ML19318A265
| ML19318A265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/11/1980 |
| From: | Morton K NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Markl R SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-80-178, CON-NRC-4-80-178 NUDOCS 8006190109 | |
| Download: ML19318A265 (9) | |
Text
[
.ilp u.1ri,
'g UNITED STATES
,j'?-
d%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g
'o,]s.Jih,jl)/
2
~E 3
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...4
- pa i* 580 Science Applications, Inc.
ATTi;: Mr. Roger Markl 1200 Prospect Street P. O. Box 2351 La Jolla, CA 92037 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Contract f!o. URC-04-80-178, Task Order ?!o. 1 Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of this contract, I hereby (i) authorize the expenditure of $50,000.00 of the funds currently obligated under this contract and (ii) direct you to perform Ene work set forth in the attached Task Order t!o. 1.
If you believe that the total ceiling price is inadequate to complete the assigned work under this Task Order, you must so notify me within ten (10) business days af ter its receipt. Said notification shall contain your esti-r,. ate of the required total ceiling price.
ilotwithstanding said notification, vou shall commence performance of the Statement of Work as indicated herein.
$ithin ten (10) business days after receipt of such notification, the Contracting Officer shall either ratify the total ceiling price or adopt the proposed revised estimate or some combination of the two and revise or confirm the Task Order accordingly.
In the event you reaffirm your belief that the ceiling price is still inadequate to complete the assigned Task Order, you may, upon submission of a written request to the Contracting Officer, within ten (10) business days after your receipt of the Contracting Officer's confirmation or amendment of this Task Order, be excused from further performance of such task.
In such evant, you shall be paid for the work performed to that date in accordance with tha provisions of ARTICLE IV, COMPEHSATI0tl FOR SERVICES.
W PECEIVED PALD RTO APR 2 21980 CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT 8006190/09
2
/JR ! 1 1980 This letter, executed on behalf of the Comission, is forwarded to you in quadruplicate.
Please acknowledge receipt on three copies hereon and return them to me as soon as possible. The fourth copy is for your retention.
Sincerely,
('
^ r, ' 4, %m
~
6Q.
c ResearchC{ontractsBranch Kellogg. fiorton, Chief Division of Contracts Office of Administration
Attachment:
Task Order flo.1 RECEIVED:
SCIEilCE APPLICATI0flS, IllC.
(x) Agree
() Disagree
() Notification will be submitted by BY:
7N n
/0 TITLE:
Contracts Manager DATE:
April 28,1980
(
~
Fuel Cycle Project Review Task Order fio. 1 Science Applications, Inc.
flRC-04-80-178 Objective Perform an independent multidisciplinary review and technical critique of-the products from the project " Risk Assessment Methodology Development for Waste Isolation in Geologic I'edia," an ongoing study by Sandia Laboratories for the Fuel Cycle Section of the Probabilistic Analysis Staff (PAS) of the
!!uclear Regulatory Commission (flRC).
Scope of Work The review under Task Order fio.1 shall be of the following documents:
1.
fiUREG/CR-0458 (SAilD78-0029), entitled " Risk Methodology,for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste:
Interim Report," by J. E. Campbell, et. al., October 1978.
2.
fiUREG/CR-0394 (SAtiD78-0912), entitled " Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste:
Sensitivity Analysis Techniques," by R. L. Iman, J. C. Helton, and J. E. Campbell, October 1978.
3.
fiUREG/CR-0424 (SAtiD78-1267), entitled " Risk liethodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste: The Sandia Waste Isolation Flow and Transport (SWIFT) Model," by R. T. Dillon, R. B. Lantz, and S. B.
Pahwa, October 1978, and associated computer code and user's manual describing SWIFT.
An early version of the listing of the associated computer code and user's manuals mentioned in item 3 above will be supplied to the reviewers with the published reports.
These supporting documents are intended as background and reference material and should not bear a substantial part of the review.
They
m f
are the SWIP code developed for USGS that was the starting material for the Sandia work and an initial version of the SWIFT code which has been substantially changed for Sandia's final product. They are supplied to you because they are in the NRC's public document room (PDR) and therefore are accessible to any interested person in a similar way that the published material (items 1, 2 and
~
3 above) is.
