ML20034E643
| ML20034E643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/26/1993 |
| From: | George Thomas, Wiggins E NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), STEVENSON & ASSOCIATES |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-93-054, CON-NRC-4-93-54 NUDOCS 9303010121 | |
| Download: ML20034E643 (74) | |
Text
-
NRC-04-93-054 AWARD /CCNTRACT Page 1 of 2
- 1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER UNDER OPAS (15 CFR 350) l RATING l
- 2. CONTRACT NO.
l3. EFFECTIVE DATE l4. REQUISITION / PROJECT NO.
NRC-04-93-054 l
SEE BLOCK 20C l
RES92073 l
l
- 5. ISSUED BY Code:
l6. ADMINISTERED BY Code:
l l (If other than Item 5)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l U.S. Nuclear Regula.ory Commission Div. of Contracts & Property Mgmt.
l Div. of Contracts & Property Mgmt.
Contract Neg. Branch No. I; P-1020 l CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION BRANCH Washington, DC 20555
' Washington, DC 20555 l
- 7. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR
!8. DELIVERY STEVENSON & ASSOCIATES l
[]
FOB ORIGIN 9217 MIDWEST AVENUE l
[X]
OTHER (See below)
CLEVELAND, OH 44125 l
l 9. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT l
N/A Principal Investigator / Technical l
j
Contact:
l Telephone No:
- 10. SUBMIT INVOICES (4 copies unless otherwise specified) TO THE ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM: 6
- 11. SHIP T0/ MARK FOR CODE l12. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE SEE SECTION F l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
l Division of Accounting and Finance l
l GOV /COM Accounting Section Washington, DC 20555
- 13. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
[ ] 10 U.S.C. 2394(c)( ) [ ] 41 U.S.C. 253(c) (
)
- 14. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA B&R 36019201100 JOC: L-2256 BOC: 2542 APPN: 31X0200 OBLIGATED: $250,000 15A. ITEM 158. SUPPLIES /
15C. QUANTITY ISD. UNIT 15E. UNIT 15F. AMOUNT N0.
SERVICES PRICE THE NRC HEREBY ACCEPTS STEVENSON & ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL PROPOSAL DATED 8/25/92, AS REVISED 11/27/92, BOTH OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HERIN BY THIS REFERENCE AND MADE A PART OF THIS COST-REIMBURSEW"T CONTRACT TO PERFORM AN EFFORT ENTITLED "APPLICATI0l, OF DESIGN CODES AND STANDARDS TO ADVANCED REACTORS."
15G. TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT $315,740.00 EXCEPTION TO STANDARD FORM SF26 (REV.4-35)
Prescribed by GSA '
FAR(48 CFR) 53.214(a) h, c
9303010121 930126 PDR CONTR NRC-04-93-054 PDR
/7
(
NRC-04-93-054 AWARD /CCNTRACT Page 2 of 2 Pages z
16.
TABLE OF CONTENTS X SEC DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)
PART I - THE SCHEDULE A
SOLICITATION / CONTRACT FORM B
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES / COSTS C
DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS / WORK STATEMENT D
PACKAGING AND MARKING E
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE F
DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE G
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA H
SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES I
CONTRACT CLAUSES PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS J
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS K
REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFER 0RS L
INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFER 0RS M
EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 17 'JR 18 AS APPLICABLE 17.
[X] CONTRACTOR'S NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contractor is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all items or perform all the services set forth or otherwise identified above and on any continuation sheets for the consideration stated herein. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to and governed by the following doctments: (a) this award / contract, (b) the solicitation, if any, and (c) such provisions, representations, certifications, and specifications, as are attached or incorporated by reference herein.
(Attachments are listed herein.)
18.
[ ] AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.) Your offer on Solicitation Number
, including the additions or changes made by you which additions or changes are set forth in full above, is hereby accepted as to the items listed above and on any continuation sheets. This award consummates the contract which consists of the following documents: (a) the Government's solicitation and your offer, and (b) this award / contract. No further contractual document is necessary.
19A. NAME AND TITLE OF "IGNER l 20A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) l l
ELOIS J. WIGGINS I
Grem G tes
__l l
l 208. UNITED ST TES OF AMERICA l
198. NAME OF CONTRACT 0R x
by
%m.
M.
DD l
by
/1% J. WmdJ l
(Signature of person authorize 70 sign)'
(SignatureofContrafingOfficer) 19C. DATE SIGNED 20C. DATE SIGNED g
f EXCEPTION TO STANDARD FORM 26 (REV.4-85)
t TABLE OF CCMTENTS PAGE 1
AWARD /CCNTRACT 5
PART I - THE SCHEDULE.....
SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES / COSTS..
5 5
B.1 PROJECT TITLE..
B.2 BRIEF OESCRIPTION OF WORK (MAR 1987)....
5 B.3 CONSIDERATION AND OBLIGATION--COST REIMBURSEPENT..
5 (JUN 1988) ALTERNATE I (JUN 1988)
SECTION C - DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS / WORK STATEMENT.
6 6
C.I STATEMENT OF WORK...
C.2 TRAVEL APPROVALS (MAR 1987).
8 SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING...
9 D.1 PACKAGING AND MARKING (MAR 1987).
9 10 SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE.....
E.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)..
10 E.2 PLACE OF INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE (MAR 1987)......
10 SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE........
11 F.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)...
11 F.2 TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORT (OMB CLEARANCE NUMBER 3150-0112).
11 (JUN 1988)
F.3 FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT (OMB CLEARANCE NUMBER 3150-0112)..
11 (JUN 1988)
F. 4 PLACE OF DELIVERY--REPORTS (JUN 1988)...........
12 F.5 DURATION OF CONTRACT PERIOD (MAR 1987)...
13 SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA..............
14 G.1 INDIRECT COST RATES (JUN 1988)...............
14 G.2 PROJECT OFFICER AUTHORITY (JUN 1988)....
14 G.3 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT (JUN 1988) ALTERNATE I (JUN 1988)...
16 SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS....
18 H.1 KEY PERSONNEL (JUN 1988)...........
18 H.2 SAFETY, HEALTH, AND FIRE PROTECTION (MAR 1987).......
19 H.3 PRIVATE USE OF CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DATA (JUN 1988)..
19 H.4 CONTRACTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST......
19 (DEC 1991)
H.5 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT / PROPERTY - NONE PROVIDED..
22 (JUN1988)
PART I I - CONT RACT C LAU S ES.....................
23 SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES 23 I.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)...
23 1.2 52.203-9 REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATE OF PROCUREMENT....
24 INTEGRITY--MODIFICATION (NOV 1990)
I.3 52.203-10 PRICE OR FEE ADJUSTMENT FOR ILLEG'l.......
26 OR IMPROPER ACTIVITY (SEP 1990)
I.4 52.222-2 PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME PREMIUMS (JUL 1990).....
27 I.5 52.222-18 NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS CONCERNING....
28
M TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE w
PAYMENT OF UNION DUES OR FEES (MAY 1992)
PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS....
30 SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS...................
30 30 J.1 ATTACHMENTS (MAR 1987)......
Page 5 NRC-04-93-054 Section B s
PART I - THE SCHEDULE SECTION B - SUPPLIES CR SERVICES AND PRICES / COSTS B.1 PROJECT TITLE The title of this project is as follows:
Application of Design Codes and Standards to Advanced Reactors
[End of Clause)
B.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK (MAR 1987)
The Contractor shall identify and evaluate the current versions of the structural and seismic design codes and standards and determine whether there exists the need for changes or revisions to the current codes in order to make them aoplicable to advanced reactors and to satisfy NRC's review requirements for design certification.
In addition, determinations shall be made on the applicability to structural and seismic design of new codes.
[End of Clause]
B.3 CONSIDERATION AND OBLIGATION--COST REIMBURSEMENT (JUN 1988) ALTERNATE I (JUN 1988) a.
The total estimated cost to the Government for full performance under this contract is $315,740.00.
b.
The amount presently obligated by the Government with respect to this contract is $250,000.00.
I c.
It is estimated that the amount currently allotted will
)
cover performance through 12/31/93.
1
)
[End of Clause]
Page 6 NRC-04-93-054 Section C s
SECTION C - DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS / WORK STATEMENT C.1 STATEMENT OF WORK C.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The existing NRC regulations, industry codes and standards relating to structural and seismic design are based on the current class of Light Water Reactors (LWR). With the introduction of some new design and construction concepts for advanced reactors, the potential exists for changes or revisions to the current design codes and stancards (e.g., ASME, ACI, AISC and ANSI).
Some existing NRC regulations, industry codes and standards are in the form that permits application to new reactor design; others are not. Revisions to some existing regulations, codes, and standards, and endorsement of some new codes and standards may be needed to facilitate the structural and seismic design certification of new advanced reactor designs, which may or may not be LWR-based designs.
The term " advanced reactors" is intended to include the following reactor designs:
1.
CANDU (Canadian heavy-water cooled reactor) 2.
PIUS (Process Inherent Ultimate Safety Reactor from Sweden) 3.
PRISM (Power Reactor, Inherently Safe Module) 4.
MHTGR (Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor by GA and GCRA)
Also included are the following plant designs now defined as
" Standard Plants:"
5.
ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, by GE) 6.
SBWR ( 600MW Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, by GE) 7.
AP600 (600 MW Reactor, by Westinghouse) 8.
CE System 80+
C.I.2 OBJECTIVE The objective of this contract is to identify and evaluate the current versicas of the structural and seismic design codes and standards, listed in Attachment 6 (Structural and Seismic Design Codes and Standards, and Sources of Codes and Standards), and determine whether there exists the need for changes or revisions to the current codes in order to make them applicable to advanced reactors and to satisfy NRC's review requirements for design certification.
In addition, determinations shall be made on the
Page 7 NRC-04-93-054 Section C s
applicability to structural and seismic design of new codes.
C.1.3 WORK REQUIREMENTS C.I.3.1 The most recent revision or edition of the codes and standards listed in Attachment 6 shall be reviewed under this contract.
If other seismic design codes or standards are considered by the Offerer to be relevant to this review, a separate listing may be supplied. However, offers are to be based upon review of the codes and standards listed in Attachment 6.
The most recent of these code editions may not have been approved for use by the NRC; however, industry is proposing to base advanced reactor design in part on these code editions.
Evaluations of the differences in these new code editions from accepted NRC practices and standards are required before Safety Evaluation Reports can be written in which these new code editions may be cited.
Also required is identification of what are the changes or modifications needed to existing codes.
The codes and standards listed in Attachment 6 are applicable to all Seismic Category I (SC-I)* and Seismic Category II (SC-II) structures.
However,the main purpose of this contract is to ensure the applicability of these codes and standards to the SC-I and SC-II structures that are unique to advanced reactors. the uniqueness may be due to the structural configuration method (e.g., shape and materials of construction), construction method (e.g.,modularconstruction), loads (e.g., hydrodynamic),or pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., severe accident considerations for the containment - see SECY-90-016, Attachment 7).
Evaluation of loads generated by external events is not a part of the scope of this contract. However, the applicability of external event loads to load combinations needs to be considered for all of the advanced reactor structures.
C.1.3.2 Task A - Determine if the need exists for changes or revisions to the codes and standards listed in Attachment 6 to:
(1) make them applicable to advanced reactors, and (2) satisfy NRC requirements for advanced reactors.
Task B - List the codes or standards and areas of the codes and standards that require change. At the conclusion of Task B, the Contractor shall submit an interim report outlining the results and recommendations of Tasks A and B.
Task C - Recommend wording changes to the codes and standards that would:
(1) make them applicable to advanced reactor design, and (2) satisfy NRC requirements for advanced reactors.
t Page 8 NRC-04-93-054 Section C g
- " Seismic Category I" (SC-1) is intended to also include any structures that, under some rating systems, may be designated as
" Seismic Category II" (SC-II); that is, structures that themselves are not safety-related, but whose failure could unacceptably affect structures, systems, or components that are safety-related.
These structures have traditionally been designated as SC-I in LWRs, and have at times also been referred to as "Important to Safety" structures.
Task D - Recommend the most appropriate course of action necessary to make the changes identified (e.g., propose needed changes to codes and standards writing committees, or write / revise a regulatory guide on the subject.)
Task E - Final report preparation, incorporating the results of Tasks C and D above.
The final report shall be a letter report accompanied by a Wordperfect 5.1 compatible disk.
C.2 MEETINGS AND TRAVEL One 2-day meeting for two persons to Rockville, Maryland, to discuss progress of the work is anticipated for each year.
Investigators will participate in meetings at other U.S. locations to obtain source material for this program, for which two 1-day meetings for two persons are anticipated for each year.
[End of Clause]
C.2 TRAVEL APPROVALS (MAR 1987) a.
All domestic travel requires the prior approval of the Project Officer.
b.
All foreign travel must be approved in advance by the NRC on NRC Form 445 and shall be in compliance with 52.247-63, Preference For U.S. Flag Air Carriers.
Such approval will be communicated in writing through the Contracting Officer.
[EndofClause]
i
Page 9 NRC-04-93-054 Section D i
SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING D.1 PACKAGING AND MARKING (MAR 1987)
The Contractor shall package material for shipment to the NRC in such a manner that will ensure acceptance by common carrier and safe delivery at destination.
Containers and closures shall
[
comply with the Interstate Commerce Commission Regulations, i
Uniform Freight Classification Rules, or regulations of other carriers as applicable to the mode of transportation. On the front of the package, the Contractor shall clearly identify the contract number under which the product is being provided.
(
[End of Clause]
l l
l l
l l
l l
Page 10 Section E NRC-04-93-054 s
SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE E.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)
This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, 1
with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text.
Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available.
i NUMBER TITLE DATE 52.246-5 INSPECTION OF SERVICES APR 1984
- COST-REIMBURSEMENT
[End of Clause]
E.2 PLACE OF INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE (MAR 1987)
Inspection and acceptance of the deliverable items to be furnished hereunder shall be made by the Project Officer at the i
j destination.
[End of Clause]
i
4 l
Page 11 NRC-04-93-054 Section F J
SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE I
F.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988) l l
This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference,
~
with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text.
l Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available.
NUMBER TITLE DATE i
J 52.212-13 STOP-WORK ORDER AUG 1989 l
Alternate I (APR 1984)
[End of Clause]
I F.2 TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORT (OMB CLEARANCE NUMBER 3150-0112) i (JUN 1988) t I
The Contractor shall provide a monthly Technical Progress Report to the Project Officer and the Contracting Officer. The report is due within 15 calendar days after the end of the report period and shall identify the title of the project, the contract number, i
project manager and/or principal investigator, the contract period i
of performance, and the period covered by the report. Each report j
shall include the following for each discrete task:
i r
l J
A listing of the efforts completed during the period-a.
milestones reached or, if missed, an explanation provided; b.
Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated and recommendations for resolution; (if the recommended resolution involves a contract modification, e.g., change in work requirements, level of effort (cost) or schedule delay, the j
Contractor shall submit a separate letter to the Contracting l
Officer identifying the required change and estimated cost impact).
1 c.
A summary of progress to date; and 2
d.
Plans for the next reporting period.
[EndofClause]
3
)
F. 3 FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT (OMB CLEARANCE NUMBER 3150-0112)
(JUN 1988)
The Contractor shall provide a monthly Financial Status Report to the Project Officer and the Contracting Officer. The report is due within 15 calendar days after the end of the report period and shall identify the title of the project, the contract number,
,1
=-
Page 12 NRC-04-93-054 Section F project nanager and/or principal investigator, the contract period of perfo,mance, and the period covered by the report.
Each report shall include the following for each discrete task:
- 1) Total Estimated Contract Amount.
- 2) Total Funds Obligated to Date.
- 3) Total Costs Incurred This Reporting Period.
- 4) Total Costs Incurred to Date.
- 5) Provide a detail of all direct and indirect costs incurred during the reporting period for the entire contract or each task, if it is a task ordering contrar'.
- 6) Balance of Obligations Remaining.
- 7) Balance of Funds Required to Complete Contract / Task Order.
i
- 8) CSP Status-t (a) Project Percentage (%) of Completion cumulative j
through the report period for the Project / Task Order as reflected in the current CSP.
l t
(b) Indicate if there has been a significant change in the original Contractor Spending Plan (CSP) projection in l
either dollars or percentage of completion.
Identify what the change is, the reasons for the change, whether there is any projected overrun, and when additional funds would be required.
If there have been no changes to the original NRC approved CSP projections, a written statement to that effect is sufficient in lieu of submitting a detailed i
i response to this item 8.
- 9) A revised CSP is required with the Financial Status Report whenever the Contractor or the Contracting Officer has reason to believe that the total cost for performance of I
this contract will be either greater or substantially less than what had been previously estimated.
