76).5. Values from Table 3-3 of the March 5, 2015 DTE RAI 3 response, except for SAMA 78 where the value has been updated based on the January 9, 2015 DTE RAI 6.f response.6. Values from summation of Columns 5, 6, and 7.7. Values from Table 3-3 of the March 5, 2015 DTE RAI 3 response.

The SAMA 78 value is unchanged.

8. Values from summation of Columns 8 and 9.9. Values from Column 10 times the 2.5 uncertainty factor.10. From SAMA ER Table D.2-1, except for SAMA 78 where the value has been updated based on the January 9, 2015 DTE RAI 6.f response.11. Class HA percent reduction is <0.01% and Class HA frequency reduction is <5.6E-12 per/yr. Since the reduction is so small, the impact was considered zero for this evaluation.

Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 10 Question 2 [March 5, 2015, RAI 5 (relating to January 9, 2015 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 perforned 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 perfortned 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]] was used for all the cited analyses including 6.h?Response: The external event multiplier of 11 was used for all of the analyses cited in the response to RAI 5 (DTE letter NRC-15-0023, dated March 5, 2015), including RAI 6.h (DTE letter NRC-15-0013, dated January 9, 2015). Each of the SAMA analyses associated with the listed RAIs were reviewed and confirmed to have used the external event multiplier of 11.

Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 11 Question 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.Response: a) 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.

The US permanent population, Canadian permanent population, and total transient population totals for 2045 are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The sums of those values are provided in Table 4. The total estimated population is 6,055,850 which is in reasonable agreement

(<0.003%)

with the 6,055,678 reported in Table D. 1-22 of the Environmental Report which was calculated using SECPOP2000 and a population multiplier of 1.2056. The population multiplier was used to increase the population to account for population growth between 2000 and 2045, transient population (which is not included in SECPOP2000), and to account for Canadian population (which is not included in SECPOP2000).

The differences between Table D. 1-22 of the Environmental Report (ER)and Table 4 is due to SECPOP2000 not accounting for Canadian population (i.e. setting population to 0). In order to account for the non-US population, the original SECPOP2000 results for each of the US sectors were increased by the above population multiplier and documented in Table D. 1-22 of the ER. Because of this method, the US sector populations in Table D. 1-22 are higher than their corresponding values shown in Tables 1 and 4. Tables 1 through 4 provide the spatial distribution of the three population components and their total.b) 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.

The Level 3 analysis was reanalyzed using the populations provided in Table 4 and compared to the ER SAMA analysis results. This is shown in Tables 5 and 6. The ER SAMA analysis Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 12 was performed with three years of meteorological data (2003, 2005, and 2007). The reanalysis was performed using the same three years of meteorological data. Note that a full year of meteorological data is used as input into WinMACCS, therefore the data considers prevailing wind direction based on actual meteorological data from the site.The worst case ER SAMA analysis results (i.e. highest dose risk and highest economic risk)were for 2007, which is reported as the ER SAMA analysis results in Tables 5 and 6. As shown in Table 5, the dose risk and economic risk for 2007 using the population data from Table 4 is lower than when using population data shown in Table D. 1-22 of the ER.From Table 5, the reanalysis resulted in a slightly increased dose (less than 3%) when using the 2003 and 2005 meteorological data, however the economic risk significantly decreased (greater than 14%) in the reanalysis.

This reduction in economic risk resulted in a reduced maximum averted cost risk and modified maximum averted cost risk than used in the SAMA analyses, as shown in Table 6.The ER SAMA analysis results provide bounding maximum averted cost risk and modified maximum averted cost risk (as shown in Table 6) when compared to the reanalysis performed using the population distribution as listed in Table 4 compared to the population distribution provided in Table D. 1-22 of the ER. The ER SAMA analysis results values shown in Table 6 are used in the ER SAMA analysis, and therefore the values used in the ER SAMA analysis are bounding.c) 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.The population distribution and economic values implemented in the SAMA analysis are taken from SECPOP2000 which does not include non-US population.

A population multiplier of 1.2056 was developed using 2045 population based on permanent and transient population within 50 miles of the plant site (including both US and Canadian permanent and transient population) which was determined in a separate analysis.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4. The initial SECPOP2000 model determined the US population within 50 miles of the plant was 5,022,962, using no population multiplier.

Therefore, the 1.2056 population multiplier was used in order to increase the total population to match the total population listed in Table 4. This methodology increased the population output of SECPOP2000 to incorporate the Canadian population and transient population in areas where SECPOP2000 determined population to exist (i.e. within the US). Using the SECPOP2000 multiplier of 1.2056 gave a population result of 6,055,678 vs. 6,055,850, which is within reasonable agreement

(< 0.003%).An economic multiplier was also developed for 2013 land values within 50 miles of the plant site. The economic multiplier of 1.2964 was determined based on the consumer price index for 2013 vs 2002 as used in SECPOP2000.

