ML19325F100
| ML19325F100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1984 |
| From: | Burnett R NRC |
| To: | Brown W NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325C113 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-0294, CON-FIN-B-294, FOIA-88-451 NUDOCS 8911140094 | |
| Download: ML19325F100 (7) | |
Text
_
il, h('
I' i
$s j
UNIN38 TAT 88 NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMi3810N
- *
- M 0 2 ** *
\\
4 JUL 14 E t
Note to Will Brown
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF WORK (FIN NO: 80294) i It appears that the enclosed statement r
of work may be more expansive than needed to meet our needs. Before approving it. I would like to know what information NRC already has which might be duplicated in this statement of work. For example, are Final Safety Analysis Reports prepared by class 104 licensees? ' If so do they contain accident analyses covering improper manipulation 5
controls, etc?
d i }
R.F. Burnett c
m
Enclosure:
N i
Statement of Work
[d ?-<>
"(
/
ye--
q l
L i
l l
8911140094 391101 3
l hER e -451 PDR d
1 1'
STATEMENT OF WORK s
f CONSEQUENCES OF SABOTAGE AT NONPOWER REACTORS (FIN N0f 80294) 4-(BARNO: 50-19-02-00) i
(
l'0
Background
[
In 1979, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory conducted a study on the con-sequences of sabotage at nonpower reactors.
It was concluded that.within the constraints of this study, only one nonpower reactor had any potential for the release of significant amounts of fission product materials in the event of sabotage. Because of terrorist activities in other parts of the world, as well as concerns by the ACRS about manipulation of reactor control systems and concerns by a public interest group about.the effects of incendiary devices on reactor components, staff believes that it would l
be prudent to su'pplement this study with further technical information to i
assure that the margin of safety provided to the public is maintained.
2.0 Work Required _
Los Alamos National Laburatory shall detemine and evaluate the risks and potential consequences of both a loss of coolant incident and the direct fuel damage which would be produced by:
(a) blast effects from various l
quantities and types of explosives, (b) the production of heat from l
incendiary devices, and (c) the unauthorized manipulation of reactor controls and fuels at nonpower (NPRs) operating at 20 MW,10 MW, 5 MW and 2 MW; and on a generic basis (to the extent possible) at NPRs operating l
below 2 MW. Specifically designed mathematical models or other appropriate losives and methods shall be used to detemine the quantities of exp%uence events.
L incendiary materials requirad to cause the maximum conse Assessments of the maximum case incidents shall include the consequences associated with core meltdown, partial core meltdown, and disintegration and/or crushing of the core.
Facilities shall be grouped by common design feature and analysis of a representative from each group shall be performed in the sequence of descending power.
License Docket No.
Power Level Reactor Type l
National Bureau of Standards 50-184 20 MW Tank i
University of Missouri 50-186 10 MW Tank Georgia Institute of Technology 50-160 5 MW Tank l
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 50-20 5 MW Tank j
Union Carbide 50-54 5 MW Pool l
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission 50-193 2 MW Pool State University of New York 50-57 2 MW Pool University of Michigan 50-2 2 MW Pool University of Virginia 50-62 2 MW Pool General Atomic Technologies, Inc.
50-163 1.5 MW Pool North Carolina State University 50-297 1 MW Pool Oregon State University 50-243 1 MW Pool Texas A&M 50-128 1 MW Pool University of Lowell 50-223 1 MW Pool
,6--
--e w r
-v-
.,w w
w-,,e e-
- -,. - - ~
,---,---v--
,--.--ww---,-.---.+.--,---3,-,--
=~-=w,---,-=-w+
e--,-,
-, -4 e-.--
m p
2
]
l i
i.os Alamos Nations). Laboratory shall perform the following tasksi 2.1 Task No. I j
A review of existing information in available cources such as the NRC docket files augmented by site spccific information provided by NRC staff and on site inspection visits shall be conducted to:
(a) familiarize task personnel with characteristics peculiar to each reactor, and (b) obtain information necessary to aid in the calculation of the radiological consequences for each of ths HPRs listed above, as appropriate.
- 2. 2 Task No. 2 Mathematical models and/or other appropriate methods shall be developed and used to:
a.
calculate the worst case rt.diological release as a result of total core meltdown, partial core meltdown core, disintegration and/or crushing, or other means which could severely damage the fuel in the i
reactor core.
