ML20039C765
| ML20039C765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1981 |
| From: | Morton K NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Markl R SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039C759 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-6694, CON-NRC-04-80-178, CON-NRC-4-80-178 NUDOCS 8112300156 | |
| Download: ML20039C765 (9) | |
Text
- .
. p uc o
/
UNITED STATES
'g y'
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
g
'y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NOV 171981 Science Applications, Inc.
ATTH: Mr. Roger Mark 1 1200 Prospect Street P. 0. Box 2351 La Jolla, CA 92037 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Contract No. NRC-04-80-178, Task Order No. 3 Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of this contract, I hereby (1) authorize i
the expenditure of $60,000.00 of the funds currently obligated under this contract and (ii) direct you to perform the work set forth in the attached Task Order No. 3.
If you estimate that the total cost ceiling price is inadequate to complete the assigned work under this Task Order No. 3, you must so notify me within ten (10) business days after receipt.
Said notification shall contain your estimate of the required total ceiling price.
Notwithstanding said notifica-tion, you shall commence performance of the Statement of Work as indicated herein. Within ten (10) business days after receipt of such notification, the Contracting Officer shall either ratify the total ceiling price or adopt the proposed revised estimate or some combination of the two and revise or conform the Task Order accordingly.
In the event you reaffirm your belief that the revised ceiling price is still inadequate to complete the assigned Task Order, you may upon submission of a written request to the Contracting Officer, within ten (10) business days after your receipt of the C ntracting Officer's confirma-tion or amendment of this Task Order, be excused from further performance of such task.
In such event, you shall be paid for the work performed to that date in accordance with the provisions of ARTICLE IV, COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES.
i This letter, executed on behalf of the Commission, is forwarded to you in quadruplicate.
Please acknowledge receipt on three copies hereof and return them to me as soon as possible. The fourth copy should be retained for your file.
BEcEWE9. PALO W 301?
conwmS DEPA' 8112300156 811202 PDR CONTR NRC-04-80-178 PDR i
h NOV 171981
' Four' signed copies of Modification No. 03 to the basic contract, which increases the total contract funds by $60,000.00,. is also attached for your. execution and-return of three copie's to the NRC along with the three copies of the subject a
document.
1 Sincerely, i
- [h rY/C C s -c]-
MG % -_
i Kellogg V.5 orton, Chief M
Research Contracts Branch Division of Contracts Office of Administration Attachments:
1.
Task Order No. 3 2.
Modification No. 03, (For execution and return to NRC)
RECEIVED:
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS, INC.
(X) Agree
(
) Disagree
(
) Notification will be submitted by (Date)
BY:
Rdbt
. W$A't;&v
.v.. iD';A e. n..wy TITLE: CONTRACT PFPDFtry.f?ATIVE 2 G 81 DATE:
DEC t
I i
i
_.. ~. _ _ -, - - - _.
~
n Fuel Cycle Pr'o' ject Review Task Order No. 3 Science Applications, Inc.
NRC-04-80-17P Objective Perform an independent multidisciplinary review and technical critique of the products from the project " Risk Assessment Methodology Development for Uaste Isolation in Geologic fledia," an ongoing study by Sandia Laboratories for the Transportation and Materials Risk Branch of the Division of Risk Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) of the Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission (NRC).
Scope of Work The review under Task Order No. 3 shall be of the following documents:
1.
NUREG/CR-1635 (SAND 78-1711), Vo.1, entitled " Risk tiethodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Uaste: tiodel Description and User itanual for Pathways Model," by Jon C. Helton, and Peter C. Kaestner, March 1981, 2.
NUREG/CR-1636 (SAND 79-1393) Vol. 2, entitled " Risk !!ethodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Sensitivity Analysis of the Environmental Transport Model," by Jon C. Helton and Ronald Z Iman, December 1980.
3.
NUREG/CR-1636 (SAND 79-1908) Vol. 3, entitled " Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of. Radioactive Waste: A Synoptic Properties of the Environmental Transport Model," by Jon C. Helton, Jack B. Brown, and Ronald L. Iman, Feb.1981.
The review of the published products shall be approached from the perspective j
of how the work in any given report stands on its own and how it supports the the overall risk 11ethodology for Waste Isolation project.
'J f
c+y e.,,e<
,. 4,ww m~.-......,.-,wsw.
,,e,e e
e,w,,re-ew-+-.e--
- - - = - *
<-~*er r-
-m,-*
i a.
In FY 1932, additional task order,s will be formulated to complete review on l
the HLW P.isk flethodology for the bedded salt reference repository site and to initiate review on other reference geologic media.
Statement of Work t
Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) shall provide personnel, materials, facilities, and services including clerical support personnel to perform the work in this Task Order.
SAI shall conduct a coordinated multidisciplinary review of the aforementioned Sandia products.
SAI shall address and propose recommendations in the areas below, using only the data in each of the reports and supporting documents.
NOTE: NOT ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL STAGES OF THE PROJECT. ALL APPLICABLE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT EACH STAGE.
1.
Are the models realistic?
a.
Are the assumptions valid?
b.
What would be the impact on the analysis results of any incorrect assumptions?
c.
How should any identified weaknesses in the models be improved?
2.