If the data in this report indicates a need for additional funding beyond that already obligated, this information may only I
be used as backup to the official request for funding required in accordance with the Limitation of Cost (LOC) clause, FAR 52.232-20, or the Limitation of Funds (LOF) clause, FAR 52.232-22.
[End of Clause]
F. 4 PLACE OF DELIVERY--REPORTS (JUN 1988)
The items to be furnished hereunder shall be delivered, with all charges paid by the Contractor, to:
(a) Project Officer (4 copies)
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Gunter Arndt - NLS-217A Office of Nuclear Regualatory Research Washington, DC 20555 3
. -. ~.
4 Page 13 NRC-04-93-054 Section F (b) Contracting Of ficer (I copy)
[End of Clause]
F.5 DURATION OF CONTRACT PERIOD (MAR 1987)
This contract shall commence on SEE BLOCK 20C and will expire on 19 months after contract award.
[End of Clause]
l l
P 1
l l
i i
Page 14 NRC-04-93-054 Section G s
l SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA l
G.1 INDIRECT COST RATES (JUN 1988)
Pending the establishment of final indirect rates which a.
shall be negotiated based on audit of actual costs, the Contractor shall be reimbursed for allowable indirect costs as follows:
i CATEGORY RATE (%)
COST BASE APPLICABLE PERIOD Overhead 85.6%
Direct Labor Total Contract Life b.
The Contracting Officer may adjust the above rates as I
appropriate during the term of the contract upon acceptance of any revisions proposed by the Contractor.
It is the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Contracting Officer in accordance with 52.232 Limitation of Cost or 52.232 Limitation of Funds, as applicable, if such change (s) affect (s) performance of work within the established cost or funding limitations.
[End of Clause]
l G.2 PROJECT OFFICER AUTHORITY (JUN 1988)
(a) The Contracting Officer's authorized representative hereinafter referred to as the Project Officer for this contract is:
Name:
Gunter Arndt Address: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research -
NLS-217-A Washington, DC 20555 i
Telephone Number: (301) 492-3814 (b) Performance of the work under this contract shall be subject to the technical direction of the NRC Project Officer.
The term " Technical Direction" is defined to include the following:
(1) Technical direction to the Contractor which shifts work emphasis between areas of work or tasks, fills in details or otherwise serves to accomplish the contractual statement of work.
(2) Provide advice and guidance to the Contractor in the preparation of drawings, specifications or technical portions of the work description.
Page 15 NRC-04-93-054 Section G s
(3) Review and, where required by the contract, approval of technical reports, drawings, specifications and technical information to be delivered by the Contractor to the Government under the contract.
(c) Technical direction must be within the general statement of i'
work stated in the contract.
The Project Officer does not have the authority to and may not issue any technical direction which:
(1) Constitutes an assignment of additional work outside the general scope of the contract.
(2) Constitutes a change as defined in the " Changes" clause of this contract.
(3) In any way causes an increase or decrease in the total estimated contract cost, the fixed fee, if any, or the time required for contract performance.
l (4) Changes any of the expressed terms, conditions or specifications of the contract.
(5) Terminates the contract, settles any claim or dispute arising under the contract, or issues any unilateral directive whatever.
(d) All technical directions shall be issued in writing by the Project Officer or shall be confirmed by such person in writing within ten (10) working days after verbal issuance. A copy of said written direction shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer.
l (e) The Contractor shall proceed promptly with the performance of technical directions duly issued by the Project Officer in the manner prescribed by this clause and within such person's l
authority under the provisions of this clause.
i (f) If, in the opinion of the Contractor, any instruction or direction issued b/ the Project Officer is within one of the categories as defined in c above, the Contractor shall not proceed j
but shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing within five (5) working days after the receipt of any such instruction or direction and shall request the Contracting Officer to modify the contract accordingly. Upon receiving such notification from the Contractor, the Contracting Officer shall issue an appropriate contract modification or advise the Contractor in writing that, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, the technical direction is within the scope of this article and does not constitute a change under the Changes Clause.
(g) Any unauthorized commitment or direction issued by the Project Officer may result in an unnecessary delay in the Contractor's performance and may even result in the Contractor expending funds for unallowable costs under the contract.
Page 16 NRC-04-93-054 Section G s
(h) A failure of the parties to agree upsn the nature of the instruction or direction or upon the contract action to be taken with respect thereto shall be subject to 52.233 Disputes.
(i) In addition to providing technical direction as defined above, the Project Officer is responsible for:
(1) Monitoring the Contractor's technical progress, including surveillance and assessment of performance, and recommending to the Contracting Of ficer changes in requirements.
(2) Assisting the Contractor in the resolution of technical problems encountered during performance.
l l
(3) Reviewing all costs requested for reimbursement by the l
Contractor and submitting to the Contracting Officer l
recommendations for approval, disapproval, or suspension of payment for supplies and services required under this contract.
[End of Clause]
l l
G.3 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT (JUN 1988) ALTERNATE I (JUN 1988) a.
The Contractor is encouraged to use Government contract airlines, AMTRAK rail service, and discount hotel /motei properties in order to reduce the cost of travel under this contract.
The Contracting Officer will, upon request, provide each additional traveler with a letter of identification which is required in order to participate in this program. The Federal Travel Directory (FTD) identifies carriers, contract fares, schedules, payment conditions, and hotel / motel properties which offer their services and rates to Government contractor personnel traveling on official business under this contract. The FTD, which is issued monthly, may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
b.
The Contractor will be reimbursed for reasonable domestic travel costs incurred directly and specifically in the performance of this contract. The cost limitations for travel costs are determined by the Federal Travel Regulations that are in effect on the date of the trip. These Regulations specify the daily maximum per diem rates for specific localities within the Conterminous United States (CONUS), the standard CONUS rate, the allowance for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE), the cost of travel by privately owned automobile, and the items which require receipts.
l A copy of the Regulations may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
When the Government changes the Federal Travel Regulations, c.
it is the responsibility of the Contractor to notify the Contracting Officer in accordance with the Limitation of Cost clause of this contract if the Contractor will be unable to make all of the approved trips and remain within the cost and fee limitations of this contract due to the changes.
l Page 17 NRC-04-93-054 Section G d.
The rates for foreign travel are established by the U.S.
Department of State and are listed in a publication entitled
" Maximum Travel Per Diem Allowances For Foreign Areas". Copies of i
this publication may be obtained frem the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
[End of Clause]
i i
1 3
i l
i f
l I
l l
l l
l l
Page 18 NRC-04-93-054 Section H s
1 SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS H.I KEY PERSONNEL (JUN 1988) ihe following individuals are conridered to be essential to a.
the successful performance of the work hereunder:
Dr. John D. Stevenson, Principal Investigator Mr. Timothy M. Adams, Project Manager The Contractor agrees that such personnel shall not be removed from the contract work or replaced without compliance with paragraphs b and c hereof.
b.
If one or more of the key personnel for whatever reason becomes, or is expected to become, unavailable for work under this contract for a continuous period exceeding 30 work days, or is expected to devote substantially less effort to the work than indicated in the proposal or initially anticipated, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer and shall, subject to the concurrence of the Contracting Officer, promptly replace such personnel with personnel of at least substantially equal ability and qualifications.
t All requests for approval of substitutions hereunder must be l
c.
l in writing and provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances j
necessitating the proposed substitutions. They contain a complete l
resume for the proposed substitute, and other information requested by the Contracting Officer to approve or disapprove the l
l proposed substitution. The Contracting Officer will evaluate such requests and promptly notify the Contractor of his/her approval or l
disapproval thereof in writing.
f d.
If the Contracting Officer determines that:
(1) Suitable and timely replacement of key personnel who have been reassigned, terminated or have otherwise become unavailable for the contract work is not reasonably forthcoming; or (2) That the resultant reduction of effort would be so substantial as to impair the successful completion of the contract or tne service order, the contract may be terminated by the Contracting Officer for default or for the convenience of the Government, as appropriate. If the Contracting Officer finds the Contractor at fault for the condition, the contract price or fixed fee may be equitably adjusted downward to compensate the Government for any resultant delay, loss or damage.
[End of Clause]
l
i Page 19 l
NRC-04-93-054 Section H i
s i
H.2 SAFETY, HEALTH, AND FIRE PROTECTION (MAR 1987)
The Contractor shall take all reasonable precautions in the performance of the work under this contract to protect the health 1
and safety of employees and of members of the public and to minimize danger from all hazards to life and property and shall comply with all applicable health, safety, and fire protection regulations and requirements (including reporting requirements) of the Commission and the Department of Labor.
In the event that the j
Contractor fails to comply with these regulations or requirements, i
i the Contracting Officer, may, without prejudice to any other legal or contractual rights of the Commission, issue an order stopping all or any part of the work; thereafter, a start order for resumption of work may be issued at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.
The Contractor shall make no claim for an extension of time or for compensation or damages by reason of or in connection with such work stoppage.
[End of Clause]
H.3 PRIVATE USE OF CONTRACT INFORMATION AND DATA (JUN 1988)
Except as specifically authorized by this contract, or as otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer, information and other data developed or acquired by or furnished to the Contractor in the performance of this contract shall be used only in connection with the work under this contract.
[EndofClause]
H.4 CONTRACTOR ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (DEC 1991)
(a) Purpose. The primary purpose of this clause is to aid l
in ensuring that the contractor:
(1) Is not placed in a conflicting role because of current or planned interests (financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) which relate to the work under this l
l contract; and (2) Does not obtain an unfair competitive advantage over other parties by virtue of its performance of this contract.
(b) Scope. The restrictions described apply to performance or participation by the contractor as defined in Section I, " Scope of Policy," paragraph C, of document entitled "NRC Organizational Conflicts of Interest" (see Section J, List of Attachments).
(c) Work for others.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract, during the term of this contract the contractor agrees to forego entering into consulting or other contractual l
l arrangements with any firm or organization, the result of which l
Page 20 NRC-04-93-054 Section H s
may give rise to a conflict of interest with respect to the work f
being performed under this contract. The contractor shall ensure that all employees under this contract abide by the provision of this clause. If the contractor has reason to believe, with respect to itself or any employee, that any proposed consultant or other contractual arrangement with any firm or organization may involve a potential conflict of interest, the contractor shall obtain the written approval of the contracting officer prior to execution of such contractual arrangement.
l (2) The contractor may not represent, assist, or otherwise support an NRC licensee or applicant undergoing an NRC audit, inspection, or review where the activities that are the subject of the audit, inspection, or review are the same as or i
substantially similar to the services within the scope of this l
contract (or task order as appropriate), except where the NRC i
licensee or applicant requires the contractor's support to explain or defend the contractor's prior work for the utility or other l
l entity which NRC questions.
(3) When the contractor performs work for the NRC j
under this contract at any NRC licensee or applicant site, the contractor shall neither solicit nor perform work at the site or work in the same technical area for that licensee or applicant l
l organization for a period commencing with the award of the task order or beginning of work on the site (if not a task order contract) and ending one year after completion of all work under the associated task order, or last time at the site (if not a task ordercontract).
t (d) Disclosure after award.
r (1) The contractor warrants that to the best of its knowledge and belief, and except as otherwise set forth in this contract, it does not have any organizational conflicts of interest as defined in Section II, " Definitions," paragraph F, of the document entitled "NRC Organizational Conflicts of Interest" 1
(see Section J, List of Attachments).
(2) The contractor agrees that, if after award, it discovers organizational conflicts of interest with respect to this contract, it shall make an immediate and full disclosure in writing to the contracting officer. This statement must include a description of the action which the contractor has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflicts. The NRC may, however, terminate the contract if termination is in the best interest of the Government.
(3) It is recognized that the scope of work of a task-order-type contract necessarily encompasses a broad spectrum of activities. Consequently, if this is a task-order-type contract, the contractor agrees that it will disclose all proposed new work involving NRC licensees or applicants that comes within the scope of work of the underlying contract. Such disclosure must be made before the submission of a bid or proposal to the utility
Page 21 NRC-04-93-056 Section N s
or other regulated entity whenever possible, and must be received by the NRC at least 15 days before the proposed award date in any event. The disclosure must include the statement of work and any other documents that are needed to fully describe the proposed work for the regulated utility or other regulated entity. NRC may deny approval of the disclosed work only when the NRC has issued a task order which includes the technical area and, if site-i specific, the site, or has plans to issue a task order which includes the technical area and, if site-specific, the site, or when such work violates (c)(3), above.
j (e) Access to and use of information.
(1)
If in the performance of this contract the contractor obtains access to information, such as NRC plans, policies, reports, studies, financial plans, internal data protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. Section 552a l
(1988)) or the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552 (1956)), the contractor agrees not to-i (i) Use this information for any private purpose until the information has been released to the public;
\\
(ii) Compete for work for the Commission based on
\\
i l
the information for a period of six months after either the completion of this contract or the release of the information to the puolic, whichever is first (iii) Submit an unsolicited proposal to the i
Government based on the information until one year after the release of the information to the public; or (iv) Release the information without prior written approval by the contracting officer unless the information has f
previously been released to the public by the NRC.
(2) In addition, the contractor agrees that, to the extent it receives or is given access to proprietary data, data protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. Section 552a (1988)) or the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552 (1986)), or other confidential or privileged technical, business, or financial information under this contract, the contractor shall treat the information in accordance with restrictions placed on use of the information.
(3)
Subject to patent and security provisions of this contract, the contractor shall have,the right to use technical data it produces under this contract for private purposes provided that all requirements of this contract have been met.
(f) Subcontracts.
Except as provided in Section II, l
" Definitions," paragraph I, of the document entitled "NRC Organizational Conflicts of Interest" (see Section J, List of Attachments), the contractor shall include this clause, including
Page 22 NRC-04-93-054 Section H
~
this paragraph, in subcontracts of any tier. The terms contract, contractor, and contracting officer, must be appropriately modified to preserve the Government's rights.
(g) Remedies.
For breach of any of the above restrictions, or for intentional nondi< closure or misrepresentation of any relevant interest required to be disclosed concerning this contract, or for sucn erroneous representations that necessarily imply bad faith, the Government m y terminate the contract for default, disqualify the contractor from subsequent contractual efforts, and pursue other remedies permitted by law or this contract.
(h) Waiver. A request for waiver under this clause must be l
directed in writing to the contracting officer in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section VII, " Waiver," paragraph A, of the document entitled "NRC Organizational Conflicts of Interest" (see Section J List of Attachments).
l (i) Follow-on effort. The contractor shall be ineligible to participate in NRC contracts, subcontracts, or proposals therefore (solicited or unsolicited) which stem directly from the l
l contractor's performance of work under this contract.
Furthermore, unless so directed in writing by the contracting officer, the contractor may not perform any technical consulting, management support services work, or evaluation activities under l
this contract on any of its products or services or the products or services of another firm if the contractor has been substantially involved in the development or marketing of the l
products or services.
(1) If the contractor, under this contract, prepares a complete or essentially complete statement of work or i
specifications, the contractor is not eligible to perform or l
participate in the initial contractual effort which is based on the statement of work or specifications. The contractor may not incorporate its products or services in the statement of work or specifications unless so directed in writing by the contracting l
officer, in which case the restrictions in this paragraph do not l
apply.
(2) Nothing in this paragraph precludes the contractor from offering or selling its standard commercial items to the Government.
1
[End of Clause]
H.5 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT / PROPERTY - NONE PROVIDED (JUN 1988)
The Government will not provide any equipment / property under this contract.
[End of Clause]
Page 23 NRC-04-93-054 Section I
~
PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES I.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)
This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text.
Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available.
I.
FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) CLAUSES NUMBER TITLE DATE 52.202-1 DEFINITIONS SEP 1991
)
52.203-1 0FFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT APR 1984 52.203-3 GRATUITIES APR 1984 52.103-5 COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES APR 1984 52.203-6 RESTRICTIONS ON SUBCONTRACTOR JUL 1985 SALES TO THE GOVERNMENT 52.203-7 ANTI-KICKBACK PROCEDURES OCT 1988 l
l 52.203-12 LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO JAN 1990 i
l INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS 52.209-6 PROTECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S NOV 1992 INTEREST WHEN SUBCONTRACTING WITH CONTRACTORS DEBARRED, SUSPENDED, OR PROPOSED FOR DEBARMENT 52.215-1 EXAMINATION OF RECORDS BY APR 1984 COMPTROLLER GENERAL 52.215-2 AUDIT - NEGOTIATION DEC 1989 52.215-22 PRICE REDUCTION FOR DEFECTIVE JAN 1991 i
COST OR PRICING DATA 52.215-24 SUBCONTRACTOR COST OR DEC 1991 PRICING DATA 52.215-27 TERMINATION OF DEFINED BENEFIT SEP 1989 PENSION PLANS 52.215-33 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE JAN 1986 52.215-39 REVERSION OR ADJUSTMENT OF PLANS JUL 1991 FOR POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS OTHER TRAN PENSIONS (PRB) 52.216-7 ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT JUL 1991 52.216-11 COST CONTRACT - NO FEE APR 1984 52.219-8 UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS FEB 1990 CONCERNS AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS CONCERNS 52.219-13 UTILIZATION OF WOMEN-0WNED AUG 1986 i
SMALL BUSINESSES 52.220-3 UTILIZATION OF LABOR SURPLUS APR 1984 AREA CONCERNS 52.222-3 CONVICT LABOR APR 1984
Page 24 l
NRC-04-93-054 Section I
~
52.222-26 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY APR 1984 52.222-35 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR SPECIAL APR 1984 DISABLED AND VIETNAM ERA VETERANS 52.222-36 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR APR 1984 i
HANDICAPPED WORKERS l
52.222-37 EMPLOYMENT REPORTS ON SPECIAL JAN 1988 DISABLED VETERANS AND VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM ERA i
52.223-2 CLEAN AIR AND WATER APR 1984 l
52.223-6 DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE JUL 1990 52.225-11 RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOREIGN MAY 1992 PURCHASES 52.227-1 AUTHORIZATION AND CONSENT APR 1984 52.227-2 NOTICE AND ASSISTANCE REGARDING APR 1984 PATENT AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 52.228-7 INSURANCE - LIABILITY TO THIRO APR 1984 PERSONS 52.232-17 INTEREST JAN 1991 52.232-22 LIMITATION OF FUNDS APR 1984 52.232-23 ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS JAN 1986 c
52.232-25 PROMPT PAYMENT SEP 1992 l
52.232-28 ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER APR 1989 PAYMENT METHODS 52.233-1 DISPUTES DEC 1991 52.233-3 PROTEST AFTER AWARD AUG 1989 Alternate I (JUN 1985) 52.242-1 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISALLOW COSTS APR 1984 52.242-13 BANKRUPTCY APR 1991 52.243-2 CHANGES - COST-REIMBURSEMENT AUG 1987 Alternate I (APR 1984) 52.244-2 SUBCONTRACTS (C0ST-REIMBURSEMENT JUL 1985 AND LETTER CONTRACTS) 52.244-5 COMPETITION IN SUBCONTRACTING APR 1984 52.246-25 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - SERVICES APR 1984 52.249-6 TERMINATION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT)
MAY 1986 i
l
[EndofClause]
I.2 52.203-9 REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATE OF PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY--MODIFICATION (NOV 1990)
(a) Definitions. The definitions set forth in FAR 3.104-4 are hereby incorporated in this clause.
(b) The Contractor agrees that it will execute the certification set forth in paragraph (c) of this clause when requested by the Contracting Officer in connection with the execution of any modification of this contract.
(c) Certificatior. As required in paragraph (b) of this j
clause, the officer or employee responsible for the modification proposal shall execute the following certification.
i CERTIFICATE OF PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY--
=
i
{
Page 25
}
NRC-04-93-054 Section I j
}
n MODIFICATION (NOV 1990) a' (1)
I, [Name of certifier]
G ice ca G % -~e
, am i
the officer or employee responsible for the preparation of this modification proposal and hereby certify that, to the best of my l
i knowledge and belief, with the exception of any information l'
described in this certification, I have no information concerning j
a violation or possible violation of subsection 27(a), (b), (d),
or (f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended" (41 U.S.C. 423), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),
as implemented in the FAR, occurring during the conduct of this l
procurement (contract and modification number).
I (2) As required by subsection 27(e)(1)(B) of the Act, I further certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, each j
officer, employee, agent, representative, and consultant of [Name of Offeror]
sn ~ su 2 h m. -, s who has participated l
4 personally and substantially in the preparation or submission o'
'his proposal has certified that he or she is familiar with, and
]
i will comply with, the requirements of subsection 27(a) of the Act, ds implemented in the FAR, and will report immediately to me any information concerning a violation or possible violation of f
subsections 27(a), (b), (d), or (f) of the Act, as implemented in l
i l
3 the FAR, pertaining to this procurement.
(3) Violations or possible violations:
(Continue on plain bond paper if necessary and label Certificate of Procurement Integrity--Modification (Continuation Sheet), ENTER "NONE" IF NONE EXISTS) j l
ed a e i
1 i
/ 2 => b ?
bm< D D_D 1
[ Signature of the officer or empieyee responsible for the j
modification proposal and date]
4 G r,
- o. o G.
Go~s
[ Typed name of the officer or employee responsible for the modificationproposal]
- Subsections 27(a), (b), and (d) are effective on December 1, 1990. Subsection 27(f) is effective on June 1, 1991.
THIS CERTIFICATION CONCERNS A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE MAKING OF A FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATION MAY RENDER THE MAKER SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION UNDER TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1001.
(End of Certification) 4
Page 26 NRC-04-93-054 Section I (d) In making the certification in paragraph (2) of the certificate, the officer or employee of the competing Contractor i
l responsible for the offer or bid, may rely upon a one-time certification from each individual required to submit a certification to the competing Contractor, supplemented by periodic training.
These certifications shall be obtained at the earliest possible date af ter an individual required to certify begins employment or association with the contractor.
If a contractor decides to rely on a certification executed prior to the suspension of section 27 (i.e., prior to December 1, 1989),
the Contractor shall ensure that an individual who has so certified is notified that section 27 has been reinstated. These certifications shall be maintained by the Contractor for a period of 6 years from the date a certifying employee's employment with j
the company ends or, for an agency, representative, or consultant, 6 years from the date such individual ceases to act on behalf of i
the contractor.
(e) The certification required by paragraph (c) of this clause is a material representation of f act upon which reliance will be placed in executing this modification.
[EndofClause]
I.3 52.203-10 PRICE OR FEE ADJUSTMENT FOR ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITY (SEP 1990)
(a) The Government, at its election, may reduce the price of a fixed price type contract or contract modification and the total l
cost and fee under a cost-type contract or contract modification l
by the amount of profit or fee determined as set forth in l
paragraph (b) of this clause if the head of the contracting l
activity or his or her designee determines that there was a violation of subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 423), as implemented in the FAR.
l In the case of a contract modification, the fee subject to l
reduction is the fee specified in the particular contract modification at the time of execution, except as provided in l
subparagraph (b)(5) of this clause.
(b) The price or fee reduction referred to in paragraph (a) of this clause shall be--
(1) For cost plus-fixed-fee contracts, the amount of the fee specified in the contract at the time of award; (2) For cost plus-incentive-fee contracts, the target fee specified in the contract at the time of award, notwithstanding any minimum fee or " fee floor" specified in the contract; (3) For cost plus-award-fee contracts--
(i) The base fee established in the contract at the time of contract award; I
1
^
Page 27 NRC-04-93-054 Section I I
i (ii) If no base fee is specified in the contract, 30 i
percent of the amount of each award fee otherwise payable to the Contractor for each award fee evaluation period or at each award fee determination point.
(4) For fixed price-incentive contracts, the Government may--
(1) Reduce the contract target price and contract target profit both by an amount equal to the initial target profit specified in the contract at the time of contract award; or (ii) If an immediate adjustment to the contract target s
price and contract target profit would have a significant adverse I
impact on the incentive price revision relationship under the contract, or adversely affect the contract financing provisions, the Contracting Officer may defer such adjustment until establishment of the total final price of the contract. The total final price established in accordance with the incentive price revision provisions of the contract shall be reduced by an amount equal to the initial target profit specified in the contract at i
the time of contract award and such reduced price shall be the I
total final contract price.
(5) For firm-fixed price contracts or contract modifications, by 10 percent of the initial contract price; 10 percent of the i
contract modification price; or a profit amount determined by the Contracting Officer from records or documents in existence prior to the date of the contract award or modification.
(c) The Government may, at its election, reduce a prime l
contractor's price or fee in accordance with the procedures of paragraph (b) of this clause for violations of the Act by its l
subcontractors by an amount not to exceed the amount of profit or fee reflected in the subcontract at the time the subcontract was first definitively priced.
(d) In addition to the remedies in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this clause, the Government may terminate this contract for default. The rights and remedies of the Government specified herein are not exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract.
[End of Clause]
I.4 52.222-2 PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME PREMIUMS (JUL 1990)
(a) The use of overtime is authorized under this contract if the overtime premium cost does not exceed $0 or the overtime premium is paid for work--
(1) Necessary to cope with emergencies such as those resulting from accidents, natural disasters, breakdowns of production equipment, or occasional production bottlenecks of a sporadic nature; f
Page 28 NRC-04-93-054 Section I t
l (2) By indirect-labor employees such as those performing duties in connection with administration, protection, transportation, maintenance, standby plant protection, operation of utilities, or accounting; (3) To perform tests, industrial processes, laboratory procedures, loading or unloading of transportation conveyances, and operations in flight or afloat that are continuous in nature l
and cannot reasonably be interrupted or completed otherwise; or (4) That will result in lower overall costs to the Government.
l (b) Any request for estimated overtime premiums that exceeds the l
amount specified above shall include all estimated overtime for
{
contract completion and shall--
(1) Identify the work unit; e.g., department or section in j
which the requested overtime will be used, together with present workload, staffing, and other data of the affected unit sufficient i
to permit the Contracting Officer to evaluate the necessity for l
the overtime; (2) Demonstrate the effect that denial of the request will have on the contract delivery or performance schedule; (3) Identify the extent to which approval of overtime would l
affect the performance or payments in connection with other l
Government contracts, together with identification of each i
affected contract; and f
I (4) Provide reasons why the required work cannot be performed by using multishift operations or by employing additional personnel.
[End of Clause]
I.5 52.222-18 NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS CONCERNING PAYMENT OF UNION DUES OR FEES (MAY 1992)
(a) During the term of this contract, the Contractor agrees to post a notice, of such size and in such form as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, in conspicuous places in and about its plants and offices, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The notice shall include the following information (except that the last sentence shall not be included in notices posted in the plants or offices of carriers subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188)):
Notice to Employees Under Federal law, employees cannot be required to join a union or maintain membership in a union in order to retain their jobs.
Under certain conditions, the law permits a union and an employer to enter into a union-security agreement requiring employees to
Page 29 NRC-04-93-054 Section I pay unifom periodic dues and initiation fees. However, employees who are not union members can object to the use of their payments for certain purpos?s and can only be required to pay their share of union costs relating te collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.
If you believe that you have been required to pay dues or fees used in part to support activities not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, you may be entitled to a refund 2nd to an appropriate reduction in future payments.
For further information concerning your rights, you may wish to contact either a Regional Office of the National Labor Relations hard or: National Labor Relations Board, Division of Informction, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20570.
(b) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 12800 of April 13, 1992, and related rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor.
(c) In the event that the Contractor does not comply with any of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this clause, this contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for furthei Government contracts in accordance with procedures f
authorized in or adopted pursuant to Executive Order 12800 of April 13, 1992.
Such other sanctions or remedies may be imposed as are provided in Executive Order 12800 of April 13, 1992, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as are otherwise provided by law.
(d) The Contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (c) in every subcontract or purchase order entered into in connection with this contract unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 3 of Executive Order 12800 of April 13, 1992, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor.
l l
The Contractor will take such action with respect to any such subcontract or purchase order as may be directed by the Secretar" l
of Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions, including the imposition of sanctions for noncompliance; p;ovided, however, that if the Contractor becomes involved in litigation with a i
subcontractor or vendor, or is threatened with such involvement, as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request the i
United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
[EndofClause]
l l
l i
~
Page 30 NRC-06-93-054 Section J PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS J.1 ATTACHMENTS (MAR 1987)
Attachment Number Title 1
Billing Instructions i
2 NRC Contractor Organizational Conflicts of Interest 3
Reserved 4
Contractor Spending Plan (CSP)
Instructions 5
Structural and Seismic Design Codes and Standards, and Sourcus of Codes and 6
SECY-90-016, January 12, 1990,
" Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) 1
l CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT COST OR PRICING DATA (FAR 15.804-4)
This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defined in section 15.801 of the Federal Accuisition Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR subsection 15.804-2) 4 submitted, either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the contracting officer or to the contracting officer's representative in i
- are accurate, complete.
i support of This certification includes the ana current as of cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal.
Firm...
Name.
I Title.
Date of execution ***..................
- Identify the proposal, quotation, request for price adjustment, or other submission involved, giving the appropriate identifying number (e.g.,
RFp No.).
I
- Insert the day, month, and year when the price negotiations were concluded and price agreement was reached.
I 1
- Insert the day, month, and year of signing, which should be as close as practicable to the date when the price negotiations were concluded and the contract price was agreed to.
(End of certificate)
{
l l
l
i REVISED 8/E9 BILLING INSTRUCTIONS FOR COST-REIMSURSEMENT TYPE CONTRACTS The contractor shall prepare vouchers / invoices for General:
A sampie reimoursement of costs in the manner anc format described herein.
FAILURE TO SUBMIT voucher / invoice is provided for your reference.
VOUCHERS / INVOICES IN ACCORDANCE WI1N THESE INSTRUCTION REJECTION OF the VOUCHER / INVOICE AS IMPROFER.
An original and three copies, including supporting Numeer of Cecies:
occumentation snall be submittee.
A copy of all supporting documents must Failure to submit all be attacnec to eacn copy of your voucner/ invoice.
the recuires copies will result in rejection of the voucner/ invoice as imorever.
Desienatee Acenev Billino Office: Vouchers / invoices shall be sucmittee to tne fo11 ewing acoress:
U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Contracts and Property. Management Contract Administration Branen. P-902 Wasnington, D.C.
20555 HAND DELIVERY OF VOUCHER 5/ INVOICES 15 DISCOURAGED AND WILL NO PROCESSING BY NRC. However, should you choose to deliver voucners/ invoices by hand, inclucing delivery by any express mail services or special celivery services which use a courier or other person to deliver the voucner/ invoice in person to the NRC, such vouchers / invoices must be accresseo to the above Designated Agency Billing Office anc will only ce accepteo at the following location:
U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Room Rockville, Maryland 20852 HAND-CARRIED SUEMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT OTHER THAN TH ADDRESS.
Note that the of ficial receipt date for hand-delivered vouchers / invoices will be the date it is received by the official agency billing office in I
the Division of Contracts and Property Management.
~
Payment will continue to be made by the office Acency Payment Office:
designatec in the contract in Block %E.of SF 26 or Block 25 of SF 33, whichever is applicable.
i
?
REVISED 8/So Page 2 The contractor shall submit claims for reimbursement once eacn montn. unless otnerwise autnorizec by the Contracting Officer.
Frecuency:
f Claims should be submittee in the format depictec on the attacneo i
Ferm:
samole form entitled " Voucher for Purenases and Services Other than l
The form is no:
The samaie-form is crovided for guidance only.
Personal."
Alternate formats are requirec for submission of a voucner/ invoice.
permissible providea all recuirements of the billing instructions are Additional copies of the form are available from the The instructions for preparation and itemization of accressec.
Contracting Officer.
the voucner/ invoice are incluced with the samrle form.
i If :ne contract:r bills for more than one tast
[
Tast Orce-ne Contracts:
orcer uncer a voucner/ invoice cetailec cest information for eacn i
incividuai task orcer shall be sucmittec. together with a cumulative This includes all summary cf all charges billed en the voucner/ invoice.
acclicacie cost elements discussed in caragraphs (a) througn (p) of tne attacnec ' structions, together with appreoriate succorting information.
If costs are incurrea c' C:st Af ter Expiratien of Centract:
Ei114-curt g : e c:ntrac: : erica anc claimec af ter the c:ntract has exoirec tr.e To ce
- er:ce cur *ng whicn these ces:s were incurred must be cited.
censice-ec a crocer excitatien voucner/ invoice, centracter snail clearly marx it " EXPIRATION VOUCHER" er "EXPIRATICN INVOICE."
I Finai vcuc ers/irvoices shall be marked " FINAL VOUCHER" or " FINAl Billings may be excressec in the currency normally used by the payments will be cace i-Currency:
centrac::r in maintaining his accounting recorcs:
However, the O. 5. dollar ecuivalent for all voucrerst-voices :aic uncer :ne centrac: may not exceec :ne total U. 5.
tha: cur-eacy.
collars a.:nori:ec in the contra...
These instruct::ns supersece any previous billing Sucersess en:
instruct::ns.
5 l
i s
i l l
GE has indicated that the ABWR will meet the offsite dose criteria established in 10 CFR Part 100.
However, they propose to utilize updated information such j
l as system performance and reliability information, developed since promulgation of Part 100, to justify some departure from the current methodology for calculating 4
the offsite dose. The ABWR's current design includes a single stand-by gas t==+
eystem (SGTS)-charcoal filter bed, and no main steam isolation valve (P.SIV) leakage centrei system {LCS).
