ML19309F980
| ML19309F980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1979 |
| From: | Donoghue D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309F981 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-77-127, CON-NRC-4-77-127 SECY-79-370, NUDOCS 8005020087 | |
| Download: ML19309F980 (4) | |
Text
...
k (v) 2757
-N-1.,no a lo70 1
~
COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Cs.. m ivne n From:
Daniel J. Donoghue, Director. Office of Administration Thru:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF TRI-PARTY CONTRACT NO.
NRC-04.-77-127, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION /
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Purpose:
To request Comission approval to execute a contract modification which exceeds $1,000,000.
In paragraph 4(a) of the Chairman's January 20, 1975 memorandum, Delegation of Authority, to the Director, Office of Administration, the Contracting Officer is required to submit any individual action concerning n'uclear regulatory research, involving more than
$1,000,000, to the Comission for approval.
The esti-mated abiitional cost to the NRC for this proposed modi-ficatior, action to this already Comission approved project (SECY-77-2A,datedMay 10,1977.and memorandum, Chilk/Gossick, dated July 1,1977) is $1,306,198.
Discussion:
On the authority of the above mentioned Comission approval on July 1,1977, a three-party cost-sharing contract between the NRC, Westinghouse Electric Corpora-tion (W), and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) was executed for a multi-year research project entitled "FLECHT-SEASET Program" under which PWR heat transfer and system reflood effects investigations are being performed.
The program's estimated cost of $11,859,669 is being cost-shared between the three agreed NRC share being $4,981,061 (42%) parties with the In the course of the contract work, it was determined that a change in the design of the proposed test apparatus be effected.
In the test program, Westinghouse is to design and fabricate various test components and facilities.
Included are full length heating rod bundles of various dimensions representat fe of PWR reactors and reflective of various PWR operating temperature modes.
Contacts:
2 i
O In the initia113 roposed designs was,a single heater tube design and a 161 heater tube bundle' design, both to be tested in various blocked and unblocked configurations.
It was concluded, however, that the planned single tube configuration tests would not provide atisfactory test data and that this test apparatus design should be replaced by a 21-rod heater tube bundle for the planned flow blockage effects tests.
With this equipment design change, it was deemed that the test program and its anticipated results would more adequately conform to the research project's goals.
After due coasideration of the proposed equipment redesign, the program's manager, the Project Management Group (PMG),
authorized the Contractor to proceed with the recomended change. The PMG is comprised of NRC, W, and EPRI technical staff.
In order to keep the project oii schedule, the Contractor was allowed to use funds allocated for the now deleted single rod apparatus for the replacement 21-rod bundle test apparatus.
Recognizing, however, that the total project costs would be higher for the 21-rod bundle design and to avoid possible subsequent costing problems, the Contractor was limited in its initial redesign and fabrica-tion efforts to the funding level allocated for the single tube test equipment.
The Contractor has now reached this imposed cost ceiling in this particular task.
The consequences of nonapproval are such that the objectives of the research program will not be fully realized unless the redesigned 21-rod bundle test apparatus is implemented in place of the single heater rod tube apparatus.
Both l
Contractor and NRC in-house evaluations of the initially l
' planned single tube design now indicate that data so gener-ated would not be adequate for the purposes of the research l
program. The replacement 21-rod bundle will satisfactorily fulfill the test and data requirements of the project.
I Comission nonconcurrence at this point would not allow the completion of the 21-rod bundle test equipment's fabrication and this important test phase of this already approved research project would not be conducted and the overall objectives of the research program would not be reached.
The NRR staff has reviewed and concurs fully with this pro-i posed equipment redesign and the attendant contract modifica-tion.
Contractually speaking, neither the research requirements nor the phenomena of the study are to be changed nor will l
1 the parameters of the research to be conducted be expanded in this contract modification.
A change mainly in the design
i r
3 and' fabrication of a piece'of the research equiprat and its application is involved.
As such, this change at. on is contractually considered as being a "within scopt change to be performed within the presently assigned and approved con-tract work statement. There are additional costs associated with this equipment redesign, however, and the proposed con-tract modification will recognize these increased costs.
With this change, the total costs of this program will increase by $3,109,994 with this additional cost being shared as follows:
NRC - $1,306,198 EPRI - $1,026,298 W
-$ 777,498 All three parties to this contract have concurred with this change and have authorized the preparation of an appropriate contract document to incorporate the increased estimate of cost.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Commission grant approval for this contract change which will reflect an increase in the research program's total cost in excess of $1,000.000.
Although no additional funds are to be obligated at this time by the NRC and, in this proposed contract action, only an increase in the research program's ultimate costs is being recognized, it is anticipated that the required funds will be routinely obligated in the future as they are made available.
It is planned that the required funds will be added in FY '80 and FY '81 and such funds have already been identified in the RES budnets for these years for this purpose.
Reference:
SECY-77-2 dated January 3, 1977 SECY-77-2A dated May 10, 1977 SECY-7.7-2B dated June 14, 1977 r
Daniel J. Donoghue, Direct'or Office of Administration
Attachment:
RFPA No. RES-77-127, dated May 2, 1979, With a Summary of the Revised Workscope and a Justifi-cation Statement 6
0 e
I w
n
- o...
4 Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, June 15, 1979.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT June 11, 1979, with an information copy to the Office of
'e Secretary If the paper.is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec. Dir. for Opers.
Regional Offices ACRS Secretariat I
{
l r
l
-m y
q-w -
~
i4-a w
Y