ML20056E955

Ltr Contract,Awarding Task 17,to Individual Plant Exam Reviews,Internal Events-Back-End Only

ML20056E955
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	05/25/1993
From:	Mattia M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Mattson R SCIENTECH, INC.
References
CON-FIN-L-1933, CON-NRC-04-91-068, CON-NRC-4-91-68 NUDOCS 9308250335
Download: ML20056E955 (10)

Text

'

ps su coq

., e *. UNITED STATES E .j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20rE60001 g

gx f

....+ ,

IMY 2 51993 >

Scientech, Inc.

Attn: Roger J. Mattson ,

11821 Parklawn Drive Rockville, MD 20852

Subject:

Contract no. NRC-04-91-068, Task Order No.17 Entitled,

" Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews, Internal Events - Back-End Only (Kewaunee)"

This confirms the verbal authorization provided to Pat Love of Scientech, Inc. i on April 16, 1993, to commence work under the subject task order with a temporary ceiling of $3,500.00.

In accordance with Section G.9 entitled, " Task Order Procedures" of the subject contract, this letter definitizes Task Order No.17. The effort shall be performed in accordance with the enclosed Statement of Work.

Task Order No.17 shall be in effect from April 16, 1993 through April 15, 1994, with a total cost ceiling of $15,162.18 which is inclusive of the

$3,500.00 temporary ceiling authorized on April 16, 1993. The amount of

$13,802.00 represents the total estimated reimbursable costs, the amount of

$118.00 represents the facilities capital cost of money, and the amount of ,

$1,242.18 represents the fixed fee. l l

The obligated amount of this task order s $14,659.03. This amount shall not l be exceeded until notice is provided to yvu that additional funds are available. It is estimated that this obligated amount will cover performance of work through May 31, 1993.  ;

Accounting Data for Task Order No.17 is as follows:

APPN No.: 31X0200.360 B&R No.: 36019202300 FIN No.: L1933 OBLIGATED AMOUNT: $14,659.03 RES IDENTIFIER: RES-093-096 The following individuals are considered to be essential to the successful performance of work hereunder: A Meyer and Henry Amarasooriya, d % * .r -

The contractor agrees that such personnel shall not be removed from the effort under the task order without compliance with Contract Clause H.1, Key Personnel.

Issuance of this task order does not amend any terms or conditions of the subject contract.

t 9308250335 930525 8h b I!

PDR CONTR i NRC-04-91-068 FDR

l = .  !

l- . l

?

NRC-04-91-068 Task Order No. 17 Page 2 l

Your contacts during the course of this task order are:

Technical Matters: John Flack -

Project Officer (301) 492-3979 i

Contractual Matters: Edna Knox-Davin Contract Administrator  ;

(301) 492-4731 Please indicate your acceptance of this Task Order No.17 by having an l official, authorized to bind your organization, execute three copies of this document in the space provided and return two copies to the Contract ,

Administrator. you should retain the third copy for your records.

l If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Edna Knox-  !

Davin, Contract Administrator, on (301) 492-4731.

i Sincerely, W _

Mary Jo Mattia, Contracting Officer Contract Administration Branch No. 2

. Division of Contracts and l Property Management Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated ACCEPTED:

NAME: James F. Meyer

/

TITI.E: llanager, Safety Analysis Group .

l DATE: 5/28/93 l

l

CLOSURE 1  ;

Contract NRC-04-91-068 Scientech ,

1 STATEMENT OF WORK Task Order - 17 TITLE: Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews, Internal Events Back-End Only (Kewaunee)

DOCKET NUMBEP,: 50-305 l

NRC PROJECT MANAGER: John H. Flack, RES (301-492-3979)

HRC TEAM LEADER FOR KEWAUNEE: _Ed Chow, RES (301-492-3984)

TECHNICAL MONITOR: John H. Flack, RES (301-492-3979)

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: April 16 1993 to April 15 1994 BACKGROUND On November 23, 1988, the NRC issued Generic Letter 88-20, " Individual Plant Examination," which stated that licensees of existing plants should perform a systematic examination (IPE) to identify any plant-specific- vulnerabilities to-severe accidents, and to report the results to the Commission. The purpose of the IPE is to have each utility (1) develop an overall appreciation of severe accident behavior; (2) understand the most likely severe accident sequences at its plant; (3) gain a quantitative understanding of the overall probability of-core damage and radioactive material releases; and (4) reduce the overall probability of core damage and radioactive releases by modifying procedures and hardware to prevent or mitigate severe accidents. All IPE submittals will be reviewed by the NRC Staff to determine if licensees met the intent of Generic Letter 88-20.

l OBJECTIVE The purpose of this contract is to solicit contractor support in order to enhance the NRC review of licensees' IPE submittals. This contract includes d

the examination and evaluation of the Kewaunee IPE submittal, spec.ifically with regard to the "back-end" analysis. The contractor review will be of limited scope and consist of a " submittal only" review. The " submittal only" .

review and gathering of associated insights will help the NRC staff determine " '

whether the licensee's IPE process met the intent of Generic Letter 88-20, or -

whether a more detailed review is warranted.

