ML20045D007

Modification No. 007 to Task Order No. NRC-HQ-60-17-T-0003 Under Contract No. NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004

ML20045D007
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/13/2020
From:	Mike Williams Acquisition Management Division
To:	Edelstein P Numark Associates
References
NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004
Download: ML20045D007 (23)

Text

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGES The following changes are hereby made to the task order:

(1) SECTION B.1 BRIEF PROJECT TITLE AND WORK DESCRIPTION, paragraph (b), is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:

(b) Summary work description: The objective of this task order is to provide technical support to NRC staff with the following:

The development of in-depth knowledge, verification, validation, documentation, and modernization of the public domain probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) code FAVOR The assessment of current RPV safety issues, including in particular the possible effect of shallow flaws in the RPV cladding on reactor fracture safety.

Migration, maintenance, user support, data entry, and as an Option, Development, for the existent public domain database REAP.

Preparation and publication of related peer-reviewed technical papers.

Enhancement of the SQA and V&V for the FAVOR code.

Enhancement of the FAVOR code.

(2) SECTION B.2 CONSIDERATION AND OBLIGATION-TASK ORDERS, is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:

(a) The ceiling of this order for services is $2,234,285.79 in Cost and in Fee), inclusive of Exercised Options and All Options.

(b) This order is subject to the minimum and maximum ordering requirements set forth in the contract.

(c) The amount presently obligated with respect to this order is $2,084,808.92

( in Cost, in fixed fee). The obligated amount shall, at no time, exceed the order ceiling as specified in paragraph (a) above. When and if the amount(s) paid and payable to the Contractor hereunder shall equal the obligated amount, the Contractor shall not be obligated to continue performance of the work unless and until the Contracting Officer shall increase the amount obligated with respect to this order, in accordance with FAR Part 43 - Modifications. Any work undertaken by the Contractor in excess of the obligated amount specified above is done so at the Contractor's sole risk and may not be reimbursed by the Government.

(d) Fixed Fee Holdback Amount:

3

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 (3) SECTION B.3 PRICE/COST SCHEDULE is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:

Period of Performance: September 29, 2017 - February 15, 2021 (4) DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:

REVISED TASK ORDER STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

1. PROJECT TITLE Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity and FAVOR Support

2. BACKGROUND The operational integrity of nuclear reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and piping systems relies on sound knowledge of nuclear power plants and their applied loadings, their materials of construction, and of how these materials degrade over time (e.g., changes to properties, development of cracks, changes of dimension, etc.). Over the preceding decades the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), its contractors, and the national and international nuclear community in general have done considerable work on these topics.

As the pressure-retaining systems (i.e., piping, vessels) of nuclear power plants age, there is a continued need to evaluate these systems for the continued operating safety of these systems.

The conclusions of these evaluations rarely remain fixed over the full operational lifetime of the plant for the following reasons:

The continued action of time-dependent materials degradation (e.g., neutron irradiation embrittlement, pressurized water stress corrosion cracking) and the evolving state of knowledge of these mechanisms. Sometimes this evolving knowledge reveals that past safety assessments have been overly pessimistic, while at other times new or unanticipated damage mechanisms are discovered to be active. In the latter case, existing assessment protocols need to be augmented with new procedures to account for these new mechanisms.

4

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007

3. OBJECTIVE(S)

The objective of this task order is to provide technical support to NRC staff with the following:

The development of in-depth knowledge, verification, validation, documentation, and modernization of the public domain probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) code FAVOR The assessment of current RPV safety issues, including in particular the possible effect of shallow flaws in the RPV cladding on reactor fracture safety.

Migration, maintenance, user support, data entry, and as an Option, Development, for the existent public domain database REAP.

Preparation and publication of related peer-reviewed technical papers.

Enhancement of the SQA and V&V for the FAVOR code.

Enhancement of the FAVOR code.

4. STATEMENT OF WORK TASKS Task 1: Technical Support to FAVOR Subtask 1.1: Collection of Software Quality Assurance (SQA) Documentation (Completed)

The contractor shall assemble all software quality assurance documentation previously created during development of the FAVOR code following NUREG/BR-0167. The information to be collected shall consist of publicly available information or non-public information that is accessible to the NRC and will be provided to the contractor by the COR. The contractor shall sort the documentation into two categories:

Category 1: from the first version of FAVOR through the development of 10 CFR 50.61a (through FAVOR v6.1)

Category 2: post 10 CFR 50.61a (all versions following FAVOR v6.1 up through v16.1)

The contractor shall provide all the documentation electronically separated into two folders indicating clearly which category the documentation belongs. In addition, the contractor shall provide a list of all the documents in tabulated format.

Subtask 1.1 Deliverables

1) A ZIP file containing all the documentation collected for this task, with a folder structure/substructure that clearly indicates which of the two categories described above each document belongs to.

2) A tabulated list of all the documents in the ZIP file, including the following information:

date, authors, title, report number, corresponding FAVOR version number, and any other relevant bibliographical information in separate columns.

6

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Subtask 1.2: Assessment & Summary of Previous SQA & Verification & Validation (V&V)

(Ongoing)

NUREG/BR-0167 was developed in 1993. Since then, software development, capabilities and complexity have increased greatly. In response to this increasing complexity, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code incorporated a new standard, Requirements for the Verification and Validation in Computational Modeling and Simulation. V&V is part of the SQA process. Both documents will be made available to the contractor by the COR.