Frevious BWLdesigns utilized redondant SGTS charcoal filter beds and, since 1976, most have been equipped with a
!!SIV-LCS. The staff's interpretation of the General Design Criteria (GDCs) would classify filters as active components and require redundancy to permit any dose recuction credit in calculating a Part 100 dose. Since 1976, MSIV-LCSs have been required in most BWRs to meet 10 CFR Part 100 for design bases accidents.
Part 100 recuires equipment used to mitigate consequences of design basis acticerts to be seismically cesicned (it identifies eouipment necessary to mitigate the consequences of accidents whose offsite consequences are comparable to the Part 100 dose guidelines as designed to withstand the vibratory motion j
of an SSE). Since non-safety grace equipment such as piping downstream of the MSIVs and the concenser tre not seismically _dmigr+d for SSE,~ credit for these systems has not been accorded in calculating offsite doses for Part 100 purposes.
The staff is consicering these deviations from the current methocology for cemonstrating compliance with Part 100. The staff has concluded, based on current information and experience, that some deviation from current practice, or exemptions from the regulations identified above, may be warranted in the review of evolutionary designs. Presently, the staff believes that no other deviations would be necessary to demonstrate ABWR coepliance with Part 100.
The other evolutionary ALWR vendors (Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering) have indicated that their evolutionary designs will comply with 10 CFR Part 100 and that they will work with the NRC and EPRI to utilize more realistic J
source term information to assess design enhancements related to severe accidents.
As stated in SECY 89-341, the staff is undertaking an examination of the implications of decoupling siting from plant design for future reactors.
Under this plan, reactor site characteristics would be reviewed separately a
j from the reactor without utilizing source terms or dose calculations. This would require revision to Part 100 and other regulatory staff practices. The results of such a study will establish appropriate guidelines for any future plant license applications.
In the interim, however, the staff recommends that 1
the Commission approve the following approach for evolutionary ALWRs:
l Assure that evolutionary designs meet the reovirements of 10 CFR 100 Consider deviations to current methodolocly utilized to calculate Part 100 doses on a case-cy-case basis utilizing engineering juogement inciuoino updated information on source tem ano eouipment te11 ability, i
i D
. Such deviations could imcact plant design features. therefore, these cev1ations wiii ce 1centifiec in tne SERs inat w111 De f orwarcea to tne Commission Tor 1ts inTormation well in aovance of issuance, as airectec in ine 5RM rertain1ng to SECY 89-311 catec Decemoer 15, 1989.
Do not modify current sitino practice, even thouch it is recocnized that such ceviations coulo result in ca lculatec iow population zones ano exclusion areas wnicn are smailer than tnose inat nave ceen approvea for currentiv operating reactors.
Continue to interact with EPRI and the evolutionary ALWR vendors to reacn aareement on tne approcriate use or uocateo source term information for severe acciaent performance cons 1cerations.
I:.
Preventative Feature Issues A.
Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) l The ATWS rule 10CFR 50.62 was promulgated to reduce the prcbability of an ATWS event and to enhance mitigation capability if such an event occurred.
l EPRI has indicated that its approach to resolving the ATKS issue is compliance with the ATWS rule. Design requirements beyond those which would be required to meet the rule have not been proposed.
The ABWR design includes a number of features that reduce the risk from an ATWS event. These features incluce a diverse scram system with both hydraulic and electric run-in capabilities on the control rods, a manually operated standby licuid control system (SLCS), and a recirculation pump trip capability.
In accition, the scram discharge volume has been removed from the ABWR, eliminating some of the potential ATWS prcblems associated with the older BWR designs.
l While the ATWS rule recuires an automatically initiated SLCS, GE has concluded that the diverse scran system and enhanced reliability of the reactor protec-tion system negates the need for an automatic SLCS. GE has agreed to provide a reliability analysis in order to support this position. The staff will review the analysis to determine if an exemption from 10 CFR 50.62, to approve manual l
SLCS, is justified.
The staff analysis will be provided in a future safety evaluation report for the ABWR.
Westinghouse has concluded that a diverse scram system is unnecessary for the RESAR SP/90 design due to 1) high reliability of the integrated reactor protection system (IPS), 2) a turbine trip and emergency feedwater actuation motor generators from the main control board, and 4) y trip the rod contro that is independent of the IPS, 3) Ability to manuall a highly negative moderator temperature coefficient. Westinghouse has consnitted to provide a detailed analysis to demonstrate that the consequences of an ATWS are acceptable at the time an FDA application is submitted.
l The CE System 80+ design includes a control-grade Alternate Protection System which provides an alternate reactor trip signal and an alternate feedwater actuation signal separate and diverse from the safety-grade reactor trip l
system.
. The staff believes, r.otwithstanding the Westinghouse position on civerse scram systems, that all future evolutionary ALWR designs shoulo be recuired to provide a diverse scram system unless the LWR vendor can demonstrate that the consequences of an ATKS are acceptable.
The ATWS rule presently recuires a diverse s: ram system for all (CE, Sabcock and Wilcox, and GE) LWR designs errept Westinghouse FWRs.
It had been determined that previous Westingnouse designs had acecuate ATVS c:p:bility ano backfit could not be justified. The staff believes that evolutionary ALWR designs should provide diverse methods of inserting control roos to mitigate a potential ATWS and to ensure a safe reactor snutdown. The staff considers that diverse scram capability is a worthwhile measure of prevention for all evolutionary ALWRs, especially when incerocrated into the initial design.
Imposition of a diverse scram system on the Westinghouse design would exceed the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Commission aoorove the staff cosition that 01 verse scram systems ce proviceo f or evolutionary ALWRs.
B.
Mid-Loop Operation The staff is concerned that decay heat removal capability cculd be lost wnen a FWR is snut cown for refueling or maintenance and drained to a reduced reactor coolant system (RCS) or "mid-loop" level.
For example, a significant problem nas been the loss of residual heat removal (RHR) suction due to air-binding of the RHR pumps. This is usually caused by an uncontrolled low loop level and consequent air irgestion into the pump suction.
The EFRI Recuirements Document specifies requirements consistent with measures applicable to operating reactors as described by the administrative procedures identified in Generic Letter 88-17, but does not specify design modifications to accress the root cause of this event.
Westinghouse has committed to install a vortex breaker at the RHR hot leg connections to significantly recute air entrainment during mid-loop operation.
This feature, in conjunction with other design features of the plant, should greatly reduce concerns over mid-loop operation. CE has indicated that it will actress this issue through analysis, consideration of specific design features, and/or operational restrictions. Specific design resolutions for the System 80+ have not been provided. Mid loop operation is not an issue with the ABWR.
The staff expects improvements in instrumentation in eeny existing PWRs, but does not require specific modifications to the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) to correct mid-loop problems. However, the staff believes that physical modifications such as those proposed by Westinghouse, eay be necessary to essentially eliminate any concerns with mid-loop operation for future evolu-tionary pressurized ALWRs. Mid-loop operation is not explicitly covered by current regulations, however imposition of such requirements would exceed current steff licensing practices. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Commission enerove the steii uctilien timt e,Olstionary PWR vEns rs ;ro::sc oesign Teatures to ensure nign reiiaD11ity of the snutoown oecay neat removal system.
~
-E-C.
Stat 1cn Blackout The station blackout rule (10 CFR 50.63) allows utilities several design alternatives to ensure that an operating plant can safely shut cown in the event thct all ac power (offsite and onsite) is lost.
The EPRI Recuirements Cocument provides for ir:provements in offsite power reliability, onsite power reliability and capacity, and station blackout ec:ing capability.
EPRI is also proposing that a large capacity, civerse alternate ac power source (combustion turbine generator) with the capability to power one complete set cf normal safe shutdown loads be incluced in evolutionary ALWR designs.
The RESAR SP/90 emergency feeewater system includes two ac-indepencent and two dc-independent turbine-driven pur:ps. The electrical design incluces two full ca:acity emergency diesel generators.
In addition, it includes a backup seal irtection pump powered by a small cedicated diesel generator which has enough cacacity to also cherce the station batteries. Westinghouse believes that this cesign will provide a 24-hour coping time which 1s sufficient to eliminate the need for the addition of an installed spare (full capacity) alternate ac power source.
The System 80+ design includes two turbine-driven emergency feedwater pumps and two motor-oriven emergency feedwater pumps. The electrical design includes two full capacity emergency diesel generators and a diverse alternate ac power source. This alternate source of ac power is expected to be a control-grade combustion turbine with sufficient capacity and capability to power either cne of the electrical divisions.
In addition, the plant design has full load rejection capability and the capability to subsequently provide electrical power from the turbine generator. Each of the four safety-related instrument cnannels has a decicated battery backup. Class IE electrical Divisions I and II, which incluce the two emergency diesel generators are each provided de power by an assigned pair of these batteries.
The AEWR design includes three independent electrical divisions, each with high-pressure and low-pressure water injection capability, each powered by a full capacity emergency diesel generator, and each division capable of independently shutting down the reactor. Additionally, the ABWR design includes an alternate ac combustion turbine to back up the diesel generators.
The design has a capability to survive a 10-hour blackout period utilizing the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) turbine and station batteries. Extended blackout capabilities are also provided by the ac-independent water addition system. This system allows for makeup to the reactor vessel following RCS depressurization by connecting a direct drive diesel fire pump or by connecting an external pumping source, such as a fire truck, to a yard standpipe.
The staf' believes that the preferred method of demonstrating compliance with 10 CTR 50.53 is through the installation of a spare (full capacity) alternate i
ac power source of civerse design that is consistent with the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.155, and is capable of powering at least one corplete set of 4
t l
1 t
t l^
J i
i l i
i l
r.ormal safe shutdown leads. Although an alternate ac power source is provided l
as an acceptable resolution to this issue in 10 CFR 50.63, staff imposition would exceed current Commission regulations. Therefore, the staff recomends I
that the Comr.ission acorove imposition of an alternate ac source f or evolutionary 4
i l
ALWRs.
[
D.
Fire Prctection The staff has concluded that fire protection issues that have been raised through operating experience and through the External Events Program must be 1
1 resolved for evolutionary ALWRs. To minimize fire as a significant i
contributor to the likelihood of severe accidents for advanced plants, the l
l staff concludes that current NRC guidance must be enhanced. Therefore, the j
evolutionary ALWP designers must ensure that safe shutdown can be acnieveo, assumine that ali eouioment in any one fire area will be rencereo inoperable.
a I
Dv fire ano that re-entry into the fire area for repairs ano operator actions
~
is not possible.
Eecause of its physical configuration, the control room is i
excluced from this approach, provided an indepenoent alternative shutoown I
coer"lity det a onysiteiiy etd electrica 3 ly-independent;t the control room 1
is inciuoco in tne oesign.- Evolutionary ALWRs must provice tire-protect 1on for recuncant shutcown systems in the reactor containment building that will ensure, to tne extent practicable, that one shutdown division will be free of l
fire camage. Additionally, tne evolutionary ALWR destgners must ensure that smoke, not gases, or the fire suppressant will not migrate into other fire i
areas to tne extent that they could aaversely affect safe-shutdown capabilities, inclucing operator actions.
Because the layout of a nuclear plant is design-specific, piant-specific design details will be reviewed by the staff on an l
individual basis. The staff will require a description of safety-grade provisions for the fire-protection systems to ensure that the remaining shutdown capabilities are protected, as well as demonstration that the design complies with the migratien criteria discussed above.
}
i The ALWR Requirements Document indicates that fire protection will be as j
specified in 10 CFR 50.48 and Appendix R.
It states that for equipment in the same general area, a 3-hour fire barrier will be utilized in lieu of physical separation unless it is " impractical or less safe." However, no guidelines l
are provided in the Reouirements Document as to the application of these criteria.
i The evolutienary ALWR designers have indicated that their fire protection j
designs are consistent with the staff's proposed enhancements. GE has provided its ABWR fire protection analysis which is currently under review by the 2
j staff.
j Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 was promulgated for plants that were in operation prior to January 1,1979. Subsequently, PRAs performed on more than a dozen j
plants have showed that fire is a significant contributor to core damage. The j
strff believe: that in keeping with the Cectrissien's desire for enhanced l
safety 1or evoh; 1cary AiER:;, fire 7totect1cn requirements shoulo reflect j
experience frem operating reactors and the greater understanding of severe j.
accidents that has been acquired since Appendix R was promulgated. Therefore, the staff recomends the Comission approve the use of the enhanced fire oro-tection oosition underlinea above for evolutionary ALWRs.
i
)
I
~
l
~
l l E.
Intersystem LOCA i
Future evolutionary ALWR designs can reduce the possibility of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) outside containment by designing (to the extent practicable) r all systems and subsystems connected to the reactor coolant system (RCS) to an ultir: ate rupture strength at least equal to the full RCS pressure.
For both BWRs and PWRs, EPRI states that low-pressure systems which could be I
l overpressurized by the RCS should be designed with sufficient margin to withstand full RCS pressure without structural failure.
t For EWRs, pressure isolation valve instrumentation and controls should be provided to (1) prevent opening shutdown cooling connections to the vessel in any loop when the pool suction valve, discharge valve, or spray valves are oper, in the same loop, (2) prevent opening the shutdown connections to and f rcm the vessel whenever the RCS pressure is above the shutdown range, (3)-
automatically close shutdown connections when RCS pressure rises above the i
i shutoown range, and (4) prevent operation of shutdown suction valves in the event of a signal that the water level in the reactor is low.
For PWRs, relief valves sized to protect against overpressure transients, j
should be provided on the RHR system. RHR suction valves should be provided l
with permissive interlocks to prevent opening if RCS pressure exceeds RHR design pressure.
I Westinghouse has indicated that, should the isolation valves of the RESAR l
SP/90 fail, the design pressure of the p1 ping outside of the containment will
{
be sufficient to withstand primary side pressure or will be vented to the Emergency water storage tank (EWST).
CE has eliminated the low-pressure safety injection system and increased the l
design pressure of the shutdown cooling system piping in the System 80+
With this higher design pressure, the shutdown cooling system is design.
expected to maintain its integrity even when exposed to full reactor coolant i
)
system pressure.
The ABWR has been designed to minimize the possibility of an interfacing system LOCA in the following ways. The low pressure systems directly interfacing with the RCS are designed with 500 psig piping which provides for a rupture pressure of approximately 1000 psig.
In addition, the high/ low-pressure motor-operated isolation valves have safety-grade, redundant pressure interlocks. Also, the motor-operated emergency core cooling system (ECCS) valves will only be tested when the reactor is at low pressure. All inboard check valves on the ECCS will be testable and have position indication. Additionally, design criteria used by GE require that all pipe designed to 1/3 or greater of reactor pressure reouires two malfunctions to occur before the pipe would be subjected to reactor system pressure. The pipe designed to less thar.1/3 reactor pressure requires at least three malfunctions before the pipe would be subjected to reactor system pressure.
The staff concludes that desionino, to the extent practicable, low-pressure systems to withstano full RC5 oressure is an acceptable means f or resolvino However, the statt believes tnat for those systems that nave this issue.
not Deen cesioneo to h1thstand fcH RCS pressure, evolutionary ALWRs snould i
. ~.
i i
1
_ c.
l l
provide (1) the carability for leak testing of the pressure isolation valves, j
d; vaive cosition inoication Inst is available in tne control room wnen 1soiation vaive operators are oeenercizeo ano (3) nign-pressure alarms i
10 warn controi room operators wnen rising RC5 pressure approaches the desian nressure of attacneo low-pressure systems and both isolation valves are not r
closeo.
Imposition of these reau1rements exceed Commission requiations anc cuicance; therefore, the staff recommenos that the Comission approve these l
i c_ cm - +ar evo.utirmary At,As.
The staff notes that for some low-pressure systems attached to the RCS, it may not be practical or necessary to provide-a higher system ultimate pressure capability for the entire low-pressure connected system. The staff will evaluate these exceptions on a case-by-case. basis during specific design i
I certification reviews.
III. Fiticative Feature Issues A.
Hyorogen Generation and Control The Comission's Severe Accident and Standardization Policy Statements provid e that future designs should address the provisions of 10 CFR 50.34(f). The j
Commission's stated policy has beer. codified in 10 CFR Part 5? to recuire the i
technically relevant provisions of 10 CFR 50.34(f) be met. Specifically, in order that containment integrity be maintained,10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(ix) l requires future designs to provide a system for hydrogen control that. car safely accommodate hydrogen generated by the equivalent of a 100 percent fuel-clad metal-water reaction.
In addition, the regulation requires this j
system to be capable of precluding uniform concentrations of hydrogen from exceeding 10 percent (by volume), or an inerted atmosphere within the containment must be provided.
t ThE ALWR Requirements Document specifies that containment and combustible gas control systems should be designed to accommodate 75 percent in-vessel zirconium-water reaction of the active fuel cladding, and 13 percent containment
}
unifem hydrogen concentration.
