ML20056E971

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

ML20056E971
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	06/10/1993
From:	Mattia M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Haas P CONCORD ASSOCIATES, INC.
References
CON-FIN-L-1934, CON-NRC-04-91-069, CON-NRC-4-91-69 NUDOCS 9308250359
Download: ML20056E971 (10)

Text

-

r pa ncg l n UNITED STATES 3

D .E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o e / WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 s, ***+

• w f Concord Associates, Inc. JUN 101993 Attn: Paul M. Haas 725 Pellissippi Parkway Suite 101, Box 6 Knoxville, TN 37933

Subject:

Contract No. NRC-04-91-069, Task Order No.17 Entitled,

" Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews, Internal Events, Human Factors Only" - Step 2 (McGuire)

This confirms the verbal authorization provided to you on May 7,1993 to commence work under the subject task order with a temporary ceiling of $3,500.

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

Task Order No.17 shall be in effect From May 7,1993 through December 6, 1993, with a total cost ceiling of $19,105 which is inclusive of the $3,500 temporary ceiling authorized on May 7, 1993. The amount of $17,855 represents the total estimated reimbursable costs and the amount of $1,250 represents the fixed fee.

The obligated amount of this task order is $19,105.

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

APPN No.: 31X0200.360 B&R No.: 36019202300 FIN No.: L-1934 B0C: 2542 OBLIGATED AMOUNT: $19,105 RES IDENTIFIER: RES-C933-104 The following individuals are considered to be essential to the successful performance for wor.k hereunder: Paul H. Haas and C. Randy Bovell.

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

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

I 9309250359 930610 7 PDR CONTR u NRC-04-91-069 PDR I

w -

= t NRC-04-91-069  ;

Task Order No. 17 Page 2 l Your contacts during the course of this task order are:

Technical Matters: John Flack l Project Officer (301) 492-3979  ;

Contractual Matters: Edna Knox-Davin [

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

Administrator. You should retain the third copy for your records. i If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Edna Knox- l Davin, Contract Administrator, on (301) 492-4731.

Sincerely, j30 '

Mary Jo Mattia, Contracting Officer Contract Administration Branch No. 2 Division of Contracts and Property Management Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated ACCEPTED: .M/

NAME: Paul M. Haas TITLE: President DATE: June 15, 1993 l

l i

- ~

l l'

Contract NRC-04-91-069 Concord Associates, Inc.

STATEMENT OF WORK l

Task Order - 17 TITLE: Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews, Internal Events Human Reliability Analysis Only, (McGuire)

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

NRC TEAM LEADER FOR MCGUIRE: Ed Chow, RES (301-492-3984) l TECHNICAL HONITOR: John H. Flack, RES (301-492-3979) i f

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 8 months v BACKGROUND: 1 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. ,

TheNRCstaffreviewofIPEsinvolvesatwostepprocess. The first step, or t

" step 1" includes an NRC team examinatioc of the IPE submittal and subsequent ,

meetings with the licensee to understand the IPE effort. All IPE submittals will undergo a " step 1" review by the NRC staff. A second step, or " step 2" review, may be required if limitations are identified, or a better understanding of the licensee's IPE process is warranted. Contractors are expected to support the " step 2" review effort by auditing IPE documentation '

held at the site, and assessing limitations identified by the NRC review team members under " step 1."

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this task order is to provide support during the " step 2" review of the McGuire IPE human reliability analysis. The NRC review objective is to determine whether the licensee's IPE process met the intent of Generic letter 88-20. The " step 2" review will involve a site visit and audit 1

of " tier 2" information (e.g., fault trees, system notebooks, data, calculations). 1 WORK REOUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE: -

Under this task order contract, an audit of the McGuire IPE human reliability analysis will be performed. The contractor will provide qualified specialists and the necessary facilities, materials, and services to the NRC staff. The contractor analyst will review the IPE submittal and associated documentation, and prepare for a site visit by developing an audit plan which will be submitted to the IPE Team Leader at least three weeks prior to the site visit.