Using the consolidated documentation after completion of Subtask 1.1, the contractor shall assess the level of V&V previously performed under NUREG/BR-0167 and whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the methodology described in the ASME Code standard. The contractor shall document the evaluation and findings in a Technical Letter Report (TLR).

Subtask 1.2 Deliverables

1) Draft TLR that includes:

o Summary of the requirement of the ASME standard on requirements for V&V of computer codes o Detailed assessment of whether previous V&V efforts meet each requirement in the standard o If the ASME standard requirements are not met, a listing of actions required to meet the V&V requirements, accompanied by an estimate of time and effort to perform the needed actions, and a detailed plan to perform the needed actions

2) Final TLR that incorporates NRC comments on the draft TLR Subtask 1.3: Knowledge Management Workshop for FAVOR Code Users (Completed)

The contractor shall develop a knowledge management (KM) workshop and the associated materials aimed at imparting knowledge to the NRC staff on how to use the FAVOR code. The KM workshop shall cover:

Review of important concepts described in the FAVOR Theory Manual and FAVOR User Manual Uses of FAVOR Structure of FAVOR All steps required to perform any applicable pre- processing and post-processing for a FAVOR analysis Step-by-step instructions for a novice to be able to perform a FAVOR analysis Hands-on application examples with FAVOR, as well as the pre- and post-processing tools The contractor shall prepare an Outline for the KM workshop and User Manual. Upon receiving approval of the outlines from the COR, the contractor shall develop all necessary materials (slides, other visual aids, and hands-on exercises), as well as the User Manual that compiles and navigates through the KM materials. Specifically, the contractor shall design all KM materials in such a way that NRC staff could acquire the knowledge without contractor assistance. Further, the contractor shall assemble the KM materials into a User Manual such 7

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 that NRC staff who cannot attend the KM workshop described below can later obtain the knowledge from the workshop. This implies that highly detailed materials shall be prepared, along with an introduction describing the order in which each module/phase/step of the KM workshop should occur.

The contractor shall conduct one KM workshop to NRC users of FAVOR. The workshop shall be held at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The workshop shall be no more than three (3) business days. The NRC will provide all necessary equipment and facilities to hold the KM workshop. The contractor shall project up to 15 NRC participants to attend the KM workshop.

This KM workshop shall consist of guiding NRC staff through the User Manual, including presentation of the contents and hands-on applications with the FAVOR code, as well as the pre- and post-processors.

Subtask 1.3 Deliverables

1) FAVOR User KM Workshop Outline that includes: a list of topics to be covered, a schedule for presenting the topics, and a list of any hands-on exercises to be performed during the session

2) Outline for the FAVOR KM User Manual

3) FAVOR User KM Workshop supporting materials (slides, other visual aids, and hands-on exercises)

4) Draft FAVOR KM User Manual that includes all materials necessary for independent knowledge acquisition by NRC staff on the use of the FAVOR code, as described in detail above

5) Final FAVOR KM User Manual that incorporates all NRC comments on the draft User Manual Subtask 1.4: Knowledge Management Workshop for FAVOR Code Developers (Completed)

In addition to knowledge transfer for FAVOR users, the contractor shall perform knowledge transfer for up to three NRC staff simultaneously on the in-depth workings of FAVOR and its pre- and post-processors. The contractor shall develop a FAVOR Developer KM workshop that includes the following:

History of the development of FAVOR A detailed overview of the source code (each subroutine, module, common, function, or other code unit shall be described, including where it sits in the call tree, its inputs and outputs as applicable, and its function in FAVOR).

Description of any known deficiencies of the code and any recommended improvements Any other information/tips/programming advice useful to NRC staff in charge of maintaining and developing FAVOR in the future.

Hands-on application activities that may include as agreed upon with the COR, but is not limited to, implementation one or more the changes to FAVOR approved by the COR in Task 2.

The contractor shall conduct one hands-on FAVOR Developer KM workshop to be held at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, length to-be-determined and agreed upon between the COR and the contractor, but 5 days maximum.

8

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Subtask 1.4 Deliverables Materials developed for the FAVOR Developer KM Workshop, including slides, other visual supports, and any hands-on activities.

Task 2: Assessment of RPV Safety Issues Associated with Shallow Flaws The purpose of this task is to further examine the impact of shallow surface breaking flaws on RPV structural integrity, and in particular to determine if improvements to the realism with which the flaws and the cladding are modelled produce any significant change to the conclusions of the previous study. The contractor shall support the NRC staff in their assessment of current and emergent potential RPV safety issues, including in particular the possible effect of shallow flaws in the RPV cladding on reactor fracture safety.

Subtask 2.1: Warm Pre-Stress (Ongoing)

Use of a warm-pre stress (WPS) brittle failure model has long been a standard part of FAVOR.

While there are multiple ways to model WPS effects, the FAVOR model requires that the following two conditions be true for there to be a possibility of vessel failure:

the applied value of K should exceed the minimum value of K resistance, and the applied value of K should both be increasing with time and exceed all previous maximums during the loading event being considered.

Past analyses conducted by the NRC have focused on accident loadings, such as PTS. Since PTS is a rare event, it was justifiable to consider only the single loading event associated with the postulated accident. However, when FAVOR is used to assess the safety impact of more routine loading events it seems also necessary to evaluate the complete vessel loading history dating to the time the vessel was first placed into service.

