ML19350A390
| ML19350A390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/20/1981 |
| From: | Markl R, Morton K NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350A389 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-6694, CON-NRC-04-80-178, CON-NRC-4-80-178 NUDOCS 8103130686 | |
| Download: ML19350A390 (10) | |
Text
e e, s A RIG sy, t
UNITED STATES
! %,,,f 'e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COTATAISSION g., q,g/ j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0
%[:c;4f
- n::: a Science Applications, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Roger Markl 1200 Prospect Street P. O. Box 2351 La Jolla, CA 92037 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Contract No. NRC-04-80-178, Task Order No. 2 Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of this contract, I hereby (i) authorize the expenditure of $108,000.00 of the funds currently obligated under this contract and (ii) Jirect you to perform the work set forth in the attached Task Order No. 2.
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 after its receipt. Said notification shall contain, your esti-mate of the required total ceiling price. Notwithstanding said notification, you shall commence performance of the Statement of Work as indicated herein.
Within ten (10) business days after receipt of such notification, the Con-tracting Officer shall either ratify the total ceiling price or adopt the proposed revised estimate or some combination of the two and revise or conform 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 event, you shall be paid for the work performed to that date in accord-ance with the provisions of ARTICLE IV, COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES.
i The following document will not be available for review for severai months.
When it becomes available, either a new Task Order will be issued or if feasible Task Order No. 2 will be modified accordingly:
"NUREG/CR-1667 (SAND 80-1429), entitled, ' Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Scenario Development,'
by R. M. Cranwell, et. al., June 1980. "
8103130 N
C ',23*
2 This ietter, executed on benalf of the Cuniaission, is fornarded to.rou in quadruplicate.
Please acknowledge receipt on three copies hereon and return i
them to me as soon as possible. The fourth copy is for your retention.
Sincerely.
L J
Kellog Morton, Chief Research Contracts Branch Division of Contracts Office of A6ninistration
Attachment:
Task Order No. 2 RECEIVED:
SCIEllCE APPLICATIONS, INC.
(X) Agree (See Below)*
(
) Disagree
(
) t;otification wt subm by
/
/ /'
(Date) hl
/
BY:
4 TITLE:
Contracts Manager DATE:
February 20, 1981 Desired Completion Date SAI's required period of performance for Task Order Number 2 is six (6) months ARO therefore based on the authorization date of this Task Order the completion date is August 15, 1981.
Fuel C;.cie Pr:je:: R2 view Task Orcer No. 2
- i s..:: ";;1icati:ns, Inc.
NRC-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 Media," an ongoing study by Sandia Laboratories and the work by CGS, Inc. for the Risk and Operations Research Branch of the Division of Systems and Reliability Research, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Scope of Work The review under Task Order No. 2 shall be of the following documents:
1.
NUREG/CR-1397 (SAND 80-0020), entitled " Risk Methodology Small Sample for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste:
Sensitivity Analysis Techniques.for Computer Models, With An Application to Risk Assessment," hy Ronald L. Iman, W. J. Conover, and James E. Campbell, March 1980.
'"0-0717), entitled "The Distributed 2.
NUREG/CR-1376 91ving the Convective Dispersion Equation,"
Velocity Methoc by James E. Campt
., Dennis E. Longsine, and Mark Reeves, July 1980.
3.
NUREG/CR-3262 9 SAND 80-0157), entitled " Risk Methodology A Distri-for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste:
bution Free Approach to Inducing Rank Correlation Among Input Variables for Simulation Studies," by Ronald L. Iman and W. J. Conover, March 1980.
4 -
4.
"; T fco-!?77 Ice:non nfaal, entitled " Risk !*ethodology for Geoloaic Disposal of Radioactive Waste:
Transport Model Sensitivity Anlaysis," oy Jmes E. Cdmpbeil, T:,.-id L. I :n, and " ark Reeves, June 1930.
5.
NUREG/CR-1608 (CGS /NRS5F060), entitled " Scenario Develop-cent and Evaluation Related to the Risk Assessmant of High Level Radioactive Waste Recositories," by F. W. Schwartz and F. A. Donath, June 1980.
The following computer code user's manuals will be supplied to the reviewers with the above documents. These supporting documents are intended as background and reference material and should not bear a substantial part of the review.
1.
NUREG/CR-1190(SAND 79-1920), entitled " Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste: The Network Flow and Transport (NWFT) Model," by James E. Campbell, et. al., February 1980.
SAND 79-1473, entitled " Stepwise Regression With PRESS and 2.
Rank Regression (Program User's Guide)," by Ronald L. Iman, et. al., January 1980.
entitled " Latin Hypercube Sampling (Program SAND 79-1473, 3.
User's Guide)," by Ronald L. Ican, James M. Davenport, and Diane K. Zeigler: January 1980.
NUREG/CR-1609 (CGS /NR85UO60), entitled "A Deterministic -
4.
Probabilistic Model for Contaminant Transport User's Manual,"
by F. W. Schwartz and A. Crowe, May 1980.
The review of the published products shall be approached from the perspective of how the work in any given report stands on its own and how it supports the overall Risk Methodology for Waste Isolation project.
~
^
T w
m-
.o.
Statement of 1.ork Science Applications, Inc. (5AI) shall provida pc;::nn:1, materials, facilities, and services including clerical support personnel to perform the work in this task order. SAI shall c:ndu:t a c Ordinated ruitidis-ciplinary review of the aforementioned Sandia and CGS, Inc. products.
SAI shall address and propose recommendations in the areas below, using NOTE:
only the data in each of the reports and supporting documents.
NOT ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL STAGES ALL APPLICABLE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT EACH PROJECT.