No other changes were made in the SAMA analysis.

For the sensitivity results that are presented in Table 5 and Table 6, the economic Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 13 value for land in Canada was set to be equal to the maximum economic value of US land within 50 miles of the Fermi 2 site as determined by SECPOP2000 (including the 1.2964 multiplier) for conservatism.

d) 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.Supporting WinMACCS input and output files are provided in Enclosure 2 for both the base case and the sensitivity analyses performed.

Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 14 Table 1 -Estimated 2045 US Permanent Population Direction Distance (mi)(0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 167 287 201 200 15,392 124,306 409,529 519,476 384,799 1,454,357 NNE 0 114 54 37 105 10,636 84,130 200,733 652,426 522,916 1,471,151 NE 0 239 155 0 0 47 6 0 74 0 521 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7,913 40,313 48,234 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,136 13,319 22,363 36,818 S 3 562 33 0 0 0 14 6,279 15,053 34,436 56,380 SSW 4 873 26 0 0 0 43 74,870 29,104 51,584 156,504 SW 3 340 10 0 85 1,158 12,505 278,172 154,320 34,754 481,347 WSW 0 100 962 2,160 2,069 35,520 12,091 16,296 15,015 12,887 97,100 W 5 100 280 287 321 7,432 7,495 10,557 32,531 35,576 94,584 WNW 4 59 135 128 325 4,706 6,694 21,772 22,818 18,667 75,308 NW 2 126 763 665 1,167 5,986 15,093 147,248 170,808 76,272 418,130 NNW 2 165 409 631 382 4,742 26,447 217,495 170,467 164,114 584,854 TOTAL 23 2,845 3,114 4,109 4,654 85,619 288,824 1,384,095 1,803,324 1,398,681 4,975,288 Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 15 Table 2 -Estimated 2045 Canadian Permanent Population Direction Distance(mi)

(0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,889 323,122 4,006 0 375,017 NE 0 0 0 0 0 527 32,879 123,232 102,482 158 259,278 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 10 11,163 25,307 17,201 21,675 75,356 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,221 20,210 44,702 4,404 73,537 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 287 0 289 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 68 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 537 96,152 491,873 168,746 26,237 783,545 Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 16 Table 3 -Estimated 2045 Transient Population Direction Distance(mi)

(0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 9 15 10 10 799 6,450 21,251 26,956 19,968 75,468 NNE 0 6 3 2 5 552 6,559 24,935 34,042 27,135 93,239 NE 0 12 8 0 0 25 1,416 5,305 4,416 7 11,189 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 481 1,089 740 933 3,243 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 870 1,924 190 3,166 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 2,344 2,807 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 774 1,300 2,140 S 0 29 2 0 0 0 1 365 875 2,002 3,274 SSW 0 45 1 0 0 0 2 4,353 1,692 2,999 9,092 SW 0 18 1 0 4 60 650 15,683 8,972 2,021 27,409 WSW 0 5 50 112 107 1,843 627 847 808 715 5,114 W 0 5 15 15 17 386 389 548 1,688 1,846 4,909 WNW 0 3 7 7 17 244 347 1,130 1,184 969 3,908 NW 0 7 40 34 61 311 783 7,641 8,863 3,958 21,698 NNW 0 9 21 33 20 246 1,372 11,286 8,846 8,516 30,349 TOTAL 0 148 163 213 241 4,466 19,259 95,369 102,255 74,903 297,017 Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 17 Table 4 -Estimated 2045 Total Population Distance(mi)

Direction (0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 176 302 211 210 16,191 130,756 430,780 546,432 404,767 1,529,825 NNE 0 120 57 39 110 11,188 138,578 548,790 690,474 550,051 1,939,407 NE 0 251 163 0 0 599 34,301 128,537 106,972 165 270,988 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 10 11,644 26,396 17,941 22,608 78,599 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,403 21,080 46,626 4,594 76,703 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 299 0 301 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8,444 42,657 51,109 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,202 14,093 23,663 38,958 S 3 591 35 0 0 0 15 6,644 15,928 36,438 59,654 SSW 4 918 27 0 0 0 45 79,223 30,796 54,583 165,596 SW 3 358 11 0 89 1,218 13,155 293,855 163,292 36,775 508,756 WSW 0 105 1,012 2,272 2,176 37,363 12,718 17,143 15,823 13,602 102,214 W 5 105 295 302 338 7,818 7,884 11,105 34,219 37,422 99,493 WNW 4 62 142 135 342 4,950 7,041 22,902 24,002 19,636 79,216 NW 2 133 803 699 1,228 6,297 15,876 154,889 179,671 80,230 439,828 NNW 2 174 430 664 402 4,988 27,819 228,781 179,313 172,630 615,203 TOTAL 23 2,993 3,277 4,322 4,895 90,622 404,235 1,971,337 2,074,325 1,499,821 6,055,850 Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 18 Table 5 -Population Dose Risk and Economic Risk ER SAMA Analysis Results 2003 Met Data Sensitivity 2005 Met Data Sensitivity 2007 Met Data Sensitivity Release Population Economic Population Economic Population Economic Population Economic Category Dose Risk Risk Dose Risk Risk Dose Risk Risk Dose Risk Risk (person-rem/yr)