The site visit will involve the audit of " tier 2" information, and include plant walk-throughs and meetings with licensee staff involved in the IPE analysis. The audit will focus on licensee identified vulnerabilities, especially those associated with the decay heat removal system. The contractor will bring to the immediate attention of the review team members any potential vulnerabilities that may appear to require further analysis or i evaluation, and the basis for identified concern. ,

For this task order, perform the following subtasks:

Subtask 1. Review and Identify Needed Information i Review IPE review team " step 1" findings, specifically those associated with the human reliability analysis. Review NRC questions sent to the licensee and the licensee's response. Attention should be placed on any remaining issues and their significance with respect to the IPE's ability to identify vulnerabilities. During the submittal review, key on the following aspects of the licensee's IPE process:

A. General Approach A.1 The IPE employed a viable process to confirm that the plant models represent the as-operated plant.  ;

A.2 The employed HRA methodology is clearly described and justified l for selection. The methodology (including the human action 1 taxonomy) employed is capable of identifying important human actions.

B. Review the Sequences Involving Human Action B.1 The accident sequences appropriately considered human actions i consistent with NUREG-1150 and other NRC accepted PSAs (see NUREG- l 1335 Appendix B). g B.2 The accident sequences screened out because of low human error (see NUREG-1335, Section 2.1.6.6) appear appropriate, based on HRA techniques employed.

2

B.3 For multi-unit plant analyses, the IPE appropriately considered operational differences between units.

C. Quantitative Process C.1 In general, the licensee employed a reasonable process to understand and quantify human reliability. The process lead to a determination of important human failure probabilities, and considered uncertainties in human response, either qualitative or quantitative.

C.2 The employed human error probability (HEP) screening values appear capable of screening .in significant human errors.

C.3 The IPE developed human error probabilities (HEPs) for significant human actions, or provided rationale for using screening values.

C.4 Sources of generic human reliability data used in the IPE were documented and the rationale for their use provided. Generic human error probability (HEP) data were modified using plant-specific Performance Shaping Factors (PSFs) as appropriate, and the rationale for selection of employed PSFs was provided.

C.5 The recovery method is clearly described and credit for recovery actions appears justified.

D. Vulnerability Evaluation D.1 The IPE supports the licensee's definition of vulnerability with respect to human error. The licensee's definition provided a means by which the licensee could identify potential vulnerabilities (as so defined) and plant modifications (or safety enhancements) to eliminate or reduce the affect of vulnerabilities.

D.2 The identification of plant improvements include human-related plant modifications (e.g., procedures and training), and proposed modifications are reasonably expected to enhance human reliability and plant safety.

Document any identified strengths, weaknesses, obvious limitations or inconsistencies between the licensee's IPE findings and studies from similar plants. Areas needing specific attention during the site visit should be identified and forwarded to the NRC review team leader in a letter report at least three weeks prior to the site visit and audit. Identify licensee personnel that need to be contacted during the site visit and documentation needed for audit.

Schedule Completion: Three weeks prior to site visit 3

I

]

Subtask 2. Perform Site Visit The objective of the site visit is to access and review information not contained in the submittal but needed to understand the licensee's IPE process. The site visit will:

(1) audit all IPE " tier 2" information related to the human reliability, e.o.. human event trees. fault trees. notebooks. data base. etc.;

(2) obtain an overall physical perspective of the licensee's operational facility by performing walk-throughs, especially focusing on areas which require outside control room actions during accident scenarios; (3) gather information and insights on weak areas identified by the NRC under " step 1"; and (4) interview key analysts and site personnel that were responsible f,or the IPE project.

NOTE: Once at the site, but prior to the start of the on-site audit, the contractor's staff is required to meet with the NRC IPE Review Team Leader and other NRC personnel involved in the IPE review. The pre-audit meeting will focus on the audit's scope and objectives, coordination of travel logistics, and preparation of site access documentation.