I'.
Are the models realistic?
Are the assumptions valid?
a.
Wh'at would be the impact on the analysis results of b.
any incorrect assumptions?
How should any identified weaknesses in the models c.
be improved?
2.
Is the methodology valid?
3.
Are the data valid?
What uncertainty in the data would render the model a.
results unrealistic?
Was each datum uncertainty and its contribution to b.
the uncertainty in the results assessed appropriately?
Is the time period examined or used in calculations appropriate?
4.
Do the event sequences chosen for calculation cover a reasonably 5.
complete range?
Is the treatment of completeness by Sandia and CGS adequate?
a.
If Were any important potential risk contributors omitted?
b.
so, identify.
-~
T
~ ' ' '
~~
~
~
y-.
.a.
Were the quantitative or qualitative criteria for ciivice c.
of sequences valia?
'l hat were the criteria used as a basis for the selection d.
of secuences for detailed examination and calculation by Sandia and by CGS?
Was a comparison made between tne scenarios exaJdnad by Sandia and those examined by CGS? What were the differences e.
and inconsistencies? How should these be resolved?
Was an effort made to identify (i.e., rank according to importance 6.
to risk) key parameters, processes and events?
If so, was the effort adequate?
a.
Evaluate the methods used to achieve the ranking.
b.
Were the uncertainties in the results considered?
7.
Were these uncertainties propagated and quantified?
a.
b.
Were acceptable numerical methods used?
Were the contributing uncertainties correctly assessed?
c.
Which of the models and which parts of the methodology could be used to resolve discrete questions (e.g., for a licensing review) or would 8.
they only.be useful as supporting information to discrete questions?
What types of questions could be resolved by use of a given a.
model or the methodology?
Is there a correlation on scenario development between Sandia and What are the criteria in selecting the scenarios by both parties?
9.
CGS?
- 10. Conclusions
- 11. P,eccmmendations Any recommendation shall be accompanied by an estimate of NOTE:
the contribution to error in the results of a specific suggestion for improving the analysis.
n mmv
.c.
4r nach task, the review shall include all of the,following disc 1piines:
Earth Sciances:
Hydrology with particular emphasis on mathematical m:deling of regional flew systems and on the determination of hydro-logic parameters.
structural geology with particular emphasis on the dynamic interpretation of structural geologic features.
aqueous geochemistry with particular emphasis on evaluation of system panmeters that influence solubility, exchange and transport.
geophysics with particular emphasis on measurements of physical parameters and their correlation with material and environmental characteristics.
Applied Mathematics:
applied statistics with particular emphasis on sampling techniques, multivariate analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
systems analysis with particular emphasis on solutions of systems equations and numerical (computer) solution tech-niques, especially those representing physical systems.
probability analysis with particular emphasis on analysis systems reliability and the assessment of probabilities.
Applied Chemistry and Physics:
with particular emphasis on transport processes, hydraulics and nuclear processes.
Environmental Biology:
with particular emphasis on the mathematics of biology, bio-statistics and radionuclide transport through the environment to humans.
A management coordinator and a technical coordinator shall provide focus to the following aspects of the contracted work:
M' M
W w w.
.c.
ine teciadcal cssidi..:.tsr :h:ll ::: me "-27 -erresibility fer the te:h.-i:21 ::-tent of the final reDort.
The management coordinator shall assume fi.n:1 responsibility for the technical editing of the firal raport.
Both the technical coordinator and the management coordinator snail conduct a briafir.g at the "D.C "erdq'>arters at the con-clusion of the review.
NRC does not want a major thurst of the review under this Task Order to involve computer verification. Therefore, Task Order No. 2 does not allow for computer use in this review stage. Review involving limited computer Therefore, use may be appropriate near the completion of the Sandia project.
as the review of Task Order No. 2 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. auld have. SAI should point them out in their final report thereby making them known while the project is ongoing so they can have an impact on the final Sandia product.
Any disagreement or difference of opinion of reviewers should also be SAI should documented in the final report from SAI for this task order.
~
Make not make open-ended criticisms, i.e., just saying something is bad.
constructive criticism by adding statements of how to correct or improve the work and statements which delineate the impact or significance of reccr:r.endations to or errors in the methodology on the final result.
-*=*mee-mew-..
7-
.:.e c..U. a. i n It is important that a consistent group of people rev sco ethodology proiect.
That is, all reviewers shall read all the products and supporting documents covered under all the task orders issued as part of this contract.
Any changes in the reviewers, e.g., by attrition, must be approved by NRC. Award of additional task orders will depend upon satisfactory performance of this task order.
Reporting Requirements _
This task order shall result in a final report submitted to NRC in publishable form including one camera-ready copy acceptable to NRC's Coordinate with Division of Document Control for printing as a NUREG.
Pat Larkins (301-492-7566) of that Division for what is acceptable copy.
Each task report shall document the review work accomplished including:
Answers.to questions posed in this work statement, and 1.
2.
Conclusions and 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 Headquarters.
In addition, monthly status letter reports of the review work are required including expenditures of time and money, both for the month and cumulatively.
Special Instructions NRC shall provide each reviewer with a copy of the products to be reviewed.
A post award meeting shall be held by Telecon with the SAI review team within two weeks after the award date.
me,
W
-i-D-2 d cc-eletien nate The fir.ai report for this task crder is due at iMC Headquarters on May 30, 1981, six months after the post a,;ard presentation on December 1, 1980.
Place of Performance The review shall be conducted at SAI facilities in Palo Alto, California.
Maximum Cost Limitation _
The cost of the work performed under this task order shall not exceed
$108,000.00.
e
...,