ML20003H582
| ML20003H582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/23/1981 |
| From: | Bernard Grenier NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003H580 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-7254-1 20-81-215, NUDOCS 8105060412 | |
| Download: ML20003H582 (14) | |
Text
.
O ENCLOSURE 1 NRC sORu 173 U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATOR Y COMMISSION ORDE R NUM8E R (2 78) 20-81-215 STANDARD ORDER FOR DOE WORK rCh 23, 1981 ISSUED TO: IDOE Office 6 ISSUED BY: (N AC Of fice)
ACCOUNTING CITATION Albuquerque Operations Office Office of Nuclear Reactor APORQPRIATION SYM BOL.
Department of Energy Regulation 31 x0200. 201 Division of Licensino saR NuussR PERFORMING ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 20 19-04-08 FIN NUMBER LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATGRY LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO A-7254 -1 WOR K PERICO. THIS ORDER FIN TITLE plXED C ESTIMATED C FROM:
TO:
ENGINEERING EVALUATION ASSISTANCE FOR NONPOWER REACTORS 5/1/81 9/30/81 OBLIGATION AVAll. ABILITY PROVIDED BY:
A.
THiS ORoER S 100,000
- s. TOTAL OF ORDERS PLACEO PRICR TO THis OATE WITH THE PERFORMING ORGANIZATION A Ti N SYu80L" AND THE FIRST FOUR OsGoTS OF NE S
%"N"Nu'Ne4"$iWo*AE'e 947.000 C. TOTAL ORCERS TO DATE ITOTAL A & 8)
S 1,047,000 0 AMOUNT INCLUDEO IN "C" APPLiCA8LE TO THE " FIN NUMBER" CITED IN THIS OROER.
S 100,000 FINANCI AL FLEXISILITY:
FUNCS WILL NOT BE REPROGRAMMED SETWEEN FINS. LINE O CONSTITUTES A LIMITATICN ON 08LiGADONS
[ AUTHORIZEO.
O FUNOS MAY SE REPROGRAMMEO NOT TO EXCEEC 10% OF FIN LEVEL UP TO $5CK. LINE C CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION ON OSLlGATIONS AUTHORIZED.
STANCARD TERMS AND CON 06T10NS PROVl0E0 00E ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THIS ORDER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
ATTACHMENTS:
THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS ARE HERE8Y SECURITY.
MADE A PART OF THIS ORCER:
G WORK ON THIS ORCER l$ NOT CLASSIFIEO.
l D STATEMENT OF WOR K C WORK CN THIS ORDER INVOLVES CLASSIFIED l
C ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS INFORMATION. NRC FORM 187 IS ATTACHEO.
I C OTHER I
THIS ORCER PROVIDES INITIATION OF FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT, PROVIDES WORK REQUIREMENTS, l
1 AND QE0'fESTS A PROPOSAL BASED ON THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF WORK.
1 AFTER SIGNATURE, PLEASE SEND TO THE NRC 0FFICE OF THE CONTROLLER, ATTN:
D. DANDOIS AND PROVIDE A COPY TO THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, ATTN:
D. CORLEY l
ISSUING AUTHORITY ACCEPTING ORGANIZATeON l
SIGNA 70mE
$1GN A TU RE Bernard L. Grenier TI TL E TITLE Technical Assistance Program Manager l
NRC FORM 17312J8) l 810 G060k($
l l
ENCLOSURE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENT The minimum items required in all proposals are:
1.
Performing organization's name and location.
2.
FIN Title, FIN Number, and B&R Number (NRC's) (as on statement of work).
3.
Performing organization's key personnel, program manager, or principal investigator, their resumes and FTS phone numbers.
4.
Background (definition of the problem including the objective (s) to be attained).
5.
Work to be performed (Provide a concise description of tasks to be performed and expected results for the period of performance. Note technical data requirements, potential problems, and other technical information needed to fully explain the effort. Highlight changes from prior authorized S0W's, if any, identify changes in performance, schedule or costs).
6.
Identify major subcontracts, including consultants.
7.
Costs estimated to be incurred by 00E contractors, subcontractors, and consultants. List by fiscal year to comaletion:
a.
Manyears of Technical Support (MTS) b.