Since the key consideration is the fission product i
release associated with such incidents, the effects of using low t
enriched uranium versus high enriched uranium on the fission product release shall be evaluated, b.
determine, as a function of distance f rom the reactor, the total to the whole body and the on-site and off site-radiation dose (rem) iodine exposure, and radiation dose (rem) to the thyroid from identify any facility from which a fission product release could c.
exceed a 10 CFR, Part 100 release and determine the characteristics of the event that would limit it to less than a Pa[3100 release.
Certain other parameters and assumptions should be considered when per-forming this task. These include, but are not limited to the following:
a.
The models or methods used to calculate the damage and the releases should assume that the reactor has been operating at the maximum power level authorized by NRC license and that equilibrium of fission products was attained prior to the incident. Note:
If the worst case damage to the core or subsequent release is calculated to occur after a period of reactor shetdown, this should also be evaluated, b.
In those cases in which the fission product inventory of the MPR is determined to be insufficient to create a risk to the public health and safety, or those in which the fuel configuration or composition, and/or the reactor construction or other factors is such as to limit the fuel damage and fission product release to a level that is insuf-fir.ient to create a risk to the public health and safety, the study for that facility shall be terminated, and the basis for the conclusion documented.
m
. +....
--..,.m.
~, -,%,,,
-.-,_m,.,
,..-,,,,,w-,,,--..
,__,..,,.ywmnn,y,--,,.y
,r...
,,.-y
i f
f O
j
'c.
No assuiiptions are made regarding the saboteurs! capabilities nor is there any design basis threat associated with this task, i
d.
For baseline considerations, it should be assumed that all reactor safety features fail upon initiation of the incident.
t e.
The mean meteorological conditions at the site and the surrounding area should be considered when calculating the atmospheric dispersion of a release, and f.
Where there is an uncertainty in the calculations of 'the fission product release the results reported should be reasonably conservative.'
2.3 Task No. 3 After Task No. I and 2 have been accomplished, mathematical models or other appropriate methods shall be developed to calculate the amount of explosives and the amount of incendiary material needed to cause the maximum and the limiting events described in Task No. 2 above. Calcula-tions shall be made for the placement of explosives and incendiary devices at the reactor facility boundary and attached to reactor components.
Certain parameters and assumptions should be considered in those calcula-tions.. These include, but are not limited to the following:
a.
The type of explosives and incendiary devices used to cause an event
~
are assumed to be easily obtainable.
b.
Two opposing conditions shall be considered in perfo, ming Task 3:
i.
Safeguards credit shall be given for all physical barriers interposed between the explosives / incendiaries and the reactor fuel, and i
11.
The adversary shall have access to all reactor components in carrying out the sabotage event.
c.
Where there is an uncertainty in the calculations of the damage associated with the explosives and incendiary devices; the results reported should be conservative.
1 2.4 Task No. 4 Upon complet. ion of Task No. 3. for those cases in which the offsite fission product release exceeds a Part 100 release, calculate the amount of explosives and the amount of incendiary material needed to cause the release at the facility boundary of a Part 100 release. These calculations j
shall also be made for the placemant of explosives and incendiary devices j
at the reactor facility boundary and attached to reactor components.
j The parameters and assumptions employed in Task No. 3 shall be utilized in this task.
i
. ~.
,. _.. _.. - _. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. ~ _ _. _ _. _ _,
_i
p p
i j
4*
}
g,:
2.4 Task No. 5
~
Upon completion of Task No. 3, a review and evaluation of reactor control systems and fuels shall be made to deternine whether an unauthorized 1
manipulation of such controls could cause any detrimental effects that may be identified in Task No. 2.
l 2.5 Task No. 6 l
Upon completion of Task No. 3, calculate the mitigating effects of full and partial operation of existing safety features associated with the operation of the reactor (these features are ignored under Task 3 to determine maximum consequences).
Identify additional safety measures and modifications as well as administrative procedures and practices which could be adopted and determine the degree to which these additional considera-tions would mitigate the consequences. Exclude specific safeguards measures from consideration in this task.
3.0 Reporting Requirements 3.1 _ Monthly letter Status Report A monthly report shall be given wh'ich summarizes the progress of the tasks being performed including:
o The work performed during the previous month.
.o Personnel time expenditures during the previous month.
o Problems encountered and the proposed solutions.
v o Activities planned for the ensuing two months.
o Costs generated against the work effort during the previous month (including direct salaries, materials and services. ADP support, subcontracts, travel, general or other related items).
o Current obligation status information The first monthly report shall provide the initial projections or indicate "no change in the cost and uncosted obligation projection." The report shall be due by the 15th of each month with distribution as follows:
Donald,M. Carlson, SG, NMSS - one copy Office of the. Director, NMSS (ATTN: Program Support) - one copy 3.2 Interim Reports A draft interim report shall be furnished to the HMSS Project Manager upon completion of each major task (i.e.
