ML15141A163: 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)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[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]]
| number = ML15141A163
| issue date = 05/08/2015
| title = Fermi 2 - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the License Renewal Application - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3
| author name = Kaminskas V A
| author affiliation = DTE Energy
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000341
| license number = NPF-043
| contact person =
| case reference number = NRC-15-0045
| document type = Letter
| page count = 24
| project =
| stage = Response to RAI
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Vito A. KaminskasSite Vice PresidentDTE Energy Company6400 N. Dixie Highway, Newport, MI 48166Tel: 734.586.6515 Fax: 734.586.4172Email: kaniinskasv@dteenergy.comDTE Energy-10 CFR 54May 8, 2015NRC- 15-0045U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAttention: Document Control DeskWashington D C 20555-0001
 
==References:==
: 1) Fermi 2NRC Docket No. 50-341NRC License No. NPF-432) DTE Electric Company Letter to NRC, "Fermi 2 License RenewalApplication," NRC- 14-0028, dated April 24, 2014 (ML14121 A554)3) DTE Electric Company Letter to NRC, "Response to NRC Requestfor Additional Information for the Review of the Fermi 2 LicenseRenewal Application -Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives,"NRC-15-0013, dated January 9, 2015 (ML15009A358)4) DTE Electric Company Letter to NRC, "Response to NRC Requestfor Additional Information for the Environmental Review of theFermi 2 License Renewal Application -Severe Accident MitigationAlternatives Set 2," NRC-15-0023, dated March 5, 2015(ML15064A099)5) NRC Letter, "Request for Additional Information for theEnvironmental 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 theEnvironmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application -Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3In Reference 2, DTE Electric Company (DTE) submitted the License RenewalApplication (LRA) for Fermi 2. In References 3 and 4, DTE responded to NRC staffrequests for additional information (RAIs) regarding the Severe Accident MitigationAlternatives (SAMA) of the Fermi 2 LRA. The NRC staff issued a follow-up RAI USNRCNRC- 15-0045Page 2letter on SAMA in Reference 5. Enclosure 1 to this letter provides the DTE responseto the RAI letter in Reference 5.Enclosure 2 provides a CD containing the electronic input and output files requestedin Question 3 of Reference 5. DTE has verified with the applicable vendor that theenclosed 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 requirementsfor electronic submission to the NRC, but were requested by the NRC staff in thenative 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 contactLynne Goodman at 734-586-1205.I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on May 8, 2015Vito A. KaminskasSite Vice PresidentNuclear Generation
 
==Enclosures:==
: 1) DTE Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for theEnvironmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application-Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 32) CD Containing Input and Output Files Requested by SevereAccident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 Question 3cc: NRC Project Manager w/o Enclosure 2NRC License Renewal Project Manager w/o Enclosure 2NRC License Renewal Environmental Project ManagerNRC Resident Office w/o Enclosure 2Reactor Projects Chief, Branch 5, Region III w/o Enclosure 2Regional Administrator, Region III w/o Enclosure 2Michigan Public Service Commission,Regulated Energy Division (kindschl@michigan.gov) w/o Enclosure 2 Enclosure I toNRC-15-0045Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341Operating License No. NPF-43DTE Response to NRC Request for Additional Informationfor the Environmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application -Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3   toNRC- 15-0045Page 1Question 1 [March 5, 2015, RAI 3 Response (relating to January 9, 2015 response to RAI2g.iii)]a) In Table 3-5 (p. 14) the cost of SAMA 152 is erroneously given as $1,000,000. The costshould be $100,000 (as noted in ER Table D.2-1). Provide a refined analysis similar to thosein Table 3-6.b) The assessment of the 3.14E-09/year undercounting of Class IIA accident sequences in theER cost/benefit analysis discussed in RAI 2 will impact the adjusted cost benefits in theresponse to RAI 3. Account for this tindercounting in assessing the impact of the inclusion ofClass 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), theimplementation cost of SAMA 152 was incorrectly identified as $1,000,000. The correctvalue is $100,000 (as listed in ER Table D.2-1). SAMA 152 has been added to the SAMAcandidates receiving a refined analysis, similar to that performed in Table 3-6 ofNRC-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 ofSAMA 152 is corrected (response to Question l(a)) in the revised cost-benefit analysisperformed in this response to Question l(b)).In NRC-15-0023, DTE responded to RAI 2 which related to the undercounting of the ClassIHA frequency and performed sensitivity evaluations conservatively assuming that all theundercounted frequency (3.14E-09/yr) was associated with the H/E release category. InNRC-15-0023, DTE separately responded to RAI 3 addressing combining Class HAsequences with Class IV sequences in the H/E release category. The potential impact ofincluding Class HA sequences in the H/E release category was evaluated using conservativeconsequence assumptions (i.e., using bounding offsite dose and economic cost values). TheDTE response to RAI 3 in NRC-15-0023 did not include consideration of the additional3.14E-09/yr frequency addressed in RAI 2 in NRC-15-0023. This present RAI responseconsiders the potential impact of the additional frequency discussed in RAI 2 (fromNRC-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 theDTE RAI responses in NRC-15-0023, is revised to include an additional frequency of3.14E-09/yr. Additionally, the scope of SAMAs considered in Table 3-6 of NRC-15-0023 isexpanded to include a refined analysis for all the SAMA candidates that were listed inTable 3-5 of that same RAI response (i.e., SAMA candidates that may have an impact onClass HA sequences). This expanded list of SAMAs includes SAMA 152, therebyaddressing Question 1(a). toNRC- 15-0045Page 2The additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency associated with the release undercount is added to theoriginal Class IIA H/E release frequency of 5.32E-08/yr, provided in Table 3-2 ofNRC-15-0023, RAI 3. The addition of this 3.14E-09/yr frequency to the Class HA H/Erelease category is conservative since it would be expected that this additional frequencywould be distributed among various release categories that contain Class HA sequences. Thenew Class IIA H/E frequency is 5.32E-08/yr + 3.14E-09/yr = 5.63E-08/yr, as provided inTable 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 generalmethodology discussed in RAI 3 and presented in Table 3-2 and Table 3-6 of NRC-15-0023was maintained and the Class HA H/E frequency was updated to account for the 3.14E-09/yradditional 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 candidatesexcept 78 and 123 (which are discussed separately below), this reduction in frequency isbased on a detailed cutset summation. The overall percent reduction of the Class HA H/Erelease category is calculated and included as the third column of Table 2-2, "Class IIAPercent 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 thenew (higher) Class IIA H/E release category frequency which includes the 3.14E-09/yradditional frequency identified in the RAI. This assumes the SAMA Class IIA frequencyreduction for the additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency is the same as the base Class IIA H/Erelease category. This assumption is judged reasonable. The H/E "Other" releasecategory 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 higherAdjusted Cost