Schedule Completion: The site audit is expected to involve three days including travel and will be scheduled in cognizance with the NRC plant Project Manager and the licensee. An early pre-audit meeting at the site is

~

scheduled for the first day, followed by a two-day IPE audit and closing meeting on the third day.

Subtask 3. Prepare Technical Evaluation Report l The contractor will prepare a technical evaluation report with the following outlint:

Executive Summary l l

Provide a one-page summary of the audit process, findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

I. Introduction o Provide a brief overview of the licensee's IPE process in the technical area under audit and any important insights stemming from the IPE in the technical area under review.

o Provide a brief overview of the audit process, the scope, objectives, and areas of interest.

. 4

. 1 I

o Document pre-site visit activities; include meetings, information review, and preparation for site visit.

o Document si.te activities including:

- Information audited at the site - description of " tier 2" j information audited Personnel interviewed and identification of individuals that  :

provided information during the audit (include name, title and company)  ;

Walk-throughs performed and general observations of facilities >

Describe how areas of interest discussed in the

" Introduction" above were addressed during the audit II. Audit Findings for each of the subtask 1 items listed above, discuss the audit's  :

findings, including any strengths or shortcoming identified in the licensee's IPE and significance with respect to the overall IPE effort.

Note any inconsistencies with other PSA's. Indicate and discuss areas ,

reported in the submittal but not supported by " tier 2" information audited at the site. ,

III. Audit Conclusions and Recommendations Document the audit's conclusion. Focus on the ability of the licensee's IPE process to identify potential vulnerabilities, and the reasonableness of licensee's actions and commitments. The report should '

discuss the reasonableness of any specific licensee identified vulnerabilities and associated fixes. Characterize limitations with regard to significance.

Schedule Completion: The contractor shall provide a technical review report one month following the site audit.

REPORT RE0VIREMENTS:

Technical Reports At the completion of subtask 1, provide an audit plan. input to the IPE Team Leader. The plan shall include areas needing specific attention during the site visit, and licensee personnel that will need to be contacted.

At the completion of subtask 2, but prior to the audit team's exit meeting with the licensee, each contractor cialist shall provide a draft audit I report input to the NRC Team Leader. The format and scope of this input shall  ;

5 r

l be as provided by the NRC IPE Team Leader. Typically, this input will consist of a handwritten summary of the contractor's audit findings.

1 The contractor will submit to the NRC technical monitor two copies of the J audit report one month after the completion of the Step 2 site audit. Copies will include one hard copy and one computer diskette version (Wordperfect 5.1 or other IBM PC compatible software acceptable to the NRC IPE Team Leader) to i be given to the IPE Team Leader. The report shall summarize all findings, results, and conclusions in the areas examined in the format described under Task 3. If the contractor finds that the licensee's IPE is obviously deficient in any of the areas examined, the IPE Team Leader should be notified in advance. Deficient or weak areas should be clearly documented in the audit report. In addition, if the contractor finds that there are specific areas that need additional in-depth review, the Team Leader should be notified of the areas, and provided with the rationale for subsequent review.

Business letter Report The contractor shall provide monthly progress reports in accordance wit'h the requirements of the basic contract.

HEETINGS AND TRAVEL:

One, one person, three-day trip to the plant site to conduct the IPE audit.

ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT:

For each IPE reviewed and audited:

Subtask I 60 contractor hours Subtask 2 24 contractor hours  ;

Subtask 3 100 contractor hours It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assign technical staff, employees, and subcontractors whar have the required educational background, l experience, or combination thereof, to meet both the technical and regulatory objectives of the work specified in this 50W. The NRC will rely on representation made by the contractor concerning the qualifications of the personnel proposed for assignment to this task order including assurance that all information contained in the technical and cost proposals, including resumes and qualifications of the personnel proposed for assignment to this i task order and conflict of interest disclosures, is accurate and truthful.

NRC FURNISHED MATERIAL:

(I) Licensee's IPE submittals, (2) IPE review questions and licensee's response.

I 6

l

.+ ~

l l

TECHNICAL DIRECTION: l The NRC Project Manager is:

John H. F1ack 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

t b

i

. 7