($/yr) (person-rem/yr)

($/yr) (person-rem/yr)

($/yr) (person-rem/yr)

($/yr)H/E-BOC 1.29E+00 1.80E+03 1.33E+00 1.57E+03 1.24E+00 1.33E+03 1.26E+00 1.38E+03 H/E 2.54E+00 8.77E+03 2.55E+00 7.64E+03 2.56E+00 7.01E+03 2.40E+00 7.23E+03 H/I 6.86E-01 3.79E+03 7.56E-01 3.08E+03 7.49E-01 2.43E+03 7.05E-01 2.65E+03 H/L 2.21E-03 4.11E+00 2.22E-03 3.67E+00 2.41E-03 3.35E+00 2.33E-03 3.54E+00 M/E 1.53E-01 5.18E+02 1.55E-01 4.23E+02 1.46E-01 2.OOE+02 1.49E-01 2.63E+02 M/I 1.03E-01 2.27E+02 9.68E-02 1.85E+02 9.87E-02 9.02E+O1 9.76E-02 1.50E+02 L/E 9.85E-03 9.85E-01 7.24E-03 7.19E-01 4.93E-03 6.85E-01 5.67E-03 5.58E-01 L/I 1.17E-01 4.51E+02 1.16E-01 3.53E+02 1.15E-01 1.83E+02 1.16E-01 2.79E+02 LL/E 6.57E-06 1.91E-04 6.73E-06 2.99E-04 7.33E-06 2.73E-04 7.13E-06 2.88E-04 LL/I 1.OOE-02 3.14E-01 7.42E-03 3.70E-01 4.97E-03 9.30E-01 6.36E-03 3.08E-01 CI 5.06E-05 1.54E-06 4.13E-05 1.12E-06 3.20E-05 2.18E-04 3.48E-05 2.52E-06 TOTAL 4.91E+00 1.56E+04 5.02E+00 1.33E+04 4.92E+00 1.13E+04 4.75E+00 1.20E+04 Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 19 Table 6 -Maximum Averted Cost Risk ER SAMA Analysis Results 2003 Met Data Sensitivity 2005 Met Data Sensitivity 2007 Met Data Sensitivity Cost 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real 3% Discount Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate Rate Sensitivity Rate Sensitivity Rate Sensitivity Rate Sensitivity Off-Site Exposure 105,676 147,667 108,060 150,998 105,907 147,990 102,248 142,876 Cost (WPHA) ($/yr)Off-Site Economic 167,403 233,921 143,147 200,027 121,621 169,948 129,155 180,475 Cost (WEA) ($/yr)On-Site Exposure 572 930 572 930 572 930 572 930 Cost (Wo) ($/yr)On-Site Cleanup 17,450 29,293 17,450 29,293 17,450 29,293 17,450 29,293 Cost (WcD) ($/yr)Replacement Power Cost (WRp) 15,247 14,278 15,247 14,278 15,247 14,278 15,247 14,278 ($/yr)Maximum Averted Cost Risk (MACR) 306,348 426,090 284,476 395,527 260,798 362,440 264,672 367,854 ($/yr)External Event Multiplier Modified MACR 3,369,832 4,686,991 3,129,238 4,350,795 2,868,776 3,986,836 2,911,397 4,046,393 (MMACR) ($/yr)__________________________________

Difference from 0.0% 0.0% -7.1% -7.2% -14.9% -14.9% -13.6% -13.7%ER Results I Enclosure 1 to NRC- 15-0045 Page 20 Question 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.Response: The Fermi 3 Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 8, Section 1.1.2.7, titled, "Rated Core Thermal Power," states, "The estimated net electrical power output, which is dependent on site ambient conditions, the normal plant heat sink (NPHS) operation controls, and station electrical loads, is between approximately 1485 MWe and 1585 MWe." DTE recommends that the conservative maximum net electrical power output value of 1585 MWe be used for an evaluation of potential replacement power costs for Fermi 3.

Enclosure 2 to NRC-15-0045 Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 Operating License No. NPF-43 CD Containing Input and Output Files Requested by Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 Question 3