The contractor shall determine if modelling of WPS over the full history of RPV loading influences the perceived impact of shallow surface breaking flaws on RPV structural integrity.

To meet this objective, it is expected that the contractor shall:

Determine load histories based on loadings modeled in previous NRC efforts and on the results of a search for prototypical loadings in PWRs and BWRs in publicly available documentation. If deemed necessary because of the lack of publicly available information, potentially relevant non-public records will be provided by the COR to the contractor. The contractor shall then search the non-public records for the needed information.

Develop a matrix of analyses to be performed, including a clear identification of the different WPS models that will be considered, with identification of which approaches require FAVOR source code modification and which do not. The analysis matrix shall outline the loading conditions that will be studied, the WPS models that will be used, and all other conditions pertinent to the analysis, including, but not limited to, reactor vessel geometry, embrittlement condition, flaw population, etc.

Perform FAVOR analyses with the prototypical loadings for PWRs and BWRs per the analysis matrix developed. As part of this step, the contractor shall develop FAVOR input files to perform as many analyses as needed to fully assess the range of possible prototypical loadings.

9

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Analyze the results of the FAVOR analyses to assess the effect of WPS on the integrity of the vessel.

As needed, and if approved by the COR, develop new WPS models that meet the ASME Standard and the requirements of NUREG/BR-0167 and incorporate them into FAVOR, as well as assess the impact of these models by performing sensitivity analyses with the FAVOR code. The FAVOR Theory and Users Manuals shall be modified accordingly.

Subtask 2.1 Deliverables

1) Analysis matrix with loading conditions, WPS models, and all other conditions pertinent to the analysis:

a) Draft analysis matrix b) Final analysis matrix that incorporates comments from COR

2) Report:

a) The contractor shall prepare a draft TLR summarizing the results of the entire subtask, including all of the items in the task description.

b) The final TLR that incorporates COR comments on the draft shall be prepared by the contractor.

3) Source and Executable Code: If FAVOR is modified in order to perform this task the source code, the executable code, and text-based descriptions of all changes to the computer code shall be provided.

4) If FAVOR is modified in order to perform this task, Updated FAVOR Theory and Users Manuals

5) Input decks and FAVOR outputs: Input decks and all resultant outputs shall be complied and provided to the NRC on a CD or other suitable electronic format. The COR and the contractor shall agree upon the format to be used.

Subtask 2.2: Cladding Residual Stress (Ongoing)

The model of cladding residual stresses now used in FAVOR that led to the finding of potential shallow flaw risk significance is, while a standard model used in PFM studies, also a simplified one. A limited sensitivity study subsequently performed with a more sophisticated model showed a slight reduction in, although not elimination of, the so-called shallow flaw effect.

The contractor shall determine if improvements to the accuracy of the clad residual stress model influences the perceived impact of shallow surface breaking flaws on RPV structural integrity.

To meet this objective, it is expected that the contractor shall:

Perform a review of previous literature/studies on clad residual stress modeling, including but not limited to, the references found in Section 5 of this SOW. Other sources of information on clad residual stress modeling shall include a review of publicly available technical literature.

Develop options for improved residual stress modelling in FAVOR considering at a minimum the following factors: the accuracy of the model, the need for input data to drive the predictions, and computational efficiency within a PFM computer code. The contractor shall assess the availability of data if needed to drive the accuracy of the model options.

Develop a matrix of analyses to be performed, including a clear identification of the different residual stress models that will be considered, with identification of which approaches require FAVOR source code modification and which do not. The analysis 10

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 matrix shall outline the loading conditions that will be studied, the residual stress models that will be used, and all other conditions pertinent to the analysis, including, but not limited to, reactor vessel geometry, embrittlement condition, flaw population, etc.

Perform FAVOR analyses with variations on residual stress per the analysis matrix developed. As part of this step, the contractor shall develop FAVOR input files to perform as many analyses as needed to fully assess the range of plausible residual stresses.

Analyze the results of the FAVOR analyses to assess the effect of clad residual stresses on the integrity of the vessel.

As needed, and if approved by the COR, develop new clad residual stress models that meet the ASME Standard and the requirements of NUREG/BR-0167 and incorporate them into FAVOR, as well as assess the impact of these models by performing sensitivity analyses with the FAVOR code. The FAVOR Theory and Users Manuals shall be modified accordingly.

Subtask 2.2 Deliverables

1) Analysis matrix with loading conditions, clad residual stress models, and all other conditions pertinent to the analysis:

a) Draft analysis matrix b) Final analysis matrix that incorporates comments from COR

2) Report:

a) The contractor shall prepare a draft TLR summarizing the results of the entire subtask, including summarizing references reviewed other than those identified in Section 5.0 and documenting the references, e.g. Identifying the author, year, and title and, summarizing the options for improved residual stress modelling in FAVOR, and an assessment of the impact of the different cladding residuals stress models on RPV failure probability.

b) The final TLR that incorporates COR comments on the draft shall be prepared by the contractor.

3) Source and Executable Code: If FAVOR is modified in order to perform this task the source code, the executable code, and text-based descriptions of all changes to the computer code shall be provided.