Benefit is due to the increase in the Offsite Benefit portion. The OnsiteBenefit portion remains unchanged. Onsite Benefit is calculated based on Level 1 CDFrather than Level 2 release category frequency. The 3.14E-9/yr undercounting is due topostulated 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 toeliminate all Class H or Class IV accident sequences with large drywell failures. This SAMAwas the subject of an RAI (i.e., RAI 6.f). DTE provided a revised benefit andimplementation 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.fresponse for SAMA 78. For this present analysis, SAMA 78 is assumed to eliminate all theH/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  toNRC- 15-0045Page 3decrease the concentration of all radionuclides (excluding noble gases) by 50% (i.e., therewas no change in core damage frequency or release category frequency calculated). For thispresent analysis, SAMA 123 is conservatively assumed to eliminate all the H/E Class HAfrequency (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 theseSAMA candidates have significant margin to being potentially cost beneficial. These SAMAcandidates remain not cost beneficial even if the 95% uncertainty sensitivity factor (2.5) isincluded in the cost benefit calculation. toNRC- 15-0045Page 4Table 2-1FERMI 2 SAMA DOSE RISK AND COST RISK WITH SEPARATE CLASS IIA H/E RELEASE CATEGORYOffsite Population Offsite EconomicCharacteristics of Release Mode Population Dose Economic Dose Risk Cost RiskCostRelease Category yr"1 person-rem $ person-rem/yr $/yrH/E-BOC 5.93E-08 2.18E+07 3.03E+10 1.29E+00 1.80E+03Class HA 5.63E-08 2.18E+07 3.03E+ 10 1.23E+00 1.71E+03H/EOther 2.60E-07 8.1OE+06 2.80E+10 2.11E+00 7.28E+03H/I 7.20E-08 9.52E+06 5.26E+10 6.86E-01 3.79E+03H/L 2.46E- 10 8.98E+06 1.67E+10 2.21E-03 4.11E+00M/E 6.17E-08 2.48E+06 8.39E+09 1.53E-01 5.18E+02M/A 3.71E-08 2.76E+06 6.1OE+09 1.03E-01 2.27E+02L/E 4.36E-08 2.26E+05 2.26E+07 9.85E-03 9.85E-01L/I 5.46E-08 2.14E+06 8.25E+09 1.17E-01 4.51E+02LL/E 5.02E- 10 1.31E+04 3.81E+05 6.57E-06 1.91E-04LL/I 7.75E-08 1.29E+05 4.05E+06 1.00E-02 3.14E-01CI 7.83E-07 6.46E+01 1.96E+00 5.06E-05 1.54E-06Totals 5.71E+00 1.58E+04  toNRC-15-0045Page 5Table 2-2FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCESBase 2.5Addition- Addition- Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5Class IIA Class IIA al Offsite Benefit Benefit Adjusted Uncertain-SAMA Percent Frequency al Offsite Benefit Cost ty Factor Implemen-Descriptio Portio Portini Cos Applied to tation Cost# Description Red- Reduction Dose Cost from from Portion Benefit Astuction(1 (per/yr)'2) Be Beit from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)(1O)ucin (e/r $() Benefit Offsite Offsite Onie ()s Bnft($) ($)(4) ($)(5) ($)(6) Onsite Benefit_________($)(7) ($)(9)Usefirewatersystem as a21 backup 58.34% 3.29E-08 106,618 8,950 241,689 357,257 15,257 372,514 931,285 2,000,000source fordieselcoolingTraining foroffsite24 power 0.00%(11) 0.00E+00(11) 0 0 2,839 2,839 3,429 6,268 15,670 50,000recoveryafter SBOChangeproceduresto allowcross50 connect of 2.88% 1.62E-09 5,258 441 11,967 17,667 1,187 18,854 47,134 50,000motorcooling forRHRSWpumps  toNRC- 15-0045Page 6Table 2-2FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCESBase 2.5Addition- Addition- Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5Class IIA Class IIA al Offsite Benefit Benefit Ben Adjusted Uncertain-SAMA Percent Frequency al Offsite Economic Portion Portion Cost ty Factor Implemen-Desd-iptioon Dose Cost from f Applied to tation Costut(1) (pe (2) Benefit from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)uto pry) ($)(3) Benefit Offsite Offsite($)(4) ($)(5) ($)(6) Onsite Benefit($)(7) ($)(9)Enhanceproceduralguidance foruse of cross-54 tied 0.02% 1.07E- 11 35 3 2,239 2,276 998 3,275 8,186 50,000componentcooling orservicewater pumpsEnhanceprocedure totrip67 unneeded 0.00%"I 0.00E+00(11) 0 717 717 468 1,185 2,963 50,000RHR or CSpumps onloss of roomventilationEnable78 flooding of 100.00% 5.63E-08 182,763 15,341 97,454 295,559 0 295,559 738,897 