It states that 75 percent cladding oxidation is believed to be a conservative upper limit on the amount of hydrogen generated in a degraded-core situation including recovery. EPRI has identified this as an optimization issue.
The RESAR SP/90 design proposes to mitigate the effects of a 100 percent metal-water reaction and to preclude uniform hydrogen concentration from exceeding 10 percent (by volume) through the use of hydrogen igniter and hydrogen recombiner systems.
The System 80+ design proposes to be consistent with the recomendations of the ALWR Requirements Document resulting from staff review. The infomation will include justifications for the assumed extent of metal-water reaction and the allewable uniform hydrogen concentrations.
The ABWR design meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(ix) by utilizing a nitrogen-inerted atmosphere within its containment. Also, a hydrogen recombiner for design-basis accidents will be provided in the ASWR design.
ei 7
e+e
.-e%,-
m-4w
- ew-m e
e y
aw,
. Aside from the issue of regulatory compliance and applicability, and due to the uncertainties in the phenomenological knowledge of hydrogen generation and combustion, the staff concludes that compliance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.34(f) remains appropriate for combustible gas control design in ALWRs.
Research (discussed in NUREG/CR-4551) inoicates that in-vessel hydrogen generation associateo with core-canage accicents may range trem approximately 40-95 percent active claccing oxication eouivalent. The amount of cladoing l
l oxidation is dependent on a variety of parameters related to secuence progression: reactor coolant system pressure, reflood timing ano flow rates, as well as core-melt progression phenomena. Thus, a 75-percent-eouivalent claading reaction continues to be viewed as a reasonable design basis for hyorogen generation for severe accidents in which the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) remains intact. However, it is the staff's view that ALWRs should provide protection for hydrogen generation resulting from a wider spectrum of accidents, i.e., full core-melt accidents with RPV failure.
In that context, it is also necessary to consider ex-vessel hydrogen generation as a result cf core debris reacting with available water or core-concrete interactions.
Calculaticns using the CORCON models indicate that if the core debris is cooled in relatively rapid fashion (1-2 hours), additional hydrogen generation will be less than that equivalent to a 25-percent claading oxidation reaction.
This relatively limited ex-vessel reaction is conditional on the existence of a coolable cebris bec and the availability of sufficient water.
If extensive l
cere-concrete interaction occurs due to the absence of cavity flooding, more l
hydrogen generation shculd be considered. Considering the effects discussed above, the staff concludes that an equivalent 100 percent cladding oxidation reaction is an appropriate deterministic design criteria and a reasonable surrogate for the combination of both in-vessel and ex-vessel hydrogen genera-tion.
Due to the uncertainties in the phenomenological knowledge of hydrogen generation and combustion, it is still the staff's position that, as a minimum, evolutionary ALWRs should be designed to (1) accommodate hydrogen equivalent to 100-percent metal-water reacticn of the fuel cladding and (2) limit containment hydrogen concentration to no greater than 10 percent. Furthermore, because hydrogen control is necessary to preclude local concentrations of hydrogen below deton-able limits, and given uncertainties in present analytical capabilities, the staff concludes evolutionary ALWRs should provide containment-wide hydrogen control (e.g., igniters, inerting) for severe accidents. Additional advantages of providing hydrogen control mitication features (rather than reliance on randomignitionofrichermixtures)includesthelesseningofpressureand temperature loadings on the containment and essential equipment. The staff l
recorrnends that the Commission approve the staff's oosition that the reovire-ments of 10 CFR 50.34(t )(2)(ix) remain unchangeo for evolutionary ALWRs.
l l
l B.
Core-Concrete Interaction - Ability To Cool Core Debris In the unlikely event of a severe accident in which the core has melted through l
the reactor vessel, it is possible that containment integrity could be breached if the molten core is not sufficiently cooled.
In addition, interactions
. I terween the core debris anc concrete can generate large quantities of aeditional hyorcpen and other non-Condensible gases, which Could Contribute to eventual i
overpressure failure of the containment.
The EPRI Recuirements Document contains a number of design features that are 4
intended to miigate the effects of a molten core. To promote long-tern debris coolebility, the Recuirements Document ctates that the cavity floor should be sized to provide 0.02 m'/MWt.
The Requirements Document also specifies that the containment should be designed to ensure adequate water supply to the floor and that an alternate means of introducing water into the containment, incependent of normal and emergency ac power, should be provided.
Passive senemes for providing flooding of the floor areas beneath the vessel are proposea ano described in general terms for both BWRs and PWRs. The R'eoutrements Document also states that the steel shell or liner of the containment shculd be protected from core debris by at least 3 feet of concrete.
Westinghouse indicated that they will comply with the EPRI core-debris dispersal criteria of 0.02 m'/MWt and that the RESAR SP/90 design will include some method (nct yet defined) that would ensure automatic flooding of the lower cavity, using the in-containment refueling water storage tank (RWST), in the event of a severe accident. Westinghouse is currently evaluating alternative designs to ensure compliance with that comitment.
design will comply with the EPRI CE has also indicated that the System 80g/MWt. Also, the in-containment core-debris dispersal criteria of 0.02 m refueling water storage tank will previde a source of water for lower cavity flooding.
The ABWR cesign has a number of features that the staff generally agrees would i
mitigate the effects of a molten core.
It is oesigned with a lower crywell flooder and a cavity space sufficient to be able to disperse core debris at an energy level of 0.02 m /MWt. The flooder consists of a number of temperature-sensitive fusible plugs that allow suppression pool water to enter the drywell cavity when high temperature resulting from core debris occurs in the lower drywell. The horizontal vents to the suppression pool will remain covered in the event of lower drywell flooding, ensuring that releases continue to be scrubbed through the suppression pool water. GE anticipates that any core-concrete interaction will be stopped when the suppression pool water quenches the molten core debris.
By providing sufficient area to allow the core debris to spread to a shallow bed and by flooding the core debris, it is expected that the potential for extensive core-concrete interactions will be significantly reduced. In addition, even if limited core-concrete interactions continue, the overlying pool of water will mitigate the consequences of these interactions by scrubbing the fission products and cooling the gases released from the core-concrete interaction.
(
l i
? !
she staff believes that an acceptable resolution to this issue can be provided ey tne evolutionary ALna venoors it tnear aesigns provide sufficient reactor cavity floor space to ennance ceoris serencing, ano provide for cuenchino debris in the reactor cavity.
Use of these criteria exceed current reculatory oractice.
2 It should be noted that the specific cavity sizing criteria (0.02 m /MWt) proposed in the Requirements Document is still under evaluation by the staff.
i The issue of debris coolability is an area in which there is active ongoing experimental research including relatively large scale testing jointly sponsored by EPRI and NRC. Additionally, without assurance of core debris coolability, the level of protection afforded by a 3-foot thickness of concrete and the issue of vessel pedestal attack (abistion of concrete supporting the reactor vessel by the molten core debris) require further evaluation. The staff will j
continue to evaluate the issue of core debris coolability and the specific cavity sizing criteria (0.02m'/MWt) proposed by EPRI as more data and information becomes available. The staff intends to assess the debris flooding schemes proposed by EPRI on a design-specific basis.
The staff reccmends the Comission approve exceeding past regulatory prac-i tice in resolving this issue. The staf f recomends approval of the general l
criteria, stated above, that evolutionary ALWR oesigns; 1) provide sutticient j
reactor cavity floor space to enhance debris screadinc, and 2) provice for i
cuentning cebris in the reactor cavity.
Design specific aoproaches to resolve l
Inis issue will be evaluatea by the staff on a case-by-case basis to ensure comoliance with inese criteria.
C.
High Pressure Core Melt Ejection One potential effect of a severe accident that could potentially result in i
containment failure is the phenomenon of direct containment heating (DCH).
The staff is ccncerned that this phenomenon might occur from the ejection of i
molten core debris under high pressure from the reactor vessel resulting in wide dispersal of core debris and extremely rapid addition of energy to the containment atmosphere.
To limit direct containment heating, the ALWR Requirements Document states that the cavity / pedestal /drywell configuration should be designed tc preclude entrainment of core debris by gases ejected from a failed reactor vessel. It also states that a safety-grade RCS safety depressurization and vent system (SDVS) will be provided. The staff review has concluded that reactor vessel depressurization capability and cavity design features to entrap ejected core debris constitute an acceptable approach to the issue of high-pressure core melt ejection.
Westinchouse has indicated that the configuration of the cavity of the RESAR SP/90 containment will prevent core debris from entering the upper containment.
L
. In acdition, their at incepencent deoressurization system will reduce the prcbability cf a hign-pressure molten-core ejection from the reactor vessel.
CE has indicated the System 80+ design includes an indirect cavity vent path, inclucing a debris collection chamber, (which is configured to de-entrain solid core debris and minimize direct containment heating) and a large floor area to enhance core debris coolability.
In addition, the design includes a safety grade ceoressurization system which minimizes the possibility of high-pressure molten-core ejection.
The ABWR design incorporates a safety grade depressurization system and a suopression pool that surrounds the lower drywell cavity and thereby recute the risk of high pressure core ejection and would prevent core debris from reacning the containment boundary and breaching its integrity.
The staff concluces that, during a hign-pressure core-melt scenario, a depres-surization system shoulo provide a rate of RCS depressurization to precluce molten-core ejection and to reduce RCS pressure sufficiently to preclude creep rupture of steam generatcr tubes. Primary systems of evolutionary ALWRs should i
have the capability to be depressurized after loss of decay heat removal.
In additien, the staff concludes that the ALWR Requirements Document should include a recuirement that reactor cavities be arranged in such a manner that high-pressure core debris ejection resulting from vessel f ailure will not impinge on the containment i
boundary. The staff concludes that ALWR desions should include a depressurization system anc cavity cesion teatures to contain ejecteo core oeoris.
Imposition of 1
tnese reouirements exceen current Co:mnission reculations.
Tne statt reconrnenos that tne Corr.ission approve this position for evolutionary ALhks.
D.
Containment Performance The centainment function, i.e., maintenance of a strong leak tight barrier against radioactive release, is faced with distinct challenges as a result of a severe accident. These challenges may be roughly divided into two categories, energetic or rapid energy releases and slower, gradually evolving releases to the closed containment system.
Examples of containment loadings that fall into the first category include high-pressure core melt ejection with direct containment heating, hydrogen combustion, and the initial release of stored energy from the reactor coolant system. Slow energy releases to the containment are typified by decay heat and noncondensible gas generation.
Engineering practice in containment design calls for passive capability in dealing with energetic energy releases where practicable while long-term energy releases may be centrolled by both passive means as well as through active
)
intervention.
In view of the low probability of accidents that would challenge the integrity of the containment, the staff concludes that the probability of failure of the mitigation systems (those systems which can reduce the consecuences of a core camage.bccioeot), frora the-md of core douge to loss of contairaient it.tegrity l
resulting in an uncontrollable leakage substantially greater than the design l
basis leakage, shoulo not exceed approximately 0.1.
However, the staff intends j
l
i
._ te ensure that the contair. ment can ceal with all crecible challences and coes not intend to aoply this conditional containment failure probability lCCFP) guideline in a manner that cculd be interpreted to potentially detract from overall safety. The staff will accept a CCFP of 0.1 or a deterministic containment performance goal that offers comparable protection.
For this reason, the staff concludes that the following general criter1on for containment performance curing a severe-accident challenge would be appropriate for the evolutionary ALWRs in place of a CCFP.
1 The containment should raintain its role as a reliable leak tight barrier by ensuring that containment stresses do not exceed ASME service level C limits fer a minimum period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following the onset of core camage and that following this 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period the containment should continue to provide a barrier against the uncontrolled release of fission products.
Maintaining containment integrity for a minimum period (e.g. 2a hrs) is baseo en providing sufficient time for the remaining airborne activity in the contain-rent (principally ncble gases and iocine) to decay to a level that would not exceed 10 CFR Part 100 cose guideline values when analyzed realistically, if controlled venting were to occur after that time. During this period, contain-nent integrity should be provided, to the extent practicable, by the passive capability of the containment itself and any related passive design features (e.g., suppression pool). The staff further believes that following this period, the containment should continue to provide a barrier against the uncontrolled release cf fission products.
However, in keeping with the concept of allowing for intenention in coping with long-term or gradual energy release, the staff believes that after this minimum period, the containment design may utilize controlled, elevated venting to recuce the probability of a catastrophic failure of the containment. Alternatively, a cesign may utilize diverse con-tainment heat removal systems or rely on the restoration of normal containrent heat removal capability)if sufficient time is available for major recovery actions (e.g., 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
EPRI has indicated that the ALWR public safety criteria do not contain explicit criteria for conditional probability of containment failure or other mitigation features since the ALWR Steering Comittee believes that such criteria could potentially distort the balance in safety design and inhibit innovative improvements in core protection features. However, EPRI has not yet indicated their position on an alternate containment performance goal.
l Westinghouse has not yet committed to a specific containment performance goal for RESAR SP/90 although it is expected that the mitigation features discussed by Westinghouse would lead to a CCFP of less than 0.1 for all credible accident scenarios.
i l
I s CE expects that the System E0+ design will meet the CCFP goal of 0.1 wnen weighted over credible core damage sequences given the following assumptions.
-Credible core camage sequences are defined as all core damage event sequences with a f recuency of greater than 1.0 X 10E-6 per reactor year.
External events which would cause both core damage and concurrently fail the containment and which have a frecuency of less that 1.0 X ICE-5 per reactor year will not be considered.
-Containment failure is defined as a post core damage release resulting in a cose creater than 25 rem beyond one-half mile from the reactor.
The AEWR design currently includes a harcened wetwell vent for containment over pressure protection and is comittee to a CCFP that is less than 0.1 wnen weighted over credible core damage sequences.
In meetings with the staff, EFRI has statec that they consider a containment vent to be philosophically and institutionally unoesirable and potentially unworkable.
For additional information see related discussions under ALWR Public Safety Goal and ABWR Containment Vent Design.
Defense in depth, a !cng standing fundamental principle of reac?cr safety, results in the concept that multiple barriers should be provided to ensure against any significant release of radioactivity.
In its Severe Accident Policy Statement, the Commission indicated that it "... fully expects tnat vendors engaged in designing new (or custom) plants will achieve a higher l
standard of severe accident safety performance than their prior designs." The Commission reaffirmed this policy in an SRM dated December 15, 1989 relating to SECY-89-311. A defense-in-depth approach reflects an awareness of the need to make conservative safety judgements in the face of uncertainties; in effect, not putting all the eggs in one basket.
In that reg 6rd, the reactor containmen'.
boundary should serve as a reliable barrier against fission product release for credible severe-accioent phenomena / challenges. Special effort should be made to eliminate or further reduce the likelihood of a sequence that could bypass tne containment. The continued reliance on the traditional principle of containment of fission products following an accident is seen as a logical and prudent approach to addressing reasonable questions which will persist regarding the ability to accurately predict certain aspects of severe accident behavior.
In order to ensure balance between prevention and mitigation, some criteria on containment performance are appropriate. Accordingly, a general goal of limiting the conditional containment failure probability to less than 1 in 10 when weighted over credible core-damage sequences would constitute appropriate attention to the defense-in-depth philosophy. Alternatively, a deterministic containment performance goal that provides comparable protection would be appropriate.
Probabilistic risk assessment IPRA) is a very powerful tool that permits systematic integrated assessment of design strengths and weaknesses. However, because very low irecuency generies (appcAiratelf 1.0 % 10E-6 per reactor-year) are being addressed, it is important to recognize the large uncertainties in the cuantification of these scenarios. The overall uncertainties in severe accident behavior are driven largely by insufficient data for assessing common-cause f ailures, difficulty in cuantification of the potential for human
j i
- l t
l errors, and questions about completeness of analyses and uncertainties. in phencmenological behavior. For this reason, the staff considers it acceptable to utilize a deterninistic containment performance criterion that would provide a level of containment performance comparable to that which could be demonstrated using a probabilistic containment failure goal of 0.1, given a l
severe accident.
l It is recommended that the Commission approve the staff's oosition to use a i
CCFP of 0.1 or a ceterministic containment oerf ormance coal that offers l
comoarcole crotect1cn in the evaluation of evolutionary ALWRs.
j E.
ABWR Containment Vent Design In Amenoment 8 of the ASWR SSAR submittal (July 28,1989) GE submitted a sensitivity analysis of the ASWR PRA to detemine the net risk ber.efit of a j
vent system. Basically, this system is a containment overpressure relief system and is designed to avoid gross containment failure resulting from i
postulated slow risine overpressure scenarios that could result from postulated nultiple safety system failures. These sensitivity analyses indicate that, with or without a vent system, the ABWR design meets the quantitative health objec-tives of the Comission's safety goal with a wide margin.