4) If FAVOR is modified in order to perform this task, Updated FAVOR Theory and Users Manuals

5) Input decks and FAVOR outputs: Input decks and all resultant outputs shall be complied and provided to the NRC on a CD or other suitable electronic format. The COR and the contractor shall agree upon the format to be used.

OPTION Task (Exercised) - Subtask 2.3: Loading (Ongoing)

Previous NRC and contractor analyses conducted at ORNL have demonstrated that if an RPV could be cooled down along the currently allowed pressure-temperature limit curve, and if that RPV had a shallow surface breaking flaw, then in some instances the estimated conditional probability of vessel failure would exceed 10-6 events/reactor-year. Likewise, analyses have also demonstrated that cooling down the vessel following pressure/temperature transients recorded in operation plants leads to much lower conditional vessel failure probabilities. These two findings suggest that between these two extremes there exists combinations of pressures and temperatures that are both operationally viable and, from a risk perspective, leads to 11

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 acceptably low vessel failure probabilities. The aim of this task is to explore possibilities to identify such pressure/temperature combinations.

The contractor shall perform a review of the existing literature to determine if there is a pressure/temperature corridor that is both operationally viable and from a risk perspective, leads to acceptably low vessel failure probabilities. The review shall include documents provided by the COR arising out of previously completed work at ORNL (relevant technical sections of monthly letter status reports, summary memos, etc.), as well as the open literature.

To assess the viability of a new pressure/temperature corridors, the contractor shall develop a draft matrix for computational analyses using FAVOR, finite element modeling, or other appropriate tools. The contractor shall then prepare a final analysis matrix that incorporates comments from the COR.

The contractor shall perform supporting analyses (FAVOR analyses, finite element analyses, etc.) per the approved analysis matrix.

The contractor shall attend a meeting at NRC headquarters to discuss the results of this task.

The meeting will be a round-table discussion with the NRC staff and, possibly, industry representatives. The outcome of the meeting will be to inform the CORs decision regarding whether or not further work is needed on this topic. Should further be needed, it will be conducted within the context of Task 5.

OPTION (Exercised) - Subtask 2.3 Deliverables

1) Analysis matrix with type of analysis and parameters needed for each analysis (as determined in the literature review):

a) Draft analysis matrix b) Final analysis matrix that incorporates comments from COR

2) Report:

a) The contractor shall prepare a draft letter report summarizing the results of the entire subtask, and addressing the possibility for combinations of pressures and temperatures that are both operationally viable and, from a risk perspective, lead to acceptably low vessel failure probabilities, b) The final letter report that incorporates COR comments on the draft shall be prepared by the contractor.

3) Input decks and outputs from analyses performed in subtask 2.3: Input decks and all resultant outputs shall be complied and provided to the NRC on a CD or other suitable electronic format. The COR and the contractor shall agree upon the format to be used.

Subtask 2.4: Shallow Surface Breaking Flaw Summary and Recommendations The contractor shall produce a TLR to summarize the work performed under Task 2 at a high level. Specifically, the contractor shall describe the overall strategy adopted to perform the investigations in Task 2, highlight the different analyses performed, and summarize the final results and conclusions for each phase of the investigations performed under Task 2.

The contractor shall also recommend one or more course of actions for final resolution of the shallow flaw issue based on the conclusions from Task 2. If several different paths are 12

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 proposed to resolve the shallow flaw issue, the contractor shall describe them and analyze the pros and cons of each approach.

As part of developing proposals for final resolution of the shallow flaw issue, the contractor may need to have discussions with NRC staff from RES or NRR, as well as external stakeholders such as EPRI. The NRC COR shall be made aware of the need for such interactions and shall then facilitate such interactions to help the contractor obtain the information needed to develop recommendations.

Subtask 2.4 Deliverables

1) Draft TLR that includes:

o Summary of the work performed under Task 2 o Recommendations for shallow flaw issue final resolution, based on conclusions reached in Task 2 o Pros and Cons of each potential path to resolve shallow flaw issue

2) Final TLR that incorporates NRC comments on the draft TLR (note that two or three iterations on the TLR might be needed to converge on a final document)

Task 3: Technical Support to Radiation Embrittlement Archive Project (REAP)

Subtask 3.1: REAP maintenance and user support (Ongoing)

The contractor shall host the REAP database on a publicly accessible website, shall process new user requests, shall service the needs of existing users having problems with their accounts, and shall correct any data errors identified by users. At the beginning of the project the COR will provide a list of already approved users to the contractor. The contractor shall consult with the COR prior to approving any user request, and prior to resolving any significant issues (significant means taking more than 1 work day to resolve). For cost estimation purposes the contractor should assume that these activities should be limited to one full working day per month.

Subtask 3.1 Deliverables In the Monthly Letter Status Report (MLSR) for this task order, the contractor shall include: (1) a complete list of users (names, organizations, e-mail addresses); (2) a summary of REAP users identifying the number of users by country, number of sessions and minutes per session; (3) identifying any new users added in the reporting month; and (4) a description of any significant issues identified, and their resolution.

Subtask 3.2: REAP data review, correction and new data entry (Ongoing)

The contractor shall perform a high-level review of the data in REAP for consistency both with the source documents and with ASTM definitions of terms and data field definitions. Where any inconsistencies or errors are identified, the contractor shall provide documentation of proposed data changes to correct the data to the COR. After approval of changes by the COR, the contractor shall correct any identified inconsistencies or errors in REAP data.