The review of the published products shall be approached both from the perspective of how the work in any given report stands on its own and how it supports the overall Risk ffethodology for Waste Isolation project.
Statement of Work SAI shall provide personnel, materials, facilities, and services including clerical support personnel to perform the work in this task order.
SAI shall conduct a coordinated multidisciplinary review of the aforementioned Sandia products.
SAI shall address and propose recommendations in the areas below, using only the data in each of the reports and supporting documents.
NOTE:
NOT ALL 0F THESE QUESTIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL STAGES OF THE PROJECT. ALL APPLICABLE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT EACH STAGE.
1.
Are the models realistic?
a.
Are the assumptions valid?
b.
What would be t,he impact on the analysis results of any incorrect assumptions?
c.
How snould any identified weaknessa: in the models be inproved?
~~
2.
Is the methodology valid?
[
3.
Are the data valid?
a.
What uncertainty in the data would render the model results unrealistic?
b.
Was each datum uncertainty and its contribution to the uncertainty in the results assessed appropriately?
4.
Is the time period examined or used in calculations appropriate?
5.
Do the eve'nt sequences chosen for calculation cover a reasonably complete range?
a.
Is Sandia's treatment of completeness adequate?
b.
Were any important potential risk contributors omitted?
If so, identi fy.
c.
re the quantitative or qualitative criteria for choice of sequences valid?
6.
Was an effort made to identify (i.e., rank according to importance to risk) key parameters, processes and events?
a.
If so, was the effort adequate?
b.
Evaluate the methods used to achieve the ranking.
7.
Were the uncertainties in the results considered?
a.
Were these uncertainties propagated and quantified?
b.
Were acceptable numerical methods used?
c.
Were the contributing uncertainties correctly assessed?
8.
Which of the models and which parts of the methodology could be used to resolve discrete questions (e.g., for a l' censing review) or would they only be useful as supporting information to discrete questions?
a.
What types of questions could be resolved by use of a given model or the methodology?
9.
Conclusions 10.
Recommenda tions e
(
ilote:
Any recommendation shall be accompanied by an estimate of the contribu-tion to error in the results and a specific suggestion for improving the analysis.
For each task, the review shall include all of the following discipiines:
Earth Sciences:
- hydrogeology with particular emphasis on mathematical modeling of regional flow systems and on the determination of hydrogeologic parameters.
structural geology with particular emphasis on the dynamic interpretation of structural geologic features.
rock mechanics with particular emphasis on the mechanical properties of rock, constitutive relationships, and math modeling of rock deformations.
experimental petrology with particular emphasis on the stability of mineral phases in low temperature metamorphic environments.
- aqueous geochemistry with particular emphasis on evaluation of system parameters that influence solubility, exchange and transport.
geophysics with particular emphasis on measurements of physical parameters and their correlation with material and environmental characteristics.
Applied l'athematics:
- applied statistics with particular emphasis on sampling techniques, multi-variate analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
systens analysis with particular emphasis on solutions of systems equations and numerical (computer) solution techniques, especially those representing physical systems.
probability analysis with particular emphasis on analysis of systems reli-ability and the assessment of probabilities.
Applied Chemistry and Physics:
- with particular emphasis on transport orocesses, hydraulics and. nuclear processes.
Environmental Biology:
- with particul'ar emphasis on the mathematics of biology, biostatistics and radionuclide transport through the environment to humans.
n J
v
A management coordinator and a. technical coordinator shall provideL focus to the:follcwing aspects of the contracted work:
The technical coordinator shall assume final responsibility for the technical content of the final report.
.The. management coordinator shall assume final responsibility for the technical editing of ~ the final report.
Both the technical coordinator and the ~ management coordinator shall conduct-
-a briefing at the NRC Headquarters at the conclusion of the review.
NRC does not want a major thrust of the review under this Task Order to involve computer verification. Therefore, Task Order No.1 does not allow for computer
~
use in this early review stage. Review involving limited computer.use may be appropriate near the completion of the Sandia project. Therefore, as the review i
of Task Order No.1 is conducted, identify areas, if any, of the risk methodology development that would profit from use of the computer for review at a more complete. stage.