1

l . .

i By identifying the IPE's strengths and weaknesses, extracting important I l insights and findings, and providing a comparison to staff reviewed and accepted PSAs (e.g. NUREG-1150, PSAs identified in NUREG-1335 Appendix B), it is expected that the NRC will be in a better position to expeditiously i

evaluate the licensee's IPE process. To provide support under this contract, I the contractor will search for obvious errors, omissions and inconsistencies l in the IPE submittal as described in the work requirements listed below.

WORK RE0VIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE l

The contractor will perform a " submittal only" review of the Kewaunee "back-end" IPE analysis. [The review is to include only the Level II analysis.  !

Review of Level III (conscquence analysis) is beyond the scope of this contract.) The contractor shall provide the qualified specialists and the  ;

necessary facilities, materials, and services to carry out such a review. The 6 contractor will utilize NRC review guidance documents for detail and reference as well as other interim guidance provided by the NRC Technical Monitor. The '

contractor is not expected to make a plant / site visit in order to perform this review.  !

Subtask 1. Review and Identification of IPE Insichts Perforn a back-end " submittal only" review of each IPE submittal and identify  !

important IPE insights by completing the NRC IPE Data Summary Sheets. (The sheets identify the information that will be entered into the IPE insights and findings data base.) During the review, focus on the areas described below  ;

under " Work Requirement." The contractor will note any: (1) inconsistencies  ;

between methodology employed in the IPE submittals and other PSA studies, (2)-

inconsistencies between the submittal's IPE findings and findings stemming  ;

from other PSAs (See NUREG-1335, Appendix B). The contractor will respond explicitly to each work requirement by noting important review findings including any IPE strengths and weaknesses. The contractor will also list .

under each listed work requirement, any questions (back to the licensee) associated with the lack of appropriate information or need for further  !

clarification. .

Work Reauirement 1.1. Perform a General Review of the Licensee's IPE Back-End Analytic Process:

Check the following: ,

1.1.1 The IPE submittal is essentially complete with respect to the level of detail requested in NUREG-1335.

1.1.2 IPE employed methodology is clearly described and jus'ified t for selection. Approach is consistent with Generic Letter 88-20

• Appendix 1.

l 1.1.3 The IPE employed a viable process to confirm that the containment and containment systems represent the as-built, as-operated plant.

2 I

i- . . * . ->+m.

I 1.1.4 IPE back-end had been appropriately peer-reviewed to help assure l the analytic techniques were correctly applied.

Work Reauirement 1.2. Review of the containment analysis / characterization. l Check the following:  ;

1.2.1 The IPE analysis appropriately treated front-end and back-end i dependencies, i.e., plant damage states considered reactor system / containment system availability, system mission times, inventory depletion, dual usage (spray vs. injection).

1.2.2 Classes of sequences with significant probability (those that meet the G.L. 88-20/NUREG-1335 screening criteria) were evaluated further using simplistic, but realistic, containment event trees.

1.2.3 The focus of the IPE's containment analysis was on failure modes  ;

and timing. Containment failure modes are consistent with those identified in Table 2.2 of NUREG-1335.

1.2.4 The IPE process assessed and identified contributors to containment isolation failure.

1.2.5 System / human response were integrated with the phenomenological  !

aspects of accident progression into the containment event trees.  ;

Allowances for recovery actions were made to allow for accident management actions.

l 1.2.6 The IPE submittal appropriately documented radionuclide release characterization for accident sequences exceeding the Generic Letter 88-20 (or NUREG-1335) screening criteria.

Work Reauirement 1.3. Review the cuantitative nature of the accident oroaression and containment performance analysis.

Check the following: ,

l.3.1 The licensee employed a reasonable process to understand and i quantify severe accident progression. The process lead to a determination of important conditional containment failure probabilities, and considered phenomenological uncertainties,  ;

either qualitative or quantitative.

1.3.2 Dominant contributors to containment failure are consistent with insights from other PSAs of similar design.

1.3.3 The IPE appropriately characterized containment performance for

• each of the CET end-shtes by assessing containment loading (either calculated or referenced).

1.3.4 The containment analysis considered the impact of severe accident environments on equipment behavior.

3 i

l

t Work Reauirement 1.4. Review the IPE approach to reducina the probability of core damaae or fission product release.