The staff's detailed review of the ABWR risk analyses, including the sensitivity analyses on the vent system, is currently underway. Based on the review to date, the staff believes that the scope of methods and data used in the AEWR PRA are sufficient and do not expect that the ABWR risk to exceed the Commission's quantitative health objectives with or without a vent system.
]
The staff's safety goal implementation plan also recommended that a subsidiary target related to plant perfomance be used. This target states that, for future plants, a mean core damage frequency due to internal events and external events be less than 1.0 X 10E-5 per reactor year of operation. The staff's review of Amendment 8 of the ABWR SSAR indicates that the overall core damage frequency from internal events (transients, ATWS events, and postulated LOCAs) and external events (primarily from beyond design basis seismic events and postulated fires) is about 6 X 10E-6 per reactor year. GE has determined that the proposed vent system has negligible impact on the core damage frequency. The staff notes that GE has provided an additional means of decay heat removal (a third train of RHR and an ac-independent water makeup system which relies on the fire water system to supply water to the core and containment sprays in emergency situations) for the ABWR design to reduce the loss of containment heat removal frequency of the sequences involving (on core damage frequency only) of the function, thus reducing the benefit ABWR vent system for these tynes of accident sequences.
The desirability of venting-a BWR containment to mitigate multiple-failure accidents far beyond the design basis has been accepted for some time. Since 1981 the BWR Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs), developed by the BWR Owners Group and approved by the NRC for existing BWRs, have called for venting the containment wetwell air space.
GE believes containment j
I
, i overpressure protection represents a practical and beneficial feature to incorporate in the ABWR. The overpressure protection feature is essentially l
passive, relatively inexpensive in a new plant, provides insurance against the l'
consequences and financial risks associated with end-of-spectrum accident scenarios, is consistent with the BWR EFGs, and appears to be consistent with
}
the ALWR philosophy of robustness.
l r
GE has established two severe accident goals in the risk analyses submitted to the staff. These goals were defined in the ABWR LRB. The first goal states that the frequency of a severe accident release resulting in a whole bocy dose of 25 rem beyond one-half mile from the reactor should not exceed 1 X 10E-6 per reactor-year. This design goal is basically the same as the EPRI ALWR design goal. The second goal defined in the ABWR LRB states that the conditional c'ntainment failure probability should be less than one in ten (CCFP 0.1) l l
o l
when weighted over credible core damage secuences. The staff and GE agree l
l that the definition of containment failure is an uncontrollable leakage substantially greater than the design basis resulting from loss of containment ir.tegrity following the onset of severe core damage The ABWR design with4he vent systen is expected to meet the above goals; however, staff review in this area is not yet complete.
GE has performed an analysis utilizing this definition of containment failure to determine if the ABWR meets the CCFP goal of 0.1.
The analysis indicates that the CCFP for the ABWR design, without a vent system, is equal to approximately 0.5 and does not meet the 0.1 goal, however with a vent system, the CCFP equals approximately 0.06.
Based upon the preliminary review of the ABWR severe accident design, the i
staff has determined that, as far as overall risk impact is concerned, the GE ABWR public safety goal is significantly more stringent than the Comission's cuantitative health objectives. Also, the staff concludes that the public l
safety goal proposed by GE for the ABWR design is more stringent than the "large release guideline" as defined in the staff's proposed safety goal implementation plan. Therefore, based on the apoarent enhanced level of safety provided by the ABWR's severe accident desion features, which incluoe the over pressure protec-tien system, the staff recomends the comission approve its use in the ABWR desien certification process.
F.
Equipment Survivability With regard to the Comission's request concerning "The measures to ensure that systems and equipment required only to mitigate severe accidents are available to perfom their intended function (e.g., environmental qualifica-tions)," the staff believes that features provided for severe-accident protection (prevention and mitigation) only (not required for design basis accidents) need not be subject to (a) 'he 10 CFR 50.49 environmental qualifica-tien requirements,_lk) all aspects of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B ouality assurance requipements,mr (c) 10 CFP.-Part 50, Appendia A erdundeney/ diversity recairements.
The reason for this judgment is that the staff does not believe that severe core damage accidents should be design basis accidents (DBA) in the traditional sense that DBAs have been treated in the past.
j i
1 i
j l
-lE-1 i
l Notwithstancing that judgment, however, mitication features must be desionec so
~
there is reasonable assurance that they wil1 operate in the severe-accident environ-cent fer which they are intended ano over the time span for which they are needed.
In instances where safety related equipment, (which is proviced for
~l cesign bases accidents) is relied upon to cope with severe accidents situations; there shculd also be a high confidence that this equipment will_ survive severe accident conditions for the period that is needed to. perform its intended func-i tion. However it is not necessary for redundant trains to be qualified to meet i
this goal.
i i
During the review of a specific ALWR design the credible severe accident scenarios, the equipment needed to perform mitigative functions, and the conditions under which the mitigative systems must function, will be identified.
l Ecuipment survivability expectations under severe accident conditions a
should include consideration of the circumstances of applicable initiating i
events (e.g., station blackout, earthquakes) and the environment (e.g., pressure, J
temperature, radiation) in which the equipment is relied upon to function. The j
reevired system performance criteria will be based on the results of these I
cesign-specific reviews.
In addition, the staff concludes that severe-accider.t mitigation equipment for evolutionary ALWRs should be capable of being powered from an alternate power supply as well as from the normal Class IE onsite systems. Appendices A and B to Regulatory Guide 1.155, " Station Blackout,*
provide guidance on the type of quality assurance activities and specificatiers I
which the staff concludes are apprcpriate for equipment utilized to prevent and l
mitigate the consequences of severe accidents.
The staff reouests that the Comission aporove the staff position that features provicea only tor severe-accident protection need not be subject to the 10 trn l
a 50.49 environmental cualification reouirements,10 CPR Part 50, Appendix 5 l
cuality assurance reovirements, anc 10 CFR Part 50, Appencix A reouncancy/
l aiversity reouirements.
IV. Non-Severe Accident Issues The following issues, which are not normally considered through PRA analysis or not considered as severe accident issues for the evolutionary ALWRs, are j
brought to the Commission's attention because either the staff's positions or the vender requests differ from past practices.
f A.
Operating Bases Earthquake (OBE)/ Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)
Presently, 10 CFR Part 100 requires that the magnitude of the OBE be at least one-half that of the SSE.
It has been an industry wide experience that such a requirement leads to a design that is governed by the OBE requirements and produces unnecessary and inconsistent margins for the SSE loading. This requirement was included in the regulation when the staff did not have l
substantial experience with the seismic resistance of-plants that incorporated i
OBE design at half the SSE vaive. $1nce tnen-a nuamer.cf research programs have been conducted including a large industry effort on testing and observation of actual earthquake experience of industrial facilities; consequently, the NRC funded Piping Review Comittee has concluded that the OBE at existing plants are too high, therefore, controlling the design of some safety systems, and recommended that the OBE be decoupled from the SSE.
Certain interim measures, j
i'.
.. such as allowing somewhat higner camping values for piping analysis, have been taken to partially irplement the Piping Review Committee recommendations (NUREG 1061,1984). But the complete implementation of the recommendations would involve a revision of 10 CFR Part 100, Appenc1x A.
work, the effort on revision of this regulation has been postponed.Because of higher prio It should be noted that the Commission has, in certain site specific cases, previously approved _0BEs of less th:n one-half-the SSE.
EPRI has requested that NRC regulations be changed to reduce the magnitude of the DBE relative to the SSE as a basis for the design. All evolutionary ALWR vendors agree with the reouest.
GE has stated that they agree with EPRI in principle, however, the ABWR design uses an OBE that is one-half the SSE; therefore, this is a non-issue for the ASWR.
EPRI has identified this as an optimization issue.
The staff acrees that the OBE should not control the cesign of safety systems.
However, a statt position en in1s issue to be appliea generically to all tuture oesigns nas not yet been tu a iy aevelooeo.
For the evolutionary reactors, tne :tsff -,11 rensioer receerir te ccc;uoie Ine OEE from the 55E on a cesign-specific tesis.
Sutn a cecouci1ng wouic reouire an exemption to the commission's regulations, tnerefore the stait recorrenos that tne commission approve this cesion-soecific relief acoroacn.
E.
l Inservice Testing of Purps and Yalves l
The ASME Code,Section XI, " Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components" has been used to establish past testing requirements for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 safety-related pumps and valves.
These requirements provide certain information on the operational readiness of the components. but in general, do not necessarily verify the capability of the components to perfor= their intended safety function.
It is the staff's judgerent that the Code does not assure the necessary level of component operability that is desired for the evolutionary LWR designs. The staff believes that the following aspects of pump and valve testing and inspection are necessary to provide an adequate level of assurance of operability.
The following provisions should be applied to all safety related pumps and valves I
limitea to A5ME Coce Class 1, 2, and 3 components.
ano not
-Piping desien should incorporate provisions for full flow testing (maximum cesign flows et pumps, ano eneck valves.
-Designs should incorporate provisions to test motor operated valves under l
aesign basis cif ferentia l pressure.
-Check valve testing should incorporate the use of advanced non-intrusive technioues to aadress oeoracation and performance characteristics.
a erecram cheuld bc established to determina the frecuency necessary for ditarrere sy an: insoection of cumos ana va sves to detect unacceptable degrecation wnich cannot be oetectec tnrouen tne use of aavanced non-intrusive tecnnicues.
1 d
4 V0"C!!ERS FOR PURCitASES AnD SERVICES 0711th arm rr.a- ~
r.g,
e l
l l
J
\\
Agency liilling Office (a) Centract Numace f
- , Cft:::2i Tast Order No. (! f inplicabic)
.. touclear Regula tory Conniss ten lU.Divisten of Centracts anc Proper:y f
!'.anJCe9ent. ?-902 (b) IItle Of Pro,1cC!
' *';3..ing:00 O.C.
20EEE b
i f Pavec 5 flame an: Addrei!
^
l 1
i (C) Vouctier NumDer
.j I
(d) Projec: Officer l
l
! Incivica:1 :: Cen:at:
(c) Date of Youcher
!;;ccarcine 'nis ' Jeu ncr (f) Contrat: Amount
~
l ;4arne :
i
,., e.t.
(C)
Fixec fee reimbur:2:le cos ts from
.:::n: -c;-esc-::
' m, Amaun: Si':c Inces:1:- :: Ea:e
,1 ) :urrent c?-iec f (c' 1
)
i i
- re:: ::s::
l
- 3rc: _::: -
I
- s :e-r :,
- -:v:c: it re-:en'-*
.::::..::::.:ne ;cncaDie E c; :n: -
r; F.a t e-:2 is. au:ps tes anc
- n:2:::31::e: Eceinment t
y = e- = r v.
1
.:-:c.:r-::
-2.t i
-ere,cn -
a (E! iuccc-tre :
i (c) 0::er.os::
~
- o
- 21 Utrcct Cc.:
' ( J) II: DIRECT C0575 l
i
% of i
j A; uverneec (Incica:t casci I
Sudtotal 9
El General 7., Administrative Expense
- of Ces: Elements rios.
i Total Cos::
l (t) TIIED-TEE EAR::ED (Fomula)
(n) Total Anount; Claimed 1
1 (0) Adju:: ment; i
Os t,:z nd in,: 'su: pens iore
}
- (p) (;r.sms ir,
- a l.
- 4
- (REOUIRES SUPPO.TIrm INFOR!%TIDH--5EE ATTACHED) 1 I.
i 1
REV15ED 8/89 Page 4 Instruction for itemi:ation of Cests and Suecertino Informat'ien:
In orcer to 1
D-coaration anc Itemiration of the Vourner/ Invoice:
conststute a preper invoice, tne contractor sna11 furnish all the information set forth below. These notes are keyed to the entries en tne sample voucner/ invoice.
Show the name of the centractor as it appears Favee's name anc acdress:
When an approved in the centract anc its correct acdress.
l assignment has been made by the contractor, or a different payee cc accressee has been designated, insert the name and address of the l
Indicate the name anc teleonone numoer of the incividual responsible for answering any cuestions that the NRC may have regarcing the payee.
invoice.
f (a) Centract Numcer.
Insert ne NRC contract nu= Der Tast Orcer Numoer, if a :licaole.
Insert the task crcer numcer.
List the full title of tne project ceing :ericreea (t) itie cf Dreject.
uncer ne centract.
The a::repriate secuential num:er 5ecuential voucner/ invoice numcer.
(c) cf tre voucner/ invoice, Oeginning with 001 snould be cesignatec.
l
- ntract:rs may also incluce incivicual internal accounting nu= cees.
i
'f cesirec, in acdition :: the 3-cigit secuential num er.
r Freject Of ficer's name anc mailsteo as designated in tne contract.
1 (c)
(e) Cate ei voucher / invoice.
Insert the date the voucher / invoice is
- ee:arec.
Insert the ::tal estimatec cost of tne contract.
(')
- ntract Amount.
exclusive of fixec-fee.
Incluce this information as it applies ::
incivicual task orders as well.
Fixec-Fee.
Insert totai fixec-fee.
Incluce this information as it (g) ac:iies to incividual task orcers as well.
i Insert the beginning and ending dates (day, montn, Billing Period.
(h) year) of the period during which costs were incurred anc for whicn reimoursement is claimec.
(i) Direct Costs.
Insert the major cost elements:
This consists of salaries and wages paid (or Direct Labor.
(I) accrued) for direct performance of the contract itemizee as -
follows:
REVISED S/39 Page 5 i
4 l
1 Cumulative Lacor Labor Hrs.
Hours Category Negotiatec Billea Rate Total Hours Billec This represents fringe benefits applicasie to (2) :ringe Benefits.
Where a rate is usec.
cirect later anc billed as a cirect cost.
Fringe benefits includee in direct later er incicate the rate.
in otter incirect cost pools should not be icentifiec here.
For eaucational institutions, list eacn item (3) Direct Ecuipment.or more anc having a life expectancy of more tnan 5500.00 cesting For contractors etner than ecucatienal institutions, l
list eacn item costing $200.00 or more and having a life ene year.
i List only inese items cf
~
expectancy ef more than one year. is recuestec.
A reference ecui: ment fer wnich reimoursement (a) tne item snail be mace to the following (as applicable):
nu=cer for the specific piece of ecuipment listec in tne (b) the Centracting property senecule of the contract:
Officer's approval letter if the ecuipment is not coverec ty tte Orcoerty seneoule; or (c) be preceoed by an asterisk (*)
is below the approval level.
Furtner if the eauiement itemi:stien of youcners/ invoices shall only te recuirec f:r items naving specific limitatiens set fortn in the centract.
1 These are
- ateriais, Supplies, or Otner Expencable Items.
(4) censumacie materials, supplies, and equipment :ther than tnat i
cescribed in (3) above.
)
This is remuneration in excess cf the basic l
(5) Premium Pay.
(Requires written approval of the Contracting neurly rate.
Officer.)
Censultant's Fee. The succorting information must incluce the (6) name, hourly or daily rate of the consultant, anc reference tne NEC approval (if not specifically approved in the original contract).
Domestic travel is travel within the United States, its (7) Travel.
territories, possessions, and Canaca.
It should be billec separately from foreign travel.
All costs associatea with each trip must be shown in the following format:
Date Traveler Destination Purpose Cost From To I'**
1 I
REVISED S/89 Page 6 Incluce separate cetailed breakdown of all Subtentracts.
(S) costs paic to approved succentracters curing the oilling perted.
List all other direct costs by cost element an collar (9) Other.
amount separately.
Cite the formula (rate and base) in Indirect Costs - Overneso.
l (j) ef fect curing the time the cost was incurred anc for wnich reimoursement is claimec.
If the contract provices for a fixec fee, it must :e (i) Fixec Fee.
Cite the formula :-
claimeo as proviced for ey the contract.The centractor may bill for fixec fee :-iy
[
metn: of c==putation.
c: :: S5% of total fee.
Insert the amount :ille: f:r Amount Silled fer Current Periec.
(:)
- ne major cost elements, acjustments, and t:tal amount for tne l
- eries.
- viative Amount frem Inception :: Date of Current Eiliing.
~
. sert f-)
- ne tumulative amounts tilled for the major cost elements an:
a:;ustec amounts claimec curing this contract.
(ri Tetzi Amounts Claimec.
Insert the total amounts claicec f:r tre I
- urrent and cumulative periocs.
This includes cumulative amounts billeo that rave reen T:) 2:justments.
sus:enced or disallowec.
(p) 3ran: Totals.
(*)
Sur erting Information. Cost elements recuiring cetailee su:::rting information--sample atta ned.