Costs:
(1) Direct Salaries (Labor) for MTS (2) Material and Services (excluding ADP)
(3) Total ADP Support (4) Subcontracts (5) Capital Equipment (6) Direct Travel Expense (Foreign travel must be shcwn separately)
(7) General and Administrative Expenses (Include indirect labor cost) c.
Total Estimated Cost:
. 8.
Forecasts:
a.
Milestone Chart for accomplishing the work.
b.
Planned monthly rate of costs by fiscal yetr. This may be provided with the first report of an authorized program if not known at time of proposal submittal. At the beginning of each subsequent year, reports should include the planned monthly rate of costs for the ensuing year.
9.
Conflict of Interest:
In order to assist the Commission in its evaluation, the DOE Con-tracting Officer shall describe any significant contractual and organizational relationships of the DOE, its contractor, their employees, or expected subcontractors or consultants on this proposal, with industries regulated by the NRC (e.g. utilities, etc.) and suppliers thereof (e.g. architect engineers and reactor manufacturers, etc.) that might give rise to an apparent to actual conflict of interest.
- 10. Reporting Requirements (as in statement of work).
.2
4 ENCLOSURE 3 STATEMENT OF WORK
Title:
ENGINEERING EVALUATION ASSISTANCE FOR NONPCWER REACTOR RENEWAL REVIEWS FIN N0.: A-7254 B&R No. : 20-19-04-08 Technical Monitor: Harold Bernard (FTS 492-8357)
~
Cognizant Branch Chief: James R. Miller (FTS 492-7014)
PROGRAM BACKGROUND For the past six years the Los Alamos National Laboratory has been providing technical assistance to NRR and NMSS in a number of programs connected with the licensing of commercial power reactors, nonpower reactors, and. fuel reprocessing and fabrication facilities. This assistance has included safety reviews, review of physical security, emergency planning, some aspects of environmental problems, and other special problems as required.
t The basis for licensing U.S. nonpower reactors (NPR) evolves from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. These acts provide the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with the authority to i
set the rules and requirements that an applicant must meet to be licensed.
Specifically, when an NPR licensee applies for license renewal, he must modify his existing Safety Analysis Report (SAR) by addressing any changes that have been made to the facility that could affect the public health and safety during the requested renewal period.
A completed review of the modified SAR is conducted by the NRC to ensure that the nonpower reactor licensee meets all applicable rules and regulations.
In relicensing, the SAR will include information that thoroughly describes the facility, its operations, and all changes made during the previous license period. The SAR will contain the design basis and operating limits on reactor operation; a safety analysis of the structure, components, and systems showing they will be able to perform their intended functions; updated information on meteorology, seismic, and other natural and man-caused phenomena; and analyses of design basis events (DBE) and their consequences.
At the present time 26 nonpower reactors are under review for license renewal by the NRC. The NRC requires technical assistance from Los Alamos in performing these reviews.
. PROGRAM OBJECTIVE The objective of this work order is to obtain assistance in the review and evaluation of the specified sections of the Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) for eacn of the 26 nonpower reactors and provide a Safety Evaluation Report.
REVIEW CRITERIA Review and evaluation of the SARs for each of the nonpower reactors in accordance with the sections of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) which are identified in Attachment A.
WCRK REQUIREMENTS For each of the nonpower reactors listed in Projected Congletion Time, Review and evaluate the Safety from Submittal or Congleted Analysis Report in accordance with specified Application (0) Weeks sections of the Standard Review Plan identified in Attachment A.
Perform the following subtasks for each Task listed in Attachment B:
a.
Review and evaluate the SAR in accordance with 3
the Standard Review Plan and draft questions to licensee.
b.
Conduct site visit to become familiar with the 4
facility and discuss questions.
c.
Formalize questions and submit to NRC.
6 d.
Review responses from licensee and prepare 15 Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for input to the Safety Evaluation Report.
e.
Particinate in public proceedings as needed.
NA Notes:
A.
We request that i.cs Alamos establish a target schedule. This schedule will be altered in writing by the Director, Division of Licensing, for each NPR review as more information becomes available. Below is an estimate of the review time required for a typical facility.
B.
It is estimated that each case history will require approximately fifteen weeks of elapsed time as shown below. For a case with hearings, the time will be approximately 30 weeks (See chart at end). A test reactor case study would also require longer review time.
1 C.
By cascading case studies to take advantage of mailing time and applicant response time (i.e., 4-5 weeks lapse time during each case study for Los Alamos) five or six case studies can be concleted annually. Attachment C is an example of how the reviews can be scheduled concurrently.