Tasks Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5). After review by appropriate NRC personnel, the Project Manager will provide comments on the draft report to Los Alamos National Laboratory within sixty (60) days of receipt of each report.
.-..._....__,...,_.-.-..._.-..___.__._.,_._.,____,.._-......m___,.-_..
r
-q;t 5-(
- 3. 3 Final Rooorts Los Alamos National Laboratory shall furnish two copies of draft final reports to the 255 Project Manager (PM) and one copy to the Office of the
, Director, 255 (ATTN: Program Support) by June 30, 1986. The documents shall be published as NUREG/CR series reports and will provide:
a.
The on-site and off-site dosage calculations associated with a total loss of coolant, b.
The quantities of explosives and incendiary material or' description of i
acts necessary to cause a limiting case incident, 1
c.
The placement of explosives and incendiary materials in relation to the reactor, r
d.
The resulting consequences, and e.
Appropriate alternative measures which can be implemented to mitigate a significant event (e g., reactor facility modifications, administrative procedures, etc..
After review by appropriate NRC personnel, the PM will provide comments on the draft reports to Los Alamos National Laboratory by August 15, 1986.
t The performing organization shall revise the draft reports based on the PM's comments and submit the reproducible master of each final report to the PM within four weeks after receipt of comments from the PM.
All draft reports, as well as final reports, shall be scre'ened for Clas.
c' sified Information and appropriately marked in accordapce with "NRC Classification Guide for Information Dealing with the Release and Dis.
persion of Radioactive Material' (NRC.RDRH 1)," dated September 1982.
I l
3.4 Program Pl u Within one month after initiation of task orders, LANL shall provide a detailed work plan which identifies study milestones and their projected date of accomplishment. Upon NRC review and approval of this plan, it will r
then become the operating schedule for the overall task.
(
4.0 Meetings l
LANL representative (s) shall meet with the HMSS Project Manager two to four times a year.
- Upon completion of the draft final report, LANL representa-tives, upon request of the PM, shall brief HMSS staff in Washington, DC.
All travel, other than that to NRC licensees in order to accomplish a given task, requires approval of the NRC Project Manager.
5.0 NRC Furnished Material None, except information in available sources such as NRC docke files.
____.._,,,.,_,.,,,,_.-wm.--.-_,,-,._,m.,,,,,,.,,wm_...yy r,
,_,,,~,y.
r 3.+
6o d.
6.0 Level of Effort It is expected that approximately three and one half staff years of tech-nical support will be required to satisfy the provisions of the Statement of Wort.
7.0 Period of Performance Performance for tne overall task shall comence on the effective date of this agreement and continue through September 30, 1986.
r 8.0 Qualit.y Assurance For all draf t and final technical reports delivered under this contract, the contractor shall assure that an independent review and verification of
- ~
all numerical computations and mathematical equations and deviations are performed by qualified contractor personnel other than the original i
author (s) of the reports.
If the contractor proposes to verify / check less than 100 percent of all computations and mathematical equations and derivations in the report (s), (such as might be the case when there are a large number of routine, repetitive calculations), the contractor must first obtain written approval from the HMSS Project Manager.
Computer-generated calculations will not require verification where the computer program has already been verified.
In addition, for all reports, including those which do not contain numeri-cal analyses, a management review shall be conducted prior to submission to the NRC.
9.0 Technical Direction u.
Mr. Donald M. Carlson (FTS 427-4712) is designated the NHSS Project Manager for the purpose of assuring that the services required under this Statement' of Work are delivered in accordance herewith. All technical instructions to the performing organization shall be issued through the HMSS PM. As used herein, technical instructions are those which provide details, suggest possible lines of inquiry, or otherwise complete the general scope 4
of work set forth herein. Technical instructions shall not constitute new assignments or work or changes of such nature as to justify an adjustment in cost or pelod of performance. Directions for changes in cost or period of performance will be provided after receipt of an appropriate Standard Order for Work (50W) (NRC Form 173) from the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (PMSS).
e 4
a m
. m
--.m
--,c
.,em.,-.~...e-,
,,-_.r,,,,,---.y,
,_w,,,,,.wv.ww.,,rwy_,,,,.,,.,,.,y-,,,,..,m__-..-,.
-