1,000,000drywellhead seal  toNRC- 15-0045Page 7Table 2-2FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCESBase 2.5Addition- Addition- Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5Class IIA Class IIA Addite al Offsite Benefit Benefit Ben Adjusted Uncertain-SAMA Percent Frequency al Offsite Economic Portion Portion Benefit Cost ty Factor Implemen-Description Dose Portion Applied to tation CostRed- Reduction Cost from from Benefit AstBn) (2stBenefit from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)(10)($)(3) Benefit Offsite Offsite ()8(6) Onsite Benefit($)4)($)5)($)6) ($)(71 (s)(9)Install anATWS sizedfiltered123 containment 100.00% 5.63E-08 182,763 15,341 1,102,769 1,300,874 0 1,300,874 3,252,185 40,000,000vent toremovedecay heatIncreasetraining andoperating145 experience 11.94% 6.73E-09 21,828 1,832 275,160 298,820 34,605 333,425 833,562 1,000,00015 feedback toimproveoperatorresponseProcedur-alize all152 potential 4- 6.01% 3.39E-09 10,991 923 23,149 35,063 2,189 37,251 93,128 100,000kV AC buscross-tieactions  toNRC- 15-0045Page 8Table 2-2FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS IIA SEQUENCESBase 2.5Addition- Addition- Base Case Adjusted Case 2.5Class 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 CostRed- Reduction Bene Cost from from Benefit AstBnf (t Benes t from ($)(8) Adj. Cost ($)(10)(per/yr)(2 ($)(3) Benefit Offsite Offsite ()8($)(4) (s)(5) ($)(6) Onsite BenefitIIII11($)(7) ($)(9)Provide analternatemeans of177 supplying 15.84% 8.92E-09 28,949 2,430 91,376 122,755 8,084 130,839 327,098 489,300theinstrumentair headerProvideability tomaintain194 suppression 4.74% 2.67E-09 8,660 727 24,515 33,903 4,359 38,261 95,653 100,000pooltemperaturelowerNotes to Table 2-2:1. Class HA Percent Reduction calculated based on detailed cutset summation, except for SAMAs 78 and 123 where 100% H/EClass 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 the3.14E-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 theadditional benefit (1.37E+07 rem) to the population dose reduction and applying a dose benefit of $2000 /person-rem and the  toNRC- 15-0045Page 9Class 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) andthe "Other" H/E release category offsite economic cost ($2.80E+10) to calculate the additional benefit ($2.30E+09) to theoffsite economic costs assuming the Class HA frequency reduction listed in Column 4. These values are multiplied by theexternal 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 updatedbased 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 DTERAI 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. toNRC- 15-0045Page 10Question 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 inresponse to the original RAIs were performed with respect to the external events multiplier. Theresponse for each of the RAI subsections included the statement that the analysis was perfortnedusing 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." Confirmthat 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 werereviewed and confirmed to have used the external event multiplier of 11. toNRC- 15-0045Page 11Question 3Specify the U.S. permanent population, Canadian permanent population, and total transientpopulation that sum to the total estimated population of 6,055,678 reported in Table D. 1-22 ofthe environmental report. Provide tables showing the spatial distribution of these threepopulation components. Justify that the total population and its spatial distribution modeled inthe SAMA analysis will not underestimate offsite population doses and offsite economic costrisks, considering prevailing winds blowing from the west-southwest and the correspondingpotential for atmospheric plume migration to the east-northeast. Explain how the populationdistribution and economic values were implemented in the SAMA analysis to account for thenon-U.S. population and non-U.S. land areas. Provide WinMACCS code inputs and outputs thatwould allow confirmation that offsite population doses and offsite economic cost risks have notbeen underestimated