1 i
t l
l 1
i i
Page /
Supporting Infomatica - Sample l
)
l I
I L:bar - $2'00
- ) gree
Cucui s ti v e flour:
Gilled 70::1_
pem Stilco Labor flours Neectisted
_ Rate Lafor C2:ecorv-100 514.00
$1:00 975 5enior Engineer i I'00 50
$10.00
$50:
'65 1500 100
$5.CQ
$50:
220 Engsnee" 700 Co=nu:ce :.-ilvr.:
- ~.,.
uv
~
- 3) Dirc:: ":c i e..- n:
' E. * :-:
5::::-.~:er. Gence:1 Elecir:c i:s :cymvec' in Pr xt:y Sct.ccule:
.: : ~. :.
- s. 5:3:!ie: ; 0:!:er f re -ca ain 7:e-s r-
.c.,r
.sa
.swa
..-a a
^."..n.~.'
= -
(. C. M.. 0 ".
........ -'.cr a<
r~~..
- c. c.
1
.c n, au.
. n........, : <n....,,..;....,
..u
.?c.;g:..,.
~.... -....
t
.; r...e I
i I
l c....
, <]gn.
1
..-a s
~}
- Trave, Purcose Treveie-Des::natien D2:e
_from
_To Fme I:!?
2/1/89 '/6/gg villies ring Chiczgo, Vasn..
Meeting ws r.
11 D
Proj ec-Officer
.i
REVISED 8/89 Page 8
- 8) Suttentracts i
t n2 C0rtP.
(CPFF) l 1
I 51600.00 I
- 80 hour: 9 520.00 per hour SMO.00 Otre : Labor:
9 50~
$400.00 0/H
=
Travel - : Trips
ash., DC 9 $200 to 5: sten M 9 7"
.c
$200.00 profi:
53000.00 susns.
f.)..neo.r ce i r c-: ul a.
1
- i. :..
.., s.: u,. c.:c,.
- e..n 7..~.. s C.... ' - ~-
. <,s
..c..e m s
c.
z -.--s
- . ss
<..., :... :4.3:.e. e.,
..4.,
- c,. 4.
s
.e.
-::nr.eic f -- voucne-4 00:. " - :: ~2v0 ~ :: C:~~'2~?
.' ::. '.: ::cs :-cur.:
re....
.....c l
o a
1 i
l i
l 1
i ATTACH 2n c t
NRC Organizational Conflicts of Interest I.
Scope of policy.
A.
It is the policy of NRC to avoid, eliminate, or neutralize contractor organizational conflicts of interest. The NRC achieves this objective by requiring all prospective contractors to submit infonnation i
i describing relationships, if any, with organizations or persons (including l
those regulated by the NRC) which may give rise to actual or potential conflicts of interest in the event of contract award.
B.
Contractor conflict of interest determinations cannot be maae automatically or routinely. The application of sound judgment on virtually a case-by-case basis is necessary if the policy u to be applied to satisfy the It is not possible to prescribe in advance a overall public interest.
specific method or set of criteria which would serve to identify and resolve all of the contractor conflict of interest situations which might arise.
However, examples are provided in these regulations to guide application of this policy guidance. The ultimate test is as follows: Might the contractor, if awarded the contract, be placed in a position where its judgment may be biased, or where it may have an unfair competitive advantage?
C.
The conflict of interest rule contained in this subpart applies to contractors and offerors only.
Individuals or firms who have other relationships with the NRC (e.g., parties to a licensing proceeding) are not covered by this regulation. This rule does not apply to the acquisition of consulting services through the personnel appointment process, NRC agreements with other government agencies, international organizations, or state, local, 1
or foreign governments. Separate procedures for avoiding conflicts of interest will be employed in these agreements, as appropriate.
l II. Definitions.
A.
Affiliates means business concerns which are affiliates of each l
other when either directly or indirectly one concern or individual controls or has the power to control another, or when a third party controls or has the l
power to control both, b.
Contract means any contractual agreement or other arrangement with the NRC except as provided in the section, " Scope of Policy," paragraph C.
C.
Contractor means any person, firm, unincorporated usociation, joint venture, co-sponsor, partnership, corporation, affiliates thereof, or their successors in interest, including their chief executives, directors, key personnel (identified in the contract), proposed consultants, or l
subcontractors, which are a party to a contract with the NRC.
D.
Evaluation activities means any effort involvine 'ne appraisal of a technology, process, product, or policy.
4
I j
]
4 Offeror or crespective contractor means any person, firm, E.
unincorporated association, joint venture, co-sponsor, partnership, corporation, or their affiliates or successors in interest, including their chief executives, directors, key personnel, proposed consultants, or subcontractors, submitting a bid or proposal, solicited or unsolicited, to the l
NRC to obtain a contract.
r Oroanizational conflicts of interest means that a relationship F.
exists whereby a contractor or prospective contractor has present or planned interests related to the work to be performed under an NRC contract which:
1 May diminish its capacity to give impartial, technically 1.
sound, objective assistance and advice, or may otherwise result in a biased l
work product; or 2.
May result in its being given an unfair competitive advantage.
i I
Potential conflict of interest means that a factual situation G.
- cggEsts that an actual conflict of. interest may arise from award of a The term notential conflict of interest is used to signify proposei contract.
those situations that (1) merit investigation before contract award to ascertain whether award would give rise to an actual conflict, or (2) must be J
reported to the contracting officer for investigation if they arise during contract performance.
J H.
Research means any scientific or technical work involving theoretical analysis, exploration, or experimentation.
1.
Subcontractor means any subcontractor of any tier who performs l
work under a contract with the NRC except subcontracts for supplies and i
subcontracts in amounts not exceeding the small purchase threshold.
i J.
Technical consultino and manacement suonort services means internal assistance to a component of the NRC in the formulation or.
administration of its programs, projects, or policies which normally require i
that the contractor be given access to proprietary information or information i
that has not been made available to the public. These services typically include assistance in the preparation of program plans, preliminary designs, i
l specifications, or statements of work.
III. Criteria for recognizing contractor organizational conflicts of l
4 interest.
A.
General.
I 1.
Two questions will be asked in determining whether actual or l
potential organizational conflicts of interest exist:
a.
Are there conflicting roles which might bias an offeror's or contractor's judgment in relation to its work for the NRC?
2 I
1 b.
Hay the offeror or contractor be given an unfair competitive advantage based on the perfomance of the contract?
NRC's ultimate determination that organizational conflicts of 2.
interest exist will be made in light of common sense and good business While it is difficult to identify and judgment based upon the relevant facts.
to prescribe in advance a specific method for avoiding all of the various situations or relationships that might involve potential organizational conflicts of interest, NRC personnel will pay particular attention to proposed contractual requirements that call for the rendering of advice, consultation or evaluation activities, or similar activities that directly lay the groundwork for the NRC's decisions on regulatory activities, future procurements, and research programs.
B.
Situations or relationships. The following situations or relationships may give rise to organizational conflicts of interest:
1.
The offeror or contractor shall disclose information that may give rise to organizational conflicts of interest under the following The information may include the scope of work or specification circumstances.
for the requirement being performed, the period of performance, and the name and telephone number for a point of contact at the organization knowledgeable about the commercial contract.
Where the offeror or contractor provides advice and a.
recommendation to the NRC in the same technical area where it is also providing consulting assistance to any organization regulated by the NRC.
b.
Where the offeror or contractor provides advice to the NRC on the same or similar matter on which it is also providing assistance to any organization regulated by the NRC.
Where the offeror or contractor evaluates its own c.
products or services, or has been substantially involved in the development or marketing of the products or services of another entity.
d.
Where the award of a contract would result in placing the offeror or cor. tractor in a conflicting role in which its judgment may be biased in relation to its work for the NRC, or would result in an unfair competitive advantage for the offeror or contractor.
2.
The contracting officer may request specific information from an offeror or contractor or may require special contract clauses in the following circumstances:
1 Where the offeror or contractor prepares specifications a.
that are to De used in competitive procurements of products or services covered by the specifications.
b.
Wher'e the offeror or contractor prepares plans for specific approaches or methodologies that are to be incorporated into competitive procurements using the approaches or methodologies.
3 i
I Where the offeror or contractor is granted access to c.
information not available to the public concerning NRC plans, policies, or
[
programs that could form the basis for a later procurement action.
d.
Where the offeror or contractor is granted access to proprietary information of its competitors.
Where the award of a contract might result in placing e.
the offeror or contractor in a conflicting role in which its judgment may be biased in relation to its work for the NRC or might result in an unfair l
competitive advantage for the offeror or contractor.
i C.
Policy application cuidance. The following examples are illustrative only and are not intended to identify and resolve all contractor i
organizational conflict of interest situations.
i 1.
The ABC Corp., in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP),
i proposes to undertake certain analyses of a reactor component as called for in the RFP. The ABC Corp. is one of several companies considered to be technically well qualified.
In response to the inquiry in the RFP, the ABC Corp. advises that it is currently perfoming similar analyses for the reactor manufacturer.
I Guidance. An NRC contract for that particular work normally would not be awarded to the ABC Corp. because the company would be placed in a position in which its judgment could be biased in relationship to its work for the NRC.
Because there are other well-qualified companies available, there would be no reason for considering a waiver of the policy.
2.
The ABC Corp., in response to an RFP, proposes to perform certain analyses of a reactor component that is unique to one type of advanced reactor. As is the case with other technically qualified companies responding l
to the RFP, the ABC Corp. is performing various projects for several different utility clients. None of the ABC Corp. projects have any relationship to the work called for in the RFP. Based on the NRC evaluation, the ABC Corp. is considered to be the best qualified company to perform the work outlined in the RFP.
7 Guidance. An NRC contract normally could be awarded to the ABC Corp.
because no conflict of interest exists which could motivate bias with respect to the work. An appropriate clause would be included in the contract to preclude the ABC Corp. from subsequently contracting for work with the private sector that could create a conflict during the performance of the NRC contract. For example, ABC Corp. would be precluded from the performance of similar work for the company developing the advanced reactor mentioned in the I
I example.
3.
The ABC Corp., in response to a competitive RFP, submits a proposal to assist the NRC in revising NRC's guidance documents on the respiratory protection requirements of 10 CFR Part 20. ABC Corp. is the only firm determined to be technically acceptable. ABC Corp. has performed substantial work for regulated utilities in the past and is expected to 4
continue similar efforts in the future. The work has and will cover the writing, implementation, and administration of compliance respiratory protection programs for nuclear power plants.
This situation would place the firm in a role where its Guidance.
Because the judgment could be biased in relationship to its work for the NRC.
nature of the required work is vitally important in tems of the NRC's responsibilities and no reasonable alternative exists, a waiver of the policy in accordance with the section " Waiver" may be warranted. Any waiver must be fully documented in accordance with the waiver provisions of this policy, with particular attention to the establishment of protective mechanisms to guard against bias.
The ABC Corp. submits a proposal for a new system to evaluate 4.
a specific reactor component's performance for the purpose of developing standards that are important to the NRC program. The ABC Corp. has advised the NRC that it intends to sell the new system to industry once its practicability has been demonstrated. Other companies in this business are using older systems for evaluation of the specific reactor component.
Guidance. A contract could be awarded to the ABC Corp. if the contract stipulates that no infomation produced under the contract will be used in the contramr's private activities unless this information has been reported to Data on how the reactor component performs, which is reported to the the h/4.
NRC by contractors, will normally be disseminated by the NRC to others to preclude an unfair competitive advantage. When the NRC furnishes information about the reactor component to the contractor for the performance of contracted work, the information may not be used in the contractor's private activities unless the information is generally available to others.
- Further, the contract will stipulate that the contractor will infom the NRC i
contracting officer of all situations in which the infomation, developed about the perfomance of the reactor component under the contract, is proposed i
to be used.
5.
The ABC Corp., in response to a RFP, proposes to assemble aIn map showing certain seismological features of the Appalachian fold belt.
accordance with the representation in the RFP and the section, " Criteria for Recognizing Organizational Conflicts of Interest," paragraph B.1 above, ABC Corp. informs the NRC that it is presently doing seismological studies for several utilities in the eastern United States, but none of the sites are within the geographic area contemplated by the NRC study.
Guidance. The contracting officer would normally conclude that award of a contract would not place ABC Corp. in a conflicting role where its l
judgment might be biased.
Paragraph (c), " Work for Others," of the clause in Section I entitled " Contractor Organizational Conflicts of Interest" would l
preclude ABC Corp. from accepting work which could create a conflict of j
interest during the term of the NRC contract.
l 6.
AD Division of ABC Corp., in response to a RFP, submits a proposal to assist the NRC in the safety and environmental review of applications for licenses for the construction, operation, and decomissioning of fuel cycle 5
l
..r facilities. ABC Corp. is divided into two separate and distinct divisions, AD and BC. The BC Division performs the same or similar services for industry.
The BC Division is currently providing the same or similar services, required under the NRC's contract, for an applicant or licensee.
l Guidance. An NRC contract for that particular work would not be awarded to the ABC Corp. The AD Division could be placed in a position to pass judgment on work performed by the BC Division, which could bias its work for NRC.
Further, the Conflict of Interest provisions apply to ABC Corp. and not to separate or distinct divisions within the company.
If no reasonable alternative exists, a waiver of the policy could be sought in accordance with l
section VII, " Waiver," below.
1 D.
Other considerations.
i 1.
The fact that the NRC can identify and later avoid, eliminate, i
or neutralize any potential organizational conflicts arising from the performance of a contract is not relevant to a determination of the existence of conflicts prior to the award of a contract.
2.
It is not relevant that the contractor has the professional l
l reputation of being able to resist temptations which arise from organizational conflicts of interest, or that a follow-on procurement is not involved, or i
l that a contract is awarded on a competitive or a sole source basis.
\\
IV. Evaluation,. findings, and contract award.
r A.
The contracting officer shall evaluate all relevant facts submitted by an offeror, and other relevant information. After evaluating
(
this information against the criteria in section III, " Criteria for Recognizing Contractor Organizational Conflicts of Interest," the contracting officer shall make a finding of whether organizational conflicts of interest exist with respect to a particular offeror. If it has been determined that i
real or potential conflicts of interest exist, the contracting officer shall:
l t
I.
Disqualify the offeror from award; t
i 2.
Avoid or eliminate such conflicts by appropriate measures; or j
?
i 3.
Award the contract in accordance with the section VII, the i
l Waiver.
l I
V.
Conflicts identified after award.
If potential organizational conflicts of interest are identified after award with respect to a particular contractor, and the contracting officer determines that conflicts do exist and that it would not be in the best interest of the government to terminate the contract, the contracting officer shall take every reasonable action to avoid, eliminate, or after obtaining a waiver in accordance with section VII, " Waiver" below, neutralize the effects of the identified conflict.
}l VI. Subcontracts.
The contracting officer shall require offerors and contractors to submit a representation statement from all subcontractors (other than a supply subcontractor) and consultants performing services in excess of $10,000. The contracting officer shall require the contractor to include contract clauses in consultant agreements or subcontracts involving performance of work under a prime contract.
VII. Waiver.
A.
The contracting officer determines the need to seek a waiver for specific contract awards, with the advice and concurrence of the program office director and legal counsel. Upon the recommendation of the contracting officer, and after consultation with legal counsel, the Executive Director for Operations may waive the policy in specific cases if he determines that it is in the best interest of the United States to do so.
B.
Waiver action is strictly limited to those situations in which:
1.
The work to be performed under contract is vital to the NRC program.
2.
The work cannot be satisfactorily performed except by a contratter whose interests give rise to a question of conflict of interest.
3.
Contractual and/or technical review and supervision methods can be employed by the NRC to neutralize the conflict.
C.
For any waivers, the justification and approval documents must be placed in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
VIII. Remedies.
i In addition to other remedies permitted by law or contract for a breach of the restrictions in this subpart or for any intentional misrepresentation or intentional nondisclosure of any relevant interest required to be provided for this section, the NRC may debar the contractor from subsequent NRC contracts.
7
CONTRACTOR SPENDING PLAN - INSTRUCTIONS The Contractor Spending Plan (CSP) is an important tool for projecting and tracking contract costs and progress of each task under the contract.
Acolicability The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reovire For and the period of performance is expected to exceed 6 months.
task order type contracts, a CSP is reouireo wnen an individual cost 5100.000 When a reimoursement task order is exoected to exceed the above thresh contract or task order modification increases the contr h
the period of performance from the ef fective date of the modification to t e
- ntract or task order expiration exceeds 6 months, a CSP is recuired for all contract work to oe performed after the effective date of the modification.
Suomtssion s
1.
A CSP is requireo:
as part of the cost proposal for a cost reimbursement contract or individual task orcer, or modification to a contract or task order a.
which meets the above thresholds; as part of the Best and Final Offer (if requested) as a result of b.
negotiations; Updated CSP information is reouired on a monthly basis or as approved Section F.3, 2.
by the CD as part of the " Financial Status Report" (Ref:
" Financial Status Report").