13

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 From time-to-time the operators of power reactors in the United States produce additional surveillance data. The contractor shall scan these reports, which will be provided to the contractor by the COR, for the document archive, and shall enter data from the reports into the relational database. For cost estimation purposes the contractor should assume that an initial data entry from six reports will be needed. After this data entry a rate of two new reports per year shall be assumed.

Subtask 3.2 Deliverables In the MLSR for this task order, the contactor shall include a summary of corrections to REAP data and any new reports received that month and documentation of their entry into REAP. The documentation shall demonstrate the data entry and how the data was stored, and shall include evidence of cross-checking the new data with previous reports from the same plant to ensure consistency with data already collected.

OPTION Task (Exercised) - Subtask 3.3: REAP development (Ongoing)

The contractor shall upgrade the data storage, retrieval, and analysis capabilities of REAP by performing source code modernization of the REAP application. The contractor shall choose a modern programming language for web-based applications and convert the REAP source code to a modern programming language using contemporary programing practices. Once completed, the contractor shall provide to the COR a list of the development steps performed as part of this task. As part of this process, the contractor shall implement a ticketing process to track code development tasks and problem reporting for REAP.

Subtask 3.3 Deliverables

4) Upgraded REAP web-application

5) List of development steps performed as part of subtask 3.3 Subtask 3.4: REAP migration to NUMARK-controlled environment (Completed)

The contractor shall investigate the contents of the REAP legacy archive provided by the COR and provide a summary of the contents of the archive to the COR. The contractor shall migrate the contents of REAP to a public web server controlled by the contractor and restore REAP to its past functionality (i.e. as it was when still hosted on ORNL servers, based on the legacy archive provided by the COR). The contractor shall restrict access to the database to users approved by the COR, with the ability to securely create, manage, and delete user accounts.

User accounts shall be attached to individuals and use unique user names and passwords. The COR shall have full authority on which users may have an account to access the database.

Note: once established, the maintenance of the REAP database and website is covered under Subtask 3.1.

Subtask 3.4 Deliverables

1) List of contents of the existing REAP legacy archive provided by the COR, either in a MS Word or MS Excel format.

2) Functional REAP database and public website, hosted on servers controlled by the contractor.

14

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Subtask 3.5: REAP migration to NRC-controlled environment (Ongoing)

The contractor shall assist with the migration of the REAP database and website to the NRCs web servers. Specifically, the contractor shall provide the NRC with all the files required to host the REAP database, web application, and website. The contractor shall be available to interact with IT personnel at the NRC and answer questions from IT personnel at the NRC regarding REAP, as instructed in writing by the COR. The contractor shall provide assistance in developing source code required to facilitate the REAP migration from servers controlled by the contractor to servers controlled by the NRC. For the purposes of this proposal, the contractor should assume up to 4 weeks of work related to source production in support of the REAP migration.

Subtask 3.5 Deliverables

1) All digital files associated with the REAP database, web application, and website as hosted on the contractor controlled servers.

2) Written responses to IT questions related to REAP migration, as requested by the COR.

3) Source code related to the migration of REAP to NRC servers.

Task 4: Related Technical Support Subtask 4.1: Kickoff Meeting and Annual Program Review Meetings (Ongoing)

Shortly after award, the contractor shall participate in a kickoff meeting at the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. Each year of the contract, the contractor shall participate in an annual program review meeting with the COR and other NRC technical staff to discuss work performed during the year. The meetings are expected to be held at NRC Headquarters, in Rockville Maryland.

Subtask 4.1 Deliverables The contractor shall prepare viewgraphs and other support materials, e.g. handouts, for the kickoff meeting and for each annual program review. In the viewgraphs for the kickoff meeting, the contractor shall go over the scope of the work for all awarded tasks, and provide any insights and suggestions to ensure a successful project. In the viewgraphs for the annual program reviews, the contactor shall summarize the work performed to date under this task order, highlight important test results, provide a snapshot of the projects financial status, highlight any potential problem areas and propose potential solutions, and outline the work to be performed during the following contract year.

Subtask 4.2: Peer-Reviewed Technical Paper (Ongoing)

For each year of this task order, the contractor shall prepare a technical paper to be presented at a peer reviewed conference, technical meeting, or to be published in a technical journal. In this technical paper, the contractor shall describe one or more important aspects of the research performed during the year related to this research project. The contractor shall obtain COR written approval of the topics to be addressed in the technical paper prior to starting work on preparing the technical paper. If directed by the COR, the contractor shall present the paper.

15

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Subtask 4.2 Deliverables The contractor shall prepare a draft technical paper and a final technical paper that incorporates COR comments received on the draft technical paper.

Task 5: FAVOR Software Quality Assurance (SQA)

Subtask 5.1: SQA Plan for FAVOR The contractor shall develop a Software Quality Assurance Plan for the FAVOR code. The SQA plan shall be similar in scope and content to other recent SQA plans recently developed for other NRC codes, to be provided by the NRC COR as reference. The SQA plan shall be created such that it addresses the relevant SQA deficiencies identified in Subtask 1.2 of this task order (specifically finding #1 in the TLR for Subtask 1.2). Although it is not required that the SQA plan strictly meet any particular standard (i.e. no certification of the SQA plan is required),

the SQA plan shall adopt the intent of modern best practices for SQA and V&V, as described in contemporary software SQA and V&V standards such as ASME V&V10 or the IEEE standards.