due to these factors.Response:a) Specify the U.S. permanent population, Canadian permanent population, and total transientpopulation that sum to the total estimated population of 6,055,678 reported in Table D. 1-22of the environmental report. Provide tables showing the spatial distribution of these threepopulation components.The US permanent population, Canadian permanent population, and total transientpopulation totals for 2045 are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The sums of thosevalues are provided in Table 4. The total estimated population is 6,055,850 which is inreasonable agreement (<0.003%) with the 6,055,678 reported in Table D. 1-22 of theEnvironmental Report which was calculated using SECPOP2000 and a population multiplierof 1.2056. The population multiplier was used to increase the population to account forpopulation growth between 2000 and 2045, transient population (which is not included inSECPOP2000), and to account for Canadian population (which is not included inSECPOP2000). 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. settingpopulation to 0). In order to account for the non-US population, the original SECPOP2000results for each of the US sectors were increased by the above population multiplier anddocumented in Table D. 1-22 of the ER. Because of this method, the US sector populations inTable D. 1-22 are higher than their corresponding values shown in Tables 1 and 4. Tables 1through 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 analysiswill not underestimate offsite population doses and offsite economic cost risks, consideringprevailing winds blowing from the west-southwest and the corresponding potential foratmospheric plume migration to the east-northeast.The Level 3 analysis was reanalyzed using the populations provided in Table 4 and comparedto the ER SAMA analysis results. This is shown in Tables 5 and 6. The ER SAMA analysis  toNRC- 15-0045Page 12was performed with three years of meteorological data (2003, 2005, and 2007). Thereanalysis was performed using the same three years of meteorological data. Note that a fullyear of meteorological data is used as input into WinMACCS, therefore the data considersprevailing 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. Asshown in Table 5, the dose risk and economic risk for 2007 using the population data fromTable 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 usingthe 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 reducedmaximum averted cost risk and modified maximum averted cost risk than used in the SAMAanalyses, as shown in Table 6.The ER SAMA analysis results provide bounding maximum averted cost risk and modifiedmaximum averted cost risk (as shown in Table 6) when compared to the reanalysis performedusing the population distribution as listed in Table 4 compared to the population distributionprovided in Table D. 1-22 of the ER. The ER SAMA analysis results values shown in Table 6are used in the ER SAMA analysis, and therefore the values used in the ER SAMA analysisare bounding.c) Explain how the population distribution and economic values were implemented in the SAMAanalysis 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 aretaken from SECPOP2000 which does not include non-US population. A populationmultiplier of 1.2056 was developed using 2045 population based on permanent and transientpopulation within 50 miles of the plant site (including both US and Canadian permanent andtransient population) which was determined in a separate analysis. The results of thisanalysis are shown in Table 4. The initial SECPOP2000 model determined the USpopulation 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 populationto match the total population listed in Table 4. This methodology increased the populationoutput of SECPOP2000 to incorporate the Canadian population and transient population inareas where SECPOP2000 determined population to exist (i.e. within the US). Using theSECPOP2000 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 plantsite. The economic multiplier