D.
The disciplines that are required and the estimated staff time required to review five or six case studies annually are shown in the following table.
Staff recuired for NPR Cases Staff years for 7-10 cases cer year Structural 1/2 - 1 Radiation Protection )
Radiation Confinement) 11/2-2 Ventilation Systems )
Accident Analysis 1/4 - 1 1/4 Instrumentation 1/4 - 3/4 Neutronics 1/4 - 3/4 Management 1/4 3-6 use 5 staff years E.
We anticipate that some plants will require less time than shown above and some more coaplex facilities significantly more time. As the table indicates approximately 5 staff years are required for 7-10 cases per year or approxi-mately one man year per case.
It is not anticipated that second round questions will be required for these reviews, therefore, no time has been allowed for the preparation of second round questions.
If second round questions are required, the average time allowed should accormiodate this effort.
F.
In addition a case listing in order of priority is attached. The Director, l
Division of Licensing, retains the right to change this listing as priorities I
change.
All technical positions shall be resolved in the question phases or reported as open items in the SER.
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (Staff Years) l The level of effort is estimated at 13 staff years, from FY 81-FY 83.
i FY 81 FY 82 CY 83 2*
6 5
' Prorated on basis of fiscal year remaining plus needs to initiate effort
j REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1.
Upcn completion of each Task identified in Attachment B, provide the Cognizant NRR Branch Chief with draft questions and draft SER sections.
2.
A monthly business letter report shall be submitted by the 15th of the month to the Director, Division of Licensing, with copies to the Cognizant Branch Chief, Janes R. Miller, DL; Robert L. Tedesco, DL; and B. L. Grenier, NRR. These reports will contain:
(a) A listing of any efforts completed during the period; milestones reached, or if missed, an explanation provided; (b) The amount of funds expended for manpower and conputer services during the period and cumulative to date for each task; (c) Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated; (d) A summary of the progress to date; (e) Plans for the next reporting period.
Note: Cost information for each test reactor must be gathered by the NRC as legal requirement to properly assess licensing fees.
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL It is estimated that one trip for one person will be required to each reactor reviewed, and one trip will be required for one or two persons to Bethesda, Maryland, for a review of the Safety Evaluation Report for each reactor.
NRC - FURNISHED MATERIALS Renewal application, including Safety Analysis Report for each facility.
l i.
i l
l
REVIEW CRITERIA SECTIONS OF STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 1.
INTRODUCTION This section should evaluate briefly the principal aspects of the overall.
application, including the type of license requested, a brief description of the proposed location of the facility, the type of reactor and its designer, the type of containment or reactor building and its designer, and the core power level.
~
1.1 General Facility Descriction This section should include an evaluation of the principal characteristics of the site and a concise description of the facility.
2.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS This section of the SER should provide an evaluation of the geological, seismological, hydrological, and meteorological characteristics of the site and vicinity, in conjunction with present and projected population distribution and land use and site activities and controls. The purpose is to show the adequacy of the site characteristics from a safety viewpoint.
3.
REACTOR In this section of the SER there should be an evaluation of the capability of the reactor to perform its safety functions throughout its design life-time under all normal operational modes; including both transient and steady state, and accident conditions. This section should also include an evaluation of the analyses concerning Design Basis Accidents.
4.
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN OF REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS Provide an evaluation of the control rod drive system, which includes the essential ancillary equipment and hydraulic systeas, to assure that it is designed and installed to provide the required functional performance and j
that it is properly isolated from other equipment. Additionally, provide an evaluation of the bases for assessing the combined functional performance of all the reactivity control systers to mitigate the consequences of anticipated transients and postulated accidents.
ATTACHMENT A
2 5.
REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM AND CONNECTED SYSTEMS This section of the SER should provide information regarding the reactor coolant system and systems connected to it. Evaluations, together with the necessary supporting material, should be presented to show that the reactor coolant system is adequate to accomplish its intended objective and to main-tain its integrity under conditions imposed by all foreseeable reactor behavior, either normal or accident conditions.
6.
ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES Engineered safety features may be provided to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents in spite of the fact that these accidents are very unlikely. The section of the SER should be an evaluation of the adequacy of the engineered safety features provided in the facility.
7.