Is the methodology valid?
3.
Are the data valid?
a.
What uncertainty in the data would render the model results unrealistic?
b.
Das each datum uncertainty and its contribution to the uncertainty in the results assessed appropriately?
4.
Is the time period examined or used in calculations appropriate?
5.
Da the even sequences chosen for calculation cover a reasonably complete range?
~
1 a.
Were any important potential risk contributors omitted? If so, identify.
b.
Were the quantitative or qualitative criteria for choice of sequences valid?-
6.
Was an effort made to identify (i.e., rank according to importance to risk) key parameters, processes and events?
a.
If so, was the effort adequate?
b.
Evaluate the methods used to achieve the ranking.
7.
Were the uncertainties in the results considered?
a.
Were these uncertainties propagated and quantified?
b.
Were acceptable numerical methods used?
c.
Were the contributing uncertainties correctly assessed?
8.
Which of the models and which parts of the methodology could be used to resolve discrete questions (e.g., for a licensing review) or would they only be useful as supporting information to discrete questions?
a.
What types of questions could be resolved by use of a given model cr the methodology?
9.
Conclusions 10.
Recommendations NOTE:
Any recommendation shall be accompanied by an estimate of the contribution to error in the results of a specific suggestion for improving the analysis.
l..*...
s-
_4 g,
For each task, the review shall include all of the following disciplines:
-l Earth' Sciences:
Hydrology with particular emphasis on mathematical modeling of regional flow systems and on the determination of hydro-i logic parameters.
l structural geolog.' witn particular emphasis on the dynamic i
interpretation of structural geologic features.
aqueous prochemistry with particular emphasis on evaluation of system parameters that influence solubility, exchange and transport.
1 ceophysics with particular emphasis on measurements of 4
physical parameters and their correlation with material ano environmental characteristics.
Applied Mather.atics:
applied statistics with particular emphasis on sampling 4
techniques, multivariate analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
systems analysis with particular emphasis on solutions of systems equations and numerical (computer) solution tech-niques, especially those representing physical systems.
probability analysis with particular emphasis on analysis systems reliability and the assessment of probabilities.
Applied Chemistry and Physics:
with particular emphasis on transport processes, hydraulics and nuclear processes.
Environmental Biology:
1 with particular emphasis on the mathematics of biology, bio-statistics and radionuclide transport through the environment i
to humans.
1 A management coordinator and a technical coordinator shall provide focus to the following aspects of'the contracted work:
I, I
J h
m
-S-o.
The tec'hnical coordinator shall assume final responsibility for the technical content of the final report.
The management coordinator shall assume final responsibility for the technical editing of the final report.
Octh thc technicci coordinetcr end the menegcacnt coordiactor shell conduct c bricfing ci the NRC "c:dquertcrs ct thc con cission of thc revicw. gpfff HRC does not want a major thurst of the review under this Task Order to involve computer verification.
Therefore, Task Order-No. 3 does not allow for computer use in this review stage.
Review involving limited computer use may be appropriate near the completion of the Sandia project. Therefore, as the review of Task Order No.3 is conducted, identify areas, if any, of the risk methodology develocment that would profit from ese of the computer for review at a more complete stage.
The review shall not involve communication with Sandia.
Any questions that SAI as reviewers has arc the same problems that a user cf the methodology would have.
SAI should point them out in their final report the*reby making them known while the project is ongoing so they can have an impact on the final Sandia product.
Any disagreement or difference of opinion of reviewers should also be documented in the final report from SAI for this task order.
SAI should Make not make open-ended criticisms, i.e., just saying something is bad.
-constructive criticism by adding statements of how to correct or improve the work and statements which delineate the impact or significance of recommendations to or errors in the methodology on the final result.
8
It is important that a consistent group of people review th'e entire risk methodology project.
That is, all reviewers shall read all the products and supporting documents covered under all the task orders issued as-part---
of this contract.
Any changes in the reviewers, e.g., by attrition, must be approved by f1RC.
Award of additional task orders will depend upon satisfactory performance of this task order.
Reportinc Reovirenents This task order shall result in a final report subr.itted to !!RC in publishable form in:luding one camera-ready copy accepteble to fiRC's Division of Document Control for printing as a !!UREG.
Coordinate "
Pat Larkins (301-492-7566) of that Division for what is acceptaM.
Each task report shall document the review work accomplished including:
i 1.
Answers to qut:-ions Dosed in this work statement, and i
2.
Conclusions and reco m.endations of SAI's review.
At the conclusion of the review for this task order, the technical cocrdinator and the management coordinator shall deliver the final report nr.d corduct c briefing at tha SRC "aadasarters.M' l
In addition, monthly status letter reports of the review work are required including expenditures of time and money, both for the month and cumulatively
/
s Special Instructions liRC shall provide each reviewer with a copy of the products to be reviewed.
A post award meeting shall be held by Telecon with the SAI review team within two weeks after the t. ward date.
m.my-.
Desired Completion Date The final report for this task order is due at flRC Headquarters on 14 arch 30,1982.
Place of Performance The review shall be conducted at SAI facilities in Palo Alto, California.
tiaximum Cost Limitation The cost of the work performed under this task order shall not exceed
$ 60,000.
.