of 1.2964 was determined based on the consumer price indexfor 2013 vs 2002 as used in SECPOP2000. No other changes were made in the SAMAanalysis. For the sensitivity results that are presented in Table 5 and Table 6, the economic  toNRC- 15-0045Page 13value for land in Canada was set to be equal to the maximum economic value of US landwithin 50 miles of the Fermi 2 site as determined by SECPOP2000 (including the 1.2964multiplier) for conservatism.d) Provide WinMACCS code inputs and outputs that would allow confirmation that offsitepopulation doses and offsite economic cost risks have not been underestimated due to thesefactors.Supporting WinMACCS input and output files are provided in Enclosure 2 for both the basecase and the sensitivity analyses performed. toNRC- 15-0045Page 14Table 1 -Estimated 2045 US Permanent PopulationDirection Distance (mi)(0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTALN 0 167 287 201 200 15,392 124,306 409,529 519,476 384,799 1,454,357NNE 0 114 54 37 105 10,636 84,130 200,733 652,426 522,916 1,471,151NE 0 239 155 0 0 47 6 0 74 0 521ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7,913 40,313 48,234SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,136 13,319 22,363 36,818S 3 562 33 0 0 0 14 6,279 15,053 34,436 56,380SSW 4 873 26 0 0 0 43 74,870 29,104 51,584 156,504SW 3 340 10 0 85 1,158 12,505 278,172 154,320 34,754 481,347WSW 0 100 962 2,160 2,069 35,520 12,091 16,296 15,015 12,887 97,100W 5 100 280 287 321 7,432 7,495 10,557 32,531 35,576 94,584WNW 4 59 135 128 325 4,706 6,694 21,772 22,818 18,667 75,308NW 2 126 763 665 1,167 5,986 15,093 147,248 170,808 76,272 418,130NNW 2 165 409 631 382 4,742 26,447 217,495 170,467 164,114 584,854TOTAL 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  toNRC- 15-0045Page 15Table 2 -Estimated 2045 Canadian Permanent PopulationDirection Distance(mi)(0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTALN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,889 323,122 4,006 0 375,017NE 0 0 0 0 0 527 32,879 123,232 102,482 158 259,278ENE 0 0 0 0 0 10 11,163 25,307 17,201 21,675 75,356E 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,221 20,210 44,702 4,404 73,537ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 287 0 289SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 68SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 537 96,152 491,873 168,746 26,237 783,545  toNRC- 15-0045Page 16Table 3 -Estimated 2045 Transient PopulationDirection Distance(mi)(0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTALN 0 9 15 10 10 799 6,450 21,251 26,956 19,968 75,468NNE 0 6 3 2 5 552 6,559 24,935 34,042 27,135 93,239NE 0 12 8 0 0 25 1,416 5,305 4,416 7 11,189ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 481 1,089 740 933 3,243E 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 870 1,924 190 3,166ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 2,344 2,807SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 774 1,300 2,140S 0 29 2 0 0 0 1 365 875 2,002 3,274SSW 0 45 1 0 0 0 2 4,353 1,692 2,999 9,092SW 0 18 1 0 4 60 650 15,683 8,972 2,021 27,409WSW 0 5 50 112 107 1,843 627 847 808 715 5,114W 0 5 15 15 17 386 389 548 1,688 1,846 4,909WNW 0 3 7 7 17 244 347 1,130 1,184 969 3,908NW 0 7 40 34 61 311 783 7,641 8,863 3,958 21,698NNW 0 9 21 33 20 246 1,372 11,286 8,846 8,516 30,349TOTAL 0 148 163 213 241 4,466 19,259 95,369 102,255 74,903 297,017  toNRC- 15-0045Page 17Table 4 -Estimated 2045 Total PopulationDistance(mi)Direction(0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) TOTALN 0 176 302 211 210 16,191 130,756 430,780 546,432 404,767 1,529,825NNE 0 120 57 39 110 11,188 138,578 548,790 690,474 550,051 1,939,407NE 0 251 163 0 0 599 34,301 128,537 106,972 165 270,988ENE 0 0 0 0 0 10 11,644 26,396 17,941 22,608 78,599E 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,403 21,080 46,626 4,594 76,703ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 299 0 301SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8,444 42,657 51,109SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,202 