Subtask 5.1 Deliverables

1) Draft SQA plan for the FAVOR code

2) Final SQA plan that incorporates NRC comments on the draft SQA plan (note that two or three iterations on the SQA plan might be needed to converge on a final document)

Subtask 5.2: Configuration and Change Control for FAVOR Code and Documentation The contractor shall implement Configuration and Change Control for the FAVOR Code and its SQA Documentation, as required by the SQA plan that will be created in Subtask 5.1.

Specifically, the contractor shall propose automated version tracking tools for both the FAVOR source code and the controlled FAVOR SQA documentation (e.g. Git and associated tools).

The contractor shall obtain COR approval to proceed with these tools, and then acquire and implement the tools selected.

The contractor shall also propose configuration change controls for both FAVOR and the associated FAVOR documentation, via the use of purpose-built mainstream software tools designed for this purpose (e.g. JIRA or similar). The contractor shall obtain COR approval to proceed with these tools, and then acquire and implement the selected tools.

Any solution chosen by the contractor shall be accessible via the NRC IT infrastructure, and capable of relatively easily being migrated to a different architecture or system, as may be required in the future.

Note: it is possible that the same tools may be used for version tracking on the source and documentation, and for configuration change controls.

Subtask 5.2 Deliverables

1) Automated version controlled repository for the FAVOR source code and the controlled FAVOR SQA documentation 16

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007

2) Configuration change control nexus for both FAVOR and the associated FAVOR documentation, via the use of purpose-built mainstream software tools designed for this purpose Subtask 5.3: Verification and Validation Test Cases for FAVOR The contractor shall assemble a library of test cases for FAVOR V&V. To do so, the contractor shall first assemble existing test cases from past V&V efforts, and then, as needed and for as long as the project resources allow, develop new V&V test cases to fill in gaps in V&V testing.

Note, if all other tasks have been completed and resources remain, the contractor shall continue to assemble test cases until such as time as the resources for the task order t no longer allow for it, or until instructed otherwise by the NRC COR. It should also be noted that Subtask 5.3 shall be of the lowest priority and resources shall be allocated to other tasks first to ensure the other tasks of this task order are completed.

For each test case, the contractor shall:

Produce a test description including documentation of which feature or which requirement of FAVOR is being tested, and whether this is a verification test or a validation test. (note: Verification tests are to ensure that a feature of the FAVOR code works as programmed. Validation tests are to ensure that FAVOR produces expected results when compared to validation data, such as results from an equation, experimental data, or external calculations).

If applicable, obtain the input file and ensure that the test case runs with the latest version of FAVOR Add the test documentation (description, inputs, outputs, as applicable) to the repository of configuration-controlled files Document the results of the test and whether the test was passed or failed Subtask 5.3 Deliverables Configuration-controlled repository of test cases for the latest version of FAVOR, including test documentation and, as applicable: input files, outputs, and validation data.

Subtask 5.4: As-found Flaw Modeling Capability for FAVOR The contractor shall modify the FAVOR code such that as-found flaw configurations may be used as input to FAVOR analyses.

The contractor shall create a version of the code where the user has a choice between the VFLAW input format for flaw distributions and a new format to be created by the contractor to input as-found flaw configurations.

The contractor shall create SQA documentation associated with this change. Specifically, the contractor shall document the requirements of this change, the proposed design, the implementation of the change, the planned testing for the new version of the code, and report the results of software testing for this change.

17

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 The contractor shall also draft an update to the FAVOR theory and users manuals that reflect the new as-found flaw version of the code.

As part of this task, the contractor shall also provide a pre-processor tool to convert as-found flaws identified by ASME UT or other flaw surveillance data into FAVOR inputs. This pre-processor shall translate as-found flaw based on actual flaw geometry into the axial and circumferential flaw data required by FAVOR. This flaw evaluation methodology should be similar to the Excel pre-processor FAVOR inputs using ASME based code rules (e.g., ASME Code Case N-848) as described in Appendix A of ORNL/TM-2015/59349 report entitled, ORNL Evaluation of Electrabel Safety Cases for Doel 3 / Tihange 2: Final Report (R1).

Subtask 5.4 Deliverables

1) As-found flaw version of FAVOR, including source code and executable(s)

2) Documentation supporting the as-found flaw version of FAVOR, as outlined in the task description: theory and users manual updates

3) Excel pre-processor tool for as-found flaw data conversion to FAVOR input

5. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDS

[1] Fracture Analysis of Vessels - Oak Ridge FAVOR, v16.1, Computer Code: Theory and Implementation of Algorithms, Methods, and Correlations, ORNL/LTR-2016/309, ADAMS ML16273A033.

[2] Fracture Analysis of Vessels - Oak Ridge FAVOR, v16.1, Computer Code: Users Guide, ORNL/LTR-2016/310, ADAMS ML16273A034.

[3] Reactor Embrittlement Archive Project (REAP) website, https://2734-12533.el-alt.com.

[4] Dickson, T.L., Bass, B.R., Williams, P.T., The Effect of Shallow Internal Surface-Breaking Flaws on the Probability of Brittle Fracture of Reactor Vessels Subjected to Normal Cool-Down Transients, ORNL/TM-2012/489, ADAMS ML14050A190.