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS The reactor instrumentation senses the various reactor parameters and transmits appropriate signals to the regulating systems during normal operation, and to the reactor trip and engineered safety features during abnormal and accident conditions. The section should evaluate those instruments and associated equip-ment which constitute the reactor safety system (as defined in ANSI /ANS Std.
15.15-1978, " Criteria for the Reactor Safety Systems of Research Reactors").
7.1 Introduction Describe and evaluate instrumentation, control, and supporting systems that are safety related, including alarm, communication, and display instrumentation.
Describe the design bases (including considerations of instrument errors),
criteria, regulatory guides, standards, and other documents that will be implemented in the design of these systems.
7.2 Reactor Trio System This section should evaluate the elements of the reactor trip system. It should include the design basis information required by Section a of ANSI /ANS Std.15.15-1978 and an analysis demonstrating that the design criteria of Section 5 of AHSI/
ANS Std. 15.15-1978 have been satisfied. The evaluation of the analysis should discuss the need for and method of changing to more restrictive trip setpoints-during abnormal operating conditions.
i l
. 7.3 Engineering Safety Feature Systems For research and test reactors having engineered safety features, provide a description, design basis information, and an evaluation of the analysis showing satisf action of design criteria, similar to those required in the previous section, for each engineered safety feature system.
7.4 Safety-Related Disolay Instrumentation This section should include an evaluation of the instrumentation systems (including control rod position indicators) that provide information to enable the reactor operator to perform required safety functions.
9.
AUXILIARY SYSTEMS This section should provide an evaluation of the auxiliary systems included in this f acility. Those systems that are essential for the safe shutdown of the reactor or the protection of the health and safety of the public should be identified and where applicable, an evaluation of each system and the design bases for the system and for critical components. A safety evaluation demonstrating how the system satisfies the design bases, the testing and inspection to be performed to verify system capability and reliability, and the recuired instrumentaion and controls should be provided. There may be aspects of the auxiliary systems that have little or no relationship to pro-tection of the public against exposure to radiation.
In such cases, enough information should be provided to allow understanding of the auxiliary system design and function with emphasis on those aspects of design and operation that might affect the reactor and its safety features or contribute to the control of radioactivity.
For the fire protection system, it should be demonstrated that the recuirements of ANSI /ANS Std.15.17, " Fire Protection for Research Reactors," have been satisfied.
9.
RAD 10ACTI'lE WASTE MANAGEMENT This section should evaluate:
1.
The capabilities of the plant to control, collect, handle, process, store, and dispose of liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes that may contain radio-active materials, and 2.
The proposed radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment systems that have the capability to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 and the recommendations of acoropriate regulatory guides concerning system design, control and monitoring of releases, and maintaining releases of radioactive materials at the "as low as is reasonably achievable" level in accordance witn Acpendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
I
4-
- 10. RADIATION PROTECTION This section of the SER should evaluate the methods for radiation protection and of estimated occupational radiation exposures to operating and construction personnel during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences (including refueling; purging; fuel handling and storage; radioactive material handling, processing, use, storage, and disposal; maintenance; routine opera-tional surveillance; inservice inspection; and calibration). It should provide an evaluation on facility and equipment design, the planning and procedures programs, and the techniques and practices employed by the applicant in meeting the standards for protection against radiation of 10 CFR Part 20 and in ANSI /ANS Std.15.11-1977, " Radiological Control for Research Reactors."
- 11. OPERATOR CUALIFICATION This section of the SER should evaluate the preparations and plans for operation of the facility. Its purpose is to provide assurance that the apolicant will establish and maintain a staff of adequate size and technical competence and that operating plans to be followed by the licensee are adequate to protect public health and safety.
- 12. EMERGENCY PLANNING This section of the SER should evaluate the apolicant's plans for coping with emergencies pursuant to paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(6)(v) of $50.34 of 10 CFR Part 50. The items to be discussed are set forth in Appendix E,
" Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities," to 10 CFR Part
- 50. Additional guidance, including a discussion of emergency plan format and requirements, can be found in ANSI /ANS Std. 15.16-1978, " Emergency Planning for Research Reactors."
l
{
- 13. REVIEW AND AUDIT The SER should evaluate plans for conducting reviews and audits of operating activities that are important to safety. Procedures for reviewing changes, tests, and experiments proposed in accordance with 550.59 of 10 CFR Part 50 should be evaluated, as well as procedures for after-the-fact review and evaluation of unplanned events. Provisions for performing independent reviews cf operating activities should be evaluated. The procedures and organization l
I emoloyed to audit operating activities, compliance with administrative controls, and the quality assurance program should be evaluated.