Check the following: ,

1.4.1 The IPE analysis appears to support the licensee's definition of vulnerability, and that the definition provides a means by which  !

the identification of potential vulnerabilities (as so defined) and plant modifications (or safety enhancements) is made possible. ,

I.4.2 The identification of plant improvements and proposed ,

modifications are reasonably expected to enhance plant safety.

Work Recuirement 1.5. Review Licensee's Response to Containment Performance Imorovement Recommendations. ,

Check that the licensee appropriately responded to recommendations stemming from the Containment Performance Improvement (CPI) Program, i.e., that the  !

licensee's assessment, findings, conclusions and actions (as appropriate) considered the following as a function of containment type:

BWRs (MARK I,II,III) o Harden vent o Alternative water supply for drywell spray / vessel injection o Enhanced reactor pressure vessel depressurization system reliability o Implementation of Revision 4 of the BWR Owners Grot? EPGs o Improved hydrogen igniter power supply (Mark III)  ;

l Additional for BWR (MARK III) o Evaluation of vulnerability to interrupted power supply to hydrogen igniters and need for improvement PWR Ice Condenser Containments .

o Evaluation of vulnerability to interrupted power supply to hydrogen igniters and need for improvement PWR Dry Containments o Evaluation of containment and equipment vulnerabilities to hydrogen combustion (local and global) and need for  ;

improvement. This would include consideration of gaseous pathways between the cavity and the upper containment volume to confirm adequate communication to promote natural '

circulation and recombination of combustible gases in the reactor cavity.

4

i L

Work Reouirement 2.0 Complete data sheets.  !

Complete the NRC data summary sheets and note any lack of information as appropriate.

Subtask 2. Prepare Technical Evaluation Report Prepare a report with the outline provided below. l

1. Introduction Provide a brief overview of the IPE review, the scope and depth as appropriate. Place emphasis on review areas identified as being important and rationale for importance, i.e., found to be important in other PSAs of similar design. Discuss any important or unique plant ,

characteristics. Note plants with similar features and any important  !

insights stemming from other relevant PSA studies.

II. Contractor Review Findings  !

Explicitly address each work requirement element listed under subtask 1,

" Review and Identification of IPE Insights." Discuss any streagth or weakness so identified and significance with respect to the overall IPE j effort. Identify any additional information (in the form of questions i back to the licensee) which would be important to the review effort.  ;

Indicate why the information is important for closure.

III. Overall Evaluation and Conclusion Summarize the " submittal only" review conclusions based on the information submitted and significance of IPE strengths and weaknesses.

IV. IPE Evaluation and Data Summary Sheets Attach the IPE Data Summary Sheets.

REPORT RE0VIREMENTS  ;

Technical Reports  ;

i The contractor will submit to the NRC technical monitor four copies of the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) six weeks after the initiation of this task  ;

order. Copies will include one hard copy and one 3.5" computer diskette version (Wordperfect 5.1 or other IBM PC compatible software acceptable to the ,

NRC IPE Team Leader). The TER shall summarize all findings, results, and conclusions in the areas examined in the format described under Task 2. If the contractor finds that the licensee's IPE is obviously deficient in any of' the areas examined, the technical monitor should be notified in advance.

Deficient or weak areas should be clearly documented in the technical evaluation report. In addition, if the contractor finds that there are 5

j specific areas that need additional in-depth review, the Tecm Leader should be f notified of the areas, and provided with the rationale for subsequent review.

l l

The contractor shall meet with the NRC staff after submittal of the TER to present and discuss its findings, results, and conclusions. l The NRC staff shall review the TER submittal, prepare questions for the licensee, and submit a package for the licensee's response within two to three i weeks after the contractor's presentation. The licensee is given at least 60 days to respond to NRC's questions. Upon receipt of the licensee responses, the NRC staff will review the responses against the TER within one to two months after the receipt of the responses to determine the need for further .

clarification. If further clarification is required, the contractor shall provide NRC with their response.

The contractor should allow for one day of effort to provide NRC with quick-turn-around reviews of licensee's comments or responses to the TER and/or questions.

BUSINESS LETTER REPORT The contractor shall provide monthly progress reports in accordance with the requirements of the basic contract.

MEETINGS AND TRAVEL One, one person trip to NRC Headquarters to present and discuss review findings and conclusions.

e 6

NRC FURNISHED MATERIAL l f

Licensee's IPE submittal. i i

TECHNICAL DIRECTION )

The NRC Project Manager is: ,

t John H. Flack i Severe Accident Issues Branch Division of Safety Issue Resolution U.S. NRC, Mail Stop NL/S 324  !

Washington, D.C. 20555  :

Telephone No. (301) FTS-492-3979 ,

I i

t l

t l

j 5

l l

l i

l l

i

. 'l l

l l

7

____ _