[5] Kusnick, J., Kirk, M., Bass, B.R., Williams, P., and Dickson, T., Effect of Cladding Residual Stress Modeling Technique on Shallow Flaw Stress Intensity Factor in a Reactor Pressure Vessel, 2015 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, July 2015, Boston, MA, USA, PVP2015-45086

[6] American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard: Requirements for the Verification and Validation in Computational Modeling and Simulation

6. DELIVERABLES/MILESTONE SCHEDULE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The contractor shall provide the deliverables stated in the table below in electronic format unless otherwise directed by the COR. The electronic format shall be provided using a Microsoft-based product, (e.g., Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint) unless the COR and the contractor specifically agree on another format, such as PDF for example. All deliverables, with the exception of the Monthly Letter Status Report (MLSR) shall be in the format of draft version, revision version with redline/strikeout with a change-control appendix, and a revised version which shall become the final version. The contractor shall maintain appropriate version control in an electronic format. The contractor shall explicitly state in its submittal(s) that the product provided is the deliverable for Task/Subtask XX, as further described below.

The deliverables below shall be submitted to the task order COR. The COR will review all draft deliverables (and coordinate any internal NRC staff review, if needed) and provide comments 18

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 back to the contractor. The contractor shall revise the draft deliverable based on the comments provided by the COR and then deliver a revised version of the deliverable, which will then be considered the Final Version. When mutually-agreed upon between the contractor and the COR, the contractor may submit preliminary or partial drafts to help gauge the contractors understanding of the particular work requirement. More than one round of drafts may be needed if the contractor does not successfully incorporate the CORs comments on the previous draft.

The contractor shall develop (as necessary), maintain, and control data, files, information, and deliverables pursuant to this task order.

Subtask Deliverable Estimated Due Date ZIP file containing all previous SQA documentation collected for this 5 months after start of 1.1 task project (Completed) 5 months after start of 1.1 A tabulated list of all SQA documents contained in the ZIP file project (Completed) 10 months after start of 1.2 Draft TLR on Previous SQA and V&V Assessment project (Completed) 1.2 Final TLR on Previous SQA and V&V Assessment 12/31/2019 6 months after start of 1.3 FAVOR User KM Workshop Outline project (Completed) 6 months after start of 1.3 Outline for the FAVOR KM User Manual project (Completed)

FAVOR User KM Workshop supporting materials (slides, other visual 15 months after start of 1.3 aids, and hands-on exercises) project (Completed) 15 months after start of 1.3 Draft FAVOR KM User Manual project (Completed) 1 month after receiving comments from COR 1.3 Final FAVOR KM User Manual (Completed) 1 week before knowledge transfer Materials developed for Developer KM Workshop, including slides, session, and no later 1.4 other visual supports, and any hands-on activities than 24 months from the start of the project (Completed)

Draft analysis matrix with loading conditions, WPS models, and all 12 months after start of 2.1 other conditions pertinent to the analysis project (Completed) 2 weeks after receiving Final analysis matrix with loading conditions, WPS models, and all 2.1 comments from COR other conditions pertinent to the analysis (Completed) 18 months after start of 2.1 Draft subtask 2.1 TLR project (Completed) 2.1 Final subtask 2.1 TLR 02/28/2020 Modified FAVOR code that allow for WPS modeling (source and 2.1 NA executables) 18 months after start of 2.1 Updated FAVOR Theory and Users Manuals, as applicable project (NA) 2.1 Input decks and FAVOR outputs for all subtask 2.1 analyses 02/28/2020 Draft analysis matrix with loading conditions, clad residual stress 18 months after start of 2.2 models, and all other conditions pertinent to the analysis project (Completed) 2 weeks after receiving Final analysis matrix with loading conditions, clad residual stress 2.2 comments from COR models, and all other conditions pertinent to the analysis (Completed) 24 months after start of 2.2 Draft subtask 2.2 TLR project (Completed) 19

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Subtask Deliverable Estimated Due Date 1 month after receiving 2.2 Final subtask 2.2 TLR comments from COR (Completed)

Modified FAVOR code that allow for clad residual stress modeling 24 months after start of 2.2 (source and executables), as applicable project (NA) 24 months after start of 2.2 Updated FAVOR Theory and Users Manuals, as applicable project (NA) 2.2 Input decks and FAVOR outputs for all subtask 2.2 analyses 02/282020 24 months after start of 2.3 Draft analysis matrix with all conditions pertinent to the analysis project (Completed) 2 weeks after receiving 2.3 Final analysis matrix with all conditions pertinent to the analysis comments from COR (Completed) 24 months after start of 2.3 Draft subtask 2.3 TLR project (Completed) 2.3 Final subtask 2.3 TLR 02/28/2020 2.3 Input decks and FAVOR outputs for all subtask 2.3 analyses 02/28/2020 2.4 Draft subtask 2.4 TLR 04/30/2020 2.4 Final subtask 2.4 TLR 06/30/2020 Within Monthly Letter Status Report to the NRC: complete list of users, 20th Calendar day of 3.1 identification of new users added during the period, and significant the following month issues identified, and their resolution Within Monthly Letter Status Report to the NRC: summary of 20th Calendar day of 3.2 corrections to REAP data or any new reports received that month and the following month documentation of their entry into REAP 3.3 Upgraded REAP web-application 01/31/2020 3.3 List of development steps performed as part of subtask 3.3 01/31/2020 1 month from award of 3.4 List of contents of the existing REAP legacy archive Modification M0003 (Completed) 3 months from award 3.4 Functional REAP database and public website of Modification M0003 (Completed)