The guidance in ANS Std.15.18, " Administrative Controls for Research Reactors,"
should prove helpful in evaluating procedures.
I
5-14 REPORTS AND RECORDS This section of the SER should evaluate the system for maintaining records of all facility activities and preparing, submitting, and filing reports in accordance with the guidance found in ANS Std.15.3, " Records and Reports for Research Reactors."
- 15. ACCIDENT ANALYSES Provide an evaluation of the accident analyses. The evaluation of the safety of a research reactor should include analyses of the response of the reactor to postulated disturbances in process variables and to postulated malfunctions, failures of equipment, or operator errors. Such safety analyses provide a significant contribution to the selection of limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and design specifications for components and systems from the standpoint of public health and safety.
l l
l
PRIORITY LISTING OF NONPOWER REACTOR REVIEWS FY-81 Reviews Task 1 UCLA (Finish and confirm staff review) 2 Worcester Polytechnic (Entire Review) 3 NBS (Entire review - including Power Increase) 4 University of Virginia (Entire Review) 5 University of Florida (Entire Review) 6 AFRRI (Confirm staff review and Finish) 7 Washington State (Entire Review) 8 University of Maryland (Finish and confirm staff review)
FY-82 Reviews (all Entire Reviews)
Task 9 Texas A&M 10 Iowa State 11 VPI (including Power Increase) 12 Jnion Carbide 13 CETR (assumes lifting of Show Cause) 14 GENTR 15 Cornell TRIGA 16 Cornell Critical Facility 17 B&W 18 University of Missouri (Rolla) 19 University of Texas FY-83 Reviews Task 20 University of Illinois 21 Michigan State 22 Rensselaer 23 University of Kansas l
24 University of Oklahona 25 SUNY 26 Veterans Administration l
l l
l l
ATTACHMENT B l
TIME INTERVALS
~
CASE WITH HEARI? LGS GEERIC $O0ULE - ole DIFFIC' T
".ASE (s.t. Powen INCnEAsr AND asnswAa.
A sMALua acACTom ;:.bo l
t wert on n earto d
.... J...g Noterf l I
(1) -
(g)
(i) m l (1)
(0) re ewt se, tee oc If toestred Lfesasee Nrise C 18 E
sueett sene.el 4
~ i j
l
.I k
4 h
8 10 12 14 16 le IS 23 22 24 25 e
-,ns -
C2 w
Technical f*
Ter!!!
fotAL (Froni (48) 44m OAn isa (10) man utExs o
[
Starts g,,,
r) ttlig fftMufCAL eOfty tittestt afsP0est (10)
W in (10)
FMG M57375 goggy 0
l
,LlaNHL (11)
HEARING AEsp0Nst etAA!FT Diteenst!
aumee h
N... r ( ) inJ cate
.ri er use.i i
aos sect gering time l
won s 10
<~
20 weeks weeks CASCADE OF CASES (REMEWALS)
- BASED ON CENERIC SCMEDUM i
.W -PCWER - TIPES e utaarw s Recetat of f
,1*
l Apolteatt 9, Case I A
(s1(C)
(t) in t&l Cale 2 i
M) ft) (F)
(96
($ g
((} M j
Case 3
{
Time Filled l
r EACH PM C;N woar oFF 5 To 6 lpRENEWALsQuT-Basts :N Twts CAsCA*e 15. wE (sses & C-esutTAxis) y'6tr.
AssuMIMG g NEA2!NGs REMEwALs SY END OF 19a8 THEAEFCAE wE $HCULs GET La FILLEA TIME ILL.5E T KEN uP WITH AttNMNTs - SACKLOG l *l50 As CF 08/Cl/80.
IN :16 24 MCft THs, F40M EsTA8L!sHMENT OF NCN*PQw(R TECHN! ".AL Ass! STANCE C MTRACT SACKLOG sHCUC 3E ELIMINATED.
4 I
I A
1 i aEFin To CrNen:C sCxE:m a
)
l
+ - -rNsip Trs pessi x pACx TiMc FCR
=E N2*ENT CAL l
l 0
1 2
6 10 la 19 24 WEEKS ppy QQ p ATTACHMENT C
}UUn UitR.jf l W-