Format l
The attached CSP sample format may be duplicated and used by the Contractor, or modified to permit more accurate reporting or to meet other needs of the For instance, the sample format provides spaces to report projected costs for 12 months, but the contractor may wish to alter the contractor.
The sample format for shorter or longer contract / task order periods.
contractor may also wish to alter the sample format for ease automated production.
and projected costs or accomplishments, changes to the format to improve relevance to the circumstances are encouraged.
It is up to the discretion of the offeror to determine the appropriate level This of cost detail to be presented based on the complexity of the effort.
plan reflects only the minimum requirements for submission of cost deta f
which will be considered for completeness, reasonableness, and as a m l
of effective management of the effort.
l right to request additional cost information, if deemed necessary.
)
l I
CONTRACT 0R SPENDING PlfM (C$PJ (to be completed as a part of the Offeror's Cost Proposet for each cost retebursement contract or individual task order or for any contract or task order modtf tcation which onceeds $100,000 and has a f orformance period onceedtog 6 months) sticit:tten No.
Performance Period: from
/
/
to
/
/
oatract No.
Totet Estimated Costs (including fined fee, if any) of the esk Order No.
Proposed Contract /Tesk Order /Modtf tcotton (to a contract odificatten No, or task order) et the stee of proposat sutwelssion.
ffcrer/ Contractor Meee:
Does not include options, s
'revfde cost deta11s by month for the total contract /tesk order /or task order modificetton Cost Elements ht Month 2nd 8'onth 3rd Month _
4th Month 5th Month 6th Month Otreet Costs S
S S
S S
S Indlevet Costs S
S S
S S
S Tctel Esttested 8
S S
S S
S y
Ccsts including fired fee tf any X
X X
Project Coopiction Csst Elements 7th Month 8th Month 9th Month-10th Month Ilth Month 12th Month Otreet Costs S
3 Indirect Costs S
S S
S S
fctal Estloated S
S S
Ccsts including I
fined fee tf any e
l
~
ATTACHMENT 5 STRUCTURAL AND SEISMIC DESIGN CDDES AND STANDARD AND SOURCES OF CODES AND STANDARDS The most recent revision or edition of the following codes and standards shall be considered in this review:
Those that are directly applicable to the structural and Cateoory A:
seismic design of new advarced reactor Seismic Category I* structures.
ASME Section III, Division I, NE, " Class MC Components"Section III, Division 2, " Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments" (also known as ACI 359), Sections CB, " Concrete Reactor Vessels (Prestressed)" (where concrete reactor vessel designs may be involved) and CC, " Concrete Containments (Prestressed or Reinforced)"
ASME Section XI, " Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear l
Power Plant Components," Subsections IWE, " Requirements for Class MC and Metallic Liners of Class MC Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants," and IWL, " Requirements for Class CC Concrete Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants" (only to the extent that they may affect design considerations to accommodate ISI capabilities)
Relevant ASME Code Cases, as endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guides I.84, 1.85 and 1.147 ACI-349, " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Structures" ANSI /AISC N690 " Design, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety Related Structures at Nuclear Power Plants" ANSI /ANS 56.8, " Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements" Cateoory B:
Those that are indirectly applicable to the structural andThese seismic design of new advanced reactor Seismic Category I structures.
may be uud on an issue-specific basis and generic use may not be applicable.
l ASCE 4-86, " Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures"
- " Seismic Category I (SC-1) is intended to also include any structures that, under some rating systems, may be designated as " Seismic Category II" (SC-II); that is, structures that themselves are not safety-related, but whose failure could unacceptably affect structures, systems, or components I
that are safety-related. These structures have traditionally been designated as SC-I in LWRs, and have at times also been referred to as "Important to Safety" structures.
l l
i l
7 l
l g
e,
t ASCE 7-88, " Minimum Design loads for Buildings and Other l
Structures" (Formerly ANSI A58.1)
AISC " Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for i
Structural Steel Buildings" ANSI /ANS 58.1, " Plant Design Against Missiles" (formerly ANSI N177-1974)
ANSI /ANS 58.2, " Design Basis for Protection of Light Water I
Nuclear Power Plants Against the Effects of Pipe Rupture" (Incorporates Leak-Before-Break and replaces ANSI /ANS 58.2-1980 and ANSI N176, June 1974 Draft)
ACI 301-1984, " Specification for Structural Concrete for l
Buildings" ACI 318-1983, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" ACI 351-1979, " Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry i
l Structures" 1
AISI, Parts 1 and 2, " Specification.for the Design of
'l Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members"
\\
ANSI /AWS D1.1-1990, " Structural Welding Code" AWS D1.3-1981, " Structural Welding Code - Sheet Steel" i
AWS D1.4-1979, " Structural Welding Code - Reinforcing Steel" AWS D9.1-1984, " Specification for the Welding of Sheet Metal" Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1985 National Fire Codes, National Fire Protection Association j
i r
l ATTACHMENT 6 lpa etcg%
v.f,,
- ,,,+
January 12, 1990 SECY-90-016 POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
For:
The Comissioners From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
EYOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER REACTOR (LUR) CERTIFICATION ISSUES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS To present the staff's recomendations concernirig proposed
Purpose:
departures from current regulations for the evolutionary ALWRs. The staff reouests Comission approval of the positions as cescribed in this paper.
Back::round:
In the April 21, July 31, and August 24, 1989 staff requirements memoranda (SRMs), the Comission asked the staff to identify the issues and acceptance criteria used l
to judge the acceptability of future designs; to identify l
where the staff proposes to go beyond the regulations or I
to be less restrictive; and to identify if the Advanced i
Poiling Water Reactor (ABWR) woulo meet the Comission's Safety Goal with or without a vent. The Comission asked that these issues be discussed in the context of certification of the ABWR and the other evolutionary advanced light water reactor (ALWR) designs as well as the staff's review of the evolutionary Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Re-quirements Document.
Discussion:
Operating experience as well as a number of studies (e.g. PRAs) have identified a number of issues signifi-cant to reactor safety. Based on this background the staff has identified the following list of issues as i
fundamental to agency decisions on the acceptability of evolutionary ALWR designs.
(1) evolutionary LWR public safety goals (2) source term
Contact:
D.C. Scaletti, NRR/DRSP
~
2-110e C.L. Miller, NRR/DRSP E
2-1118
~
e
i I
?
s l
The Comissioners i (3) anticipated transients without scram (4) mid-loop operation (5) station blackout (6) fire protection (7) intersystem LOCA I
(8) hydrogen generation and control (9) core-concrete interaction - ability to cool core i
debris (10) high pressure core melt ejection (11) containment performance (12) ABWR containment vent design (13) equipment survivability (14) operating basis earthquake / safe shutdown earthouake l
(15) inservice testing of pumps and valves t
The resolutions proposed by EPRI and the LWR vendors, and i
the staff positions and recommendations regarding each of i'
these issues are discussed in detail in the enclosure.
In addition to these issues, each application for a Design l
Certification will have to propose technical resolutions for those Unresolved Safety Issues and medium-and high-priorty Gent-ic Safety Issues which are identified in NUREG-0933 and technically relevant to the design in accordance with 10 CFR 52.47 and the Severe Accident Policy Statement.
The Commission's approval of, or alternate guidance on, i
the proposed resolution of these issues is necessary for t
the staff's continued review of EPRI's ALWR Requirements Document, General Electric's (GE's) ABWR, Westinghouse's RESAR SP/90 and Combustion Engineering's (CE's) System 80+
designs. Approval or guidance is particularly important to the staff's evaluations of the GE ABWR and the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document since these reviews have progressed the furthest. The certification review for CE's System
(
80+ is just beginning. -Westinghouse has indicated that they do not intend to pursue an FDA/ certification for the RESAR SP/90 at this time. Additional Commission approval or guidance on significant issues related to certification of CE's System 80+ and other future designs will be discussed with the Commission as part of the development of the licensing review bases (LRB) for these designs. This approach is consistent with recent Comunission guidance in an SRM dated December 15, 1989. It should be noted that some of the issues presented in the enclosure are issues proposed by EPRI which they refer to as plant optimization subjects. NRC approval of a plant optimization subject
l l
The Com.issioners would result in a resoluticn that is less restrictive than present regulations, Comission policy, or past licensing practices.
For these reasons, the optimization subjects such as hydrogen control, source tem, and the relationship between the operating bases earthquake and the safe shutdowr.
earthquake could have a major schedular impact on the evolutionary LWR certification process. The staff has provided the respective applicant's proposed sulutions as well as the staff's positions on these issues in the enclosure to provide a comparison, and to provide an indication of the diversity of proposed solutier.s under consideration by the staff. The staff recomendations identified in this paper have been developed as a result of designs and evolutionary ALWRs, (2) generation reactor (1) the staff's reviews of current consideration of operating experience, including the TMI-2 accident, (3) results of the probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) cf current-generation reactor designs and the evolutionary LWRs, (4) early efforts conducted in support of severe accident rulemaking, and (5) research conducted to adcress previously icentifiec safety issues. Infomation relateo to the issues and staff positions discussed in this paper have previously been provided to the Comission in SECY-89-013, SECY-89-153, SECY-89-228 and SECY-89-341 and have been underlined in the erciosure.
The staff positions recommenced in this paper are consistent with those previously taken in the staff's review of the ABWR LRB and in several ABWR-related safety evaluation reports issued to date. The staff believes that, pending detailed staff review, there is a high degree of confidence that the ABWR would meet the positions identified in the enclosure. Therefore, Comission approval of the staff reccernendations would close these policy issues for the ABWR and would pemit staff review to continue. The recomended positions are also consistent with those identified in the staff's draft safety evaluations related to certain chapters of the EPRI-ALWR Requirements Document.
The staff is reviewing severe accident and certification issues addressed in the EPRI-ALWR Requirements Document and the staff's final conclusions are awaiting Comission approval of the positions described in this paper. Approval of the staff recomendations would allow for continuation of the staff review of the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document in accordance with recent Comission guidance.
==
Conclusions:==
The staff believes its conclusions and recommendations regarding these matters are in keeping with the Conraission's
I s
e The Commissioners l l
I policy expectation that future designs for nuclear plants will achieve a higher standard of severe accident safety performance.
j The staff will infom the Comission during its reviews if additional enhancements to existing requirements, beyond those identified in the enclosure, are determined to be i
necessary for evolutionary ALWR designs.
l Coordination:
The Office of General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection, but notes that any program for review of new reactor designs which authorizes the NRC to impose
[
reouirements beyond those needed to meet current i
I Commission regulations raises the issue that, if the NRC staff can pose additional reouirements for certification, l
other parties should be able to do so as well. The traditional way to avoid such problems is through rulemaking, but as indicated in SECY 89-311, the staff believes that design certification process is a core l
effective method of resolving severe accident issues than a generic severe accident rule or several individual changes.
Further, OGC notes that questions regarding the
~
desirability of additional severe accident mitigation measures still need to be addressed under NEPA, either in the design certification rulemaking and hearing or in some preliminary rulemaking, j
A copy of this paper has been provided to the Advisory
[
Comittee on Reactor Safeguards.
u Recocrendations:
That the Commission l
(1) Approve the staff positions detailed in the
]
enclosure, and I
j (2) Note that if the staff determines other issues need to be addressed in accordance with Commission i
guidance, the staff will inform the Commission of its l
l positions on these matters in a timely manner.
i I
a l
i l
f
i.
l.?
I 1~
r l
i l
The Comissioners l l
(3) Note that the staff, in accordance with the Staff Recuirenents Memorandum dated August 24, 1989, plans l
to issue the draft SER on Chapter 5 of the EPRI ALL'R Requirements Document.
(4) Note that following Comission resolution of the policy issues discussed in this paper, the stcff plans to finalize and reissue the above draft SEE.
/
_l
_,M J E s M. Tay1 l
xecutive Director for Operations l
l
Enclosure:
l As stated l
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Tuesdav, Januarv 30, 1990.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any,.should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Tuesdav, Januarv 23, 1990, with an information copy to the Off: Lee of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for t
analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
)
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OIG GPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACRS ACNW ASLBP ASLAP SECY l
O
. /*
ENCLOSURE EVOLUTIONARY ALWR CERTIFICATION ISSUES 1.
General Issues A.
ALWR Public Safety Goal
{
The EPRI Requirements Document proposes that the evolutionary ALWRs comply with the following public safety goals:
(1) The frequency of core damage will be less than 1.0 X 10E-5 events /per reactor-year, and (Note: EPRI refers to this as a " quantitative investment protection goal")
(2) Whole body dose at an assumed 0.5 miles site boundary must be less than 25 rem for events whose cumulative f requency exceeds 1 X 10E-6 per reactor-
}
year.
In the Licensing Review Bases (LRB) for the AEWR, GE has comitted to meet the tollowing goals:
j
\\
(1) Demonstrate that the likelihood of core damage will have a mean value of less than one in one huncred thousand reactor years (i.e.,1.0 X 10E-5).
(2) The expected mean frequency of occurrence of offsite doses in excess of 25 i
rem beyond a half mile radius from the reactor is to be less than once per million reactor years (i.e.,1.0 X 10E-6), considering both internal and external events.
(3) The containment design is to assure that the containment conditional failure probability is less than one in ten when weighted over credible core damage sequences.
l The staff is presently reviewing the LRB for the System 80+ design in which CE has proposed goals which are similar to the goals developed in the ABWR LRB.
l Since Westinghouse has no imediate plans of pursuing certification of RESAR I
SP/90, work on the LRB is presently not planned.
However, similar to GE and CE, Westinghouse has stated, in meetings with the staff and the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, they are comitted to meeting the
WR public safety goals as well as the goals in the Commission's Safety Goal
/olicy Statement.
The staff is reviewing the proposed ALWR public safety goals to ensure they are consistent with the Comission's Safety Goal Policy Statement, which proposed both qualitative as well as quantitative safety goals for future i
l reactor designs. The current regulations do not specify requirements in i
numerical tems of frequency of core damage or large release events. However, i
l the Commission in its Safety Goal Policy Statement, has proposed that the staff l
examine a general performance guideline that "the overall mean frequency of a large release of radioactivity to the environment from a reactor accident i
l should be less than I in 1,000,000 per year of reactor operation."
I a s.
- i
- l i
l SECY-89-1C2 recommended approval by the Commission of the use of the following cuantitative cbjectives in its implementation of the Safety Goal Policy for future standardized plants:
1.
The mean core damace frecuency target for each design should be less than 1.0 X 30E-5 event per reactor-year, and j
1 2.
The overall mean frecuency of a large release of radioactive materials to the environment f rom a reactor accioent shoulo be less than 1 in 1.000.000 Der year of reactor operation wnere a large release is defined as one that has a ootential for causing an offsite early fatality.
i The staff concludes that the staff-oroposed cuantitative safety goals submitted j
in SECY-89-102 are consistent with the Consnission's Safety Goal Folicy 5tatement.
Aooitional Consnission guioance on the establisnment of ouantitative goals ano im-l olementation of saf ety coa! policy will assist tne staff in its continuing assessment of the evolutionary ALWRs. Althou,gh the staff considers the goals definec in 5ECb 89-102 to De acceptable for evolutionary ALWRs, it should be noted-that notn the EPRI ouciic safety gcal and the ABWR public safety goal are considerably more strincent than the large release guiceiine cefinec in 5ECY-89-102.
Although the staff has-indicated it believes the ALWR Public Safety Goal contains meritable goals for the industry to adopt, the staff has not completed its review of this issue and is in the process of reviewing how EPRI implements l
these goals.
j i
B.
Source Term l
As noteo in SECY 89-341, the staff's methodology for determining compliance with the siting requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 has been based on the 1962
" TID-14841" source term. This methodology, which involves calculation of offsite dose for comparison against Part 100 dose criteria (i.e. criteria for establishing the size cf the exclusion area and the low population zone), is widely acknowledged to utilize conservative assumptions. At the time this approach was developed, these conservatisms-were considered appropriate and were based on uncertainties associated with accident sequences and equipment performance; and as a means to assure that future plant sites would be essen-tially equivalent to sites approved up until that time.
The conservatisms initially included in the methodology have been essentially retained up to this time.
EPRI has stated that the evolutionary ALWR licensing design-basis requirements as well as design enhancements related to severe accidents should be based on the full body of current knowledge regarding accident source terms. They believe that the evolutionary designs should be evaluated based on a realistic treatment of fission product source terms, including the extensive research that has been done on fission product behavior since TID-14844 was issued, and especially since the Three Pile Island accident in 1979. EPRI's view is that this approach will result in designs which are improved and provide enhanced safety protection. EPRI has identified this as a plant optimization issue.