All digital files associated with the REAP database, web application, 3.5 01/31/2020 and website as hosted on the contractor controlled servers Written responses to IT questions related to REAP migration, as 1 week after receipt of 3.5 requested by the COR a question from COR 3.5 Source code related to the migration of REAP to NRC servers 02/28/2020 Viewgraphs and Other Supporting Materials for kickoff and annual 1 week before the 4.1 review meetings meeting 2 weeks before draft 4.2 Draft technical paper submittal deadline 1 week before final 4.2 Final technical paper submittal deadline 5.1 Draft FAVOR SQA plan 04/30/2020 1 month after receiving 5.1 Final FAVOR SQA plan comments from COR Automated version controlled repository for the FAVOR source code 5.2 03/31/2020 and the controlled FAVOR SQA documentation Configuration change control nexus for both FAVOR and the 5.2 associated FAVOR documentation, via the use of purpose-built 03/31/2020 mainstream software tools designed for this purpose 5.3 Repository of test cases for the latest version of FAVOR 08/31/2020 5.4 As-found flaw version of FAVOR 08/15/2020 Documentation supporting the as-found flaw version of FAVOR: theory 5.4 09/01/2020 and users manual updates 5.4 Excel tool for as-found flaw data conversion to FAVOR input 04/30/2020 20

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Subtask Deliverable Estimated Due Date 20th Calendar day of All MLSR per Section F.3 of the Base Contract the following month The contractor shall submit all raw and processed data and worksheet and/or input files used in testing and analyses with the corresponding Draft TLR, and with the Final TLR, in a tabulated Excel format or other format as directed by the COR.

7. LABOR QUALIFICATIONS Labor Type Qualification Requirements Project Manager (PM) Minimum Qualifications Requirement

1) B.S. in Engineering, Science or similar technical field and

2) Minimum 5 years of regulatory research project management and oversight experience Technical Staff Minimum Qualifications Requirement

1) M.S. in Engineering, Science or similar technical field and

2) Individual Technical Staff, or team of Technical Staff as a whole performing work described herein must have a combined minimum 15 years knowledge and specialized experience in the following key technical areas:

Probabilistic fracture mechanics computer code development Uncertainty characterization methodologies and sensitivity studies Reactor pressure vessel fracture issues in light-water nuclear power plants NRC regulation and guidance pertaining to reactor pressure vessel integrity Use of the FAVOR code for regulatory purposes Development of the FAVOR code Experience in performing software quality assurance activities, including verification and validation 21

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Labor Type Qualification Requirements Education and Skillsets that are not Required, but Desired for this Task Order Requirement:

In-depth technical experience and/or knowledge in the following areas:

Knowledge of, and practical experience in, NRC standards for software quality assurance Experience in developing knowledge transfer course materials Experience in delivering knowledge transfer seminars

8. GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY Access to all deliverables from previous NRC research and development on the FAVOR code, as needed for this project per the CORs determination, including all past test data, analyses, and letter reports.

REAP legacy archive

9. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE See SECTION F - NRCF030A PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE ALTERNATE I.

10. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE The work to be performed under this task order shall be performed at the Contractors facility except for the travel described in Section 11.1 of this statement of work.

11. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 11.1 TRAVEL/MEETINGS The following travel may occur under this task order:

Travel Description Task Location Date Days Attendees FY 2018 Program Review at NRC 4.1 Rockville, MD 09/2018 2 2 Technical Conference/Meeting 4.2 TBD TBD 4 1 FY 2019 Program Review at NRC 4.1 Rockville, MD 09/2019 2 2 Technical Conference/Meeting 4.2 TBD TBD 4 1 User KM Workshop 1.3 Rockville, MD TBD 3 3 22

NRC-HQ-25-14-E-0004 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-003 M0007 Travel Description Task Location Date Days Attendees Developer Workshop 1.4 Rockville, MD TBD 5 2 FY 2020 Technical Meeting 2.4 TBD TBD 2 1 Program Review at NRC 4.1 Rockville, MD 05/2020 2 3 Technical Conference/Meeting 4.2 TBD TBD 4 1 Travel Notes

a. All contractor travel requires prior written approval from the COR.

b. Number of trips, number of contractor personnel, duration, location, may be modified based on meeting circumstances and COR need for contractor support. Contractor shall implement travel cost-sharing measures (for example sharing rental car) if possible.

c. At the discretion of the COR, meetings may be conducted via telephone, video conference, or at the contractor site.

d. All travel conducted pursuant to this task order is billable at Federal per diem rates, in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations.

11.2 SECURITY The work will be UNCLASSIFIED.

Work on this task order may involve the handling of documents that contain proprietary information. The contractor shall safeguard documents containing proprietary information against unauthorized disclosure. After completion of work, the contractor shall either destroy the documents or return them to the NRC. If they are destroyed, please confirm this in an e mail to the COR with a copy to the CO and include the date and manner in which the documents were destroyed.

(6) SECTION F, NRCF030A PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE ALTERNATE I is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:

This order shall commence on September 29, 2017 and will expire on February 15, 2021 (See FAR 52.216 Ordering).

23