14,093 23,663 38,958S 3 591 35 0 0 0 15 6,644 15,928 36,438 59,654SSW 4 918 27 0 0 0 45 79,223 30,796 54,583 165,596SW 3 358 11 0 89 1,218 13,155 293,855 163,292 36,775 508,756WSW 0 105 1,012 2,272 2,176 37,363 12,718 17,143 15,823 13,602 102,214W 5 105 295 302 338 7,818 7,884 11,105 34,219 37,422 99,493WNW 4 62 142 135 342 4,950 7,041 22,902 24,002 19,636 79,216NW 2 133 803 699 1,228 6,297 15,876 154,889 179,671 80,230 439,828NNW 2 174 430 664 402 4,988 27,819 228,781 179,313 172,630 615,203TOTAL 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  toNRC- 15-0045Page 18Table 5 -Population Dose Risk and Economic RiskER SAMA Analysis Results 2003 Met Data Sensitivity 2005 Met Data Sensitivity 2007 Met Data SensitivityRelease Population Economic Population Economic Population Economic Population EconomicCategory 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) ($/yr)H/E-BOC 1.29E+00 1.80E+03 1.33E+00 1.57E+03 1.24E+00 1.33E+03 1.26E+00 1.38E+03H/E 2.54E+00 8.77E+03 2.55E+00 7.64E+03 2.56E+00 7.01E+03 2.40E+00 7.23E+03H/I 6.86E-01 3.79E+03 7.56E-01 3.08E+03 7.49E-01 2.43E+03 7.05E-01 2.65E+03H/L 2.21E-03 4.11E+00 2.22E-03 3.67E+00 2.41E-03 3.35E+00 2.33E-03 3.54E+00M/E 1.53E-01 5.18E+02 1.55E-01 4.23E+02 1.46E-01 2.OOE+02 1.49E-01 2.63E+02M/I 1.03E-01 2.27E+02 9.68E-02 1.85E+02 9.87E-02 9.02E+O1 9.76E-02 1.50E+02L/E 9.85E-03 9.85E-01 7.24E-03 7.19E-01 4.93E-03 6.85E-01 5.67E-03 5.58E-01L/I 1.17E-01 4.51E+02 1.16E-01 3.53E+02 1.15E-01 1.83E+02 1.16E-01 2.79E+02LL/E 6.57E-06 1.91E-04 6.73E-06 2.99E-04 7.33E-06 2.73E-04 7.13E-06 2.88E-04LL/I 1.OOE-02 3.14E-01 7.42E-03 3.70E-01 4.97E-03 9.30E-01 6.36E-03 3.08E-01CI 5.06E-05 1.54E-06 4.13E-05 1.12E-06 3.20E-05 2.18E-04 3.48E-05 2.52E-06TOTAL 4.91E+00 1.56E+04 5.02E+00 1.33E+04 4.92E+00 1.13E+04 4.75E+00 1.20E+04  toNRC- 15-0045Page 19Table 6 -Maximum Averted Cost RiskER SAMA Analysis Results 2003 Met Data Sensitivity 2005 Met Data Sensitivity 2007 Met Data SensitivityCost 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real 3% DiscountDiscount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount RateRate Sensitivity Rate Sensitivity Rate Sensitivity Rate SensitivityOff-Site Exposure 105,676 147,667 108,060 150,998 105,907 147,990 102,248 142,876Cost (WPHA) ($/yr)Off-Site Economic 167,403 233,921 143,147 200,027 121,621 169,948 129,155 180,475Cost (WEA) ($/yr)On-Site Exposure 572 930 572 930 572 930 572 930Cost (Wo) ($/yr)On-Site Cleanup 17,450 29,293 17,450 29,293 17,450 29,293 17,450 29,293Cost (WcD) ($/yr)ReplacementPower Cost (WRp) 15,247 14,278 15,247 14,278 15,247 14,278 15,247 14,278($/yr)Maximum AvertedCost Risk (MACR) 306,348 426,090 284,476 395,527 260,798 362,440 264,672 367,854($/yr)External EventMultiplierModified MACR 3,369,832 4,686,991 3,129,238 4,350,795 2,868,776 3,986,836 2,911,397 4,046,393(MMACR) ($/yr)__________________________________Difference from 0.0% 0.0% -7.1% -7.2% -14.9% -14.9% -13.6% -13.7%ER Results I  toNRC- 15-0045Page 20Question 4To support an NRC evaluation of potential replacement power costs from a temporarysuspension of Fermi 3 power generation during site cleanup and decontamination activitiesfollowing a severe accident at the Fermi 2 plant, confirm that 1655 MWe is an appropriate valuefor 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 CoreThermal Power," states, "The estimated net electrical power output, which is dependent on siteambient conditions, the normal plant heat sink (NPHS) operation controls, and station electricalloads, is between approximately 1485 MWe and 1585 MWe." DTE recommends that theconservative maximum net electrical power output value of 1585 MWe be used for an evaluationof potential replacement power costs for Fermi 3. toNRC-15-0045Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341Operating License No. NPF-43CD Containing Input and Output Files Requested bySevere Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 Question 3}}

Latest revision as of 21:21, 27 April 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15141A163&oldid=1528847"