The review shall not involve communication with Sandia. -Any questions that
'SAI as reviewers has are the same problems that a user of the methodology would have..SAI.should point them out in their final report thereby making them s
known while the project -is ongoing so they can have an impact on the final i
Sandia product.
'Any disagreement or difference of opinion of reviewers should also be documented
~
in the. final report from SAI for this task order. SAI shculd not make open-
~
ended criticisms, i.e., just saying something1is bad.
ifake constructive criticism by adding statements.of how to correct or improve the work and statements which
~
~
delineate the. impact or : significance of recommendations to or errors in the methodology on the' final result.
.(
a.
en-9
,u
.S.
'It is. important that a consistent group of people review t'he entire risk
~
methodology. proj ect.. That is, all' reviewers shall read all the products and supporting documents covered under all. the task orders issued as part of this Any changes in the reviewers, e.g., by attrition, must be' approved contract.
by NRC.
A, ward of additional-task orders will depend upon satisfactory perfor-manceofthisJiask' order.
Reporting Reouirements This. task order shall result in a final ' report submitted to NRC in publishable form including one camera-read'y copy acceptable to NRC's Division of Document Control for printing as a NUREG.
Coordinate with Pat Larkins (301-492-7566) of
=-
that Division for-what is acceptable copy.
Each task report shall document the review work accomplished including:
1.
Answers to questions posed in this work statement, and 2.
Conclusions abd recommendations of SAI's review.
At the. conclusion of the review for this task order, the technical coordinator and the management coordinator shall deliver the final report and conduct a briefing at the NRC Head _ quarters.
LIn. addition, monthly status letter reports of the review work a're required including expenditures of' time and money both for the month and cumulatively.
..q
.Special Instructions
- NP.C-shall provide each ' reviewer:with a copy of the products to be reviewad.
A po's't award presentation shallL be.givenLto'the SAI renew team by Dr. M. C.
~
" 1Cullingford atISAI in Palo Alto, Cali.fornia, on April. 8,1980.
=
(
-7 Desired Completion Date The final report for this task order is due at I:RC Headquarters on September 8, 1980, five months after the post award presentation on April 8,1980.
4 Place of Perfonaance Coordination of this effort shall be conducted at the SAI facilities in Palo Alto, California.
The reviews required in the " Scope of Work" shall be performed by the Key participants at their respective business offices.
Maximum Cost Limitation The cost of the work performed under this task order shall not exceed $50,000.
O e
e e
6 e
O
=
e
"-m
(
cOupcs *.uw n i
[IaRc iow.' 1ss -
i&L-04-80-178
, t o 7c.,
m MODIFICATION NU?.'RE R D VISION Or CONTR ACTS L* S NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY CC'*?d1SSION W ASHINGTON O C. 20555 G MODIFICATION QNEW OTHE R (Specuryl Task Order No. 1 N
. NOTIFICATION OF CONTRACT EXECUTIO CONTRACT BASED ON:
AUTHORIZATION NUMBER IO: d layne_BatSon RES-80-178 DATE Office of Nuclear Reculatory' Research 10? pan zation)
SharonA.WolStt 5//780 rROM:
(Dare) yjg (Contract Spec,arsst) 4 Research Contracts Branch DIVISION OF CONTR ACTS, ADM EXECUTION DATE CONTR AC1OR (Nam & L ocation/
Science Applications, Inc.
TYPE OF CONTRACT La Jolla, CA 92037 Labor Hour PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (TaskOrder PROJECT TITLE 4/1/80-9/1/80 No.1 only)
Fuel Cycle Project Review PRINCIPAL INVESTIG ATOR Various NRC AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE M. Cullingford FIN NUMBER AMOUNT B&R NUMBER 60-19-40-01 86694 S 50,000.00 NEW NRC FUNDS FUNDING S 50,000.00 TOTAL FY 8_Q FUNDING S 50,000.00 TOTAL NRC OBLIGATIONS ATT ACHMENT(SI:
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
-l CONT R ACT DOCUMENT (.
]-
MRC F ORM 255
-110 761 '
t
-. - s f
~
v
(,
~
-