ML20056F164

Ltr Contract,Awarding Task Order 16, IPE Reviews - Internal Events - Front End Only (Kewaunee), to Contract NRC-04-91-066

ML20056F164
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	04/16/1993
From:	Mattia M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Colina I SCIENCE & ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
References
CON-FIN-B-5787, CON-NRC-04-91-066, CON-NRC-4-91-66 NUDOCS 9308260136
Download: ML20056F164 (9)

Text

'

ps atcug PDL f.- $ UNITED STATES

[

. ,j*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001

\,

/

APR 161993 Science & Engineering Associates, Inc.

SEA Plaza ATTN: Ilene Colina 6100 Uptown Blvd., N.E.

Alberquerque, NM 87110

Subject:

Contract No. NRC-04-91-066, Task Order No.16 Entitled, " Internal '

Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews - Internal Events - Front End Only (Kewaunee)"

This confirms the verbal authorization provided to you on April 16, 1993, to commence work under the subject task order.

I In accordance with Section G.9 entitled, " Task Order Procedures" of the subject contract, this letter definitizes Task Order No. 16. This effort shall be performed in accordance with the enclosed Statement of Work.

Task Order No.16 shall be in effect from April 16, 1993 through April 15, 1994, with a total cost ceiling of $25,353.00. The amount of $23,313.00 represents the total estimated reimbursable costs and the amount of

$2,040.00 represents the fixed fee.

The obligated amount of this task order is $22,464.00. This amount shall not be exceeded until notice is provided to you 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. 16 is as follows:

APPN No.: 31X0200.360 B&R No.: 36019202300 '

FIN No.: B-5787 OBLIGATED AMOUNT: $22,464.00 RES IDENTIFIER: RES-C93-074 The following individuals are considered to be essential to the successful performance for work hereunder: Frank Sciacca, John Darby, and Robert Clark.

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.

I 9308260136 930416 (

PDR CONTR NRC-04-91-066 PDR ))

NR.? sA 91-066 Tas? beder No. 16 Page 2 Your contacts during the course of this task order are:

Technical Matters: John Flack Project Officer (301) 492-3979 Contractual Matters: Edna Knox-Davin Contract Administrator (301) 492-4731 Please indicate your acceptance of this Task Order No.16 by having an 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.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Edna Knox-Davin, Contract Administrator, on (301) 492-4731.

Sincerely, A= $ =J h

.ary Jo Mattia, Contracting Officer

'/ContractAdministrationBranchNo.2 ,

Division of Contracts and l Property Management Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated ACCEPTED: ,

NAME: M TITtE: $LLlN kdMbxEAubLG DATE: i[Sh6[6dd5 l

l I

l l

i

l ,

ENCLOSURE 1 Contract NRC-04-91-066 Science & Engineering Associates STATEMENT OF WORK Task Order - 16 TITLE: Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews, Internal Events Front-End Only l (Kewaunee) l l

DOCKET NUMBER: 50 . o NRC PROJECT MANAGER: John H. Flack, RES (301-492-3979) l l

l NRC TEAM LEADER FOR KEWAUNEE: E. Chow, RES (301-492-3984)

TECHNICAL MONITOR: John H. F1ack, RES (301-492-3979)

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: April 16,1993 to April 15,1994 BACKGROUND l

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.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this contract is to solicit contractor support in order to enhance the NRC review of licensees' IPE submittals. This contract 1 includes the examination and evaluation of the Eewaunee IPE submittal, specifically with regard to the " front-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 By identifying the IPE's strengths and weaknesses, extracting important l insights and findings, and providing a comparison to staff reviewed and ,

accepted PSAs (e.g. NUREG-ll50, PSAs identified in NUREG-1335 Appendix B), it  !

is expected that the NRC will be in a better position to expeditiously ,

evaluate the licensee's IPE process. To provide support under this contract, the contractor will search for obvious errors, omissions and inconsistencies in the IPE submittal as described in the work requirements listed below. l t

i a

! WORK RE0UIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE The contractor will perform a " submittal only" review of the Kewaunee " front-l I end" IPE analysis. The contractor shall provide the qualified specialists and the necessary facilities, materials, and services to carry out such a review.

The contractor will utilize NRC review guidance documents for detail and i' 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 l

to perform this review.

Subtask 1. Review and Identification of IPE Insichts Perform a front-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 i findings data base.) During the review, focus on the areas described below under " Work Requirement." The contractor will note any: (1) inconsistencies i l 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 i 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) '

I associated with the lack of appropricte information or need for further l clarification.

Kgrk Reauirement 1.1. Perform a General Overview of Front-End Analysis Check the following: ,

l 3 1.1.1 The IPE submittal is essentially complete with respect to the type 1 of information and level of detail requested in the Submittal Guidance Document, NUREG-1335. List any obvious omissions.

1.1.2 The employed methodology is clearly described and is justified for selection. Check that the methodology chosen is consistent with methods identified in Generic Letter 88-20. ,

1.1.3 The IPE submittal employed a viable process to confirm that the i IPE represents the as-built, as-operated plant. .

1.1.4 The methodology used to treat internal flood is clearly described and justified. (Use NUREG-1174 for review insights.)

2 i

i

i I

1.1.5 The IPE front-end had been peer-reviewed to help assure the analytic techniques were correctly applied.  !

Work Reauirement 1.2. Review the Accident Seouence Delineation and System Analysis l

Check the following. ,

1.2.1 The IPE submittal described the process used to identify generic / plant-specific initiators (including internal flood) and i dependencies which could exist between initiating events and the associated mitigation function. Determine whether the initiating events are consistent and complete with respect to other PSAs. l 1.2.2 The IPE identified and analyzed front-line and support-system important to the prevention of core damage and mitigation of l fission product release.

1.2.3 The IPE treated dependencies (including asymmetries) among plant  !

systems, and that dependencies within a system and between systems i were identified and documented in a dependency matrix form. .

Support systems should as a minimum include:

electrical power (AC and DC) i ESF actuation system  !

instrument air HVAC l

service water component cooling water ,

1.2.4 The IPE appropriately treated common cause failures employing the beta factor method, MGL method, or sensitivity studies (see NUREG/CR-2815 or plant-specific). Check that common cause i failures were carefully examined to reveal possible root causes of ,

such failures and in order to determine likely fixes.

i 1.2.5 The system event trees and special event trees appropriately i treated the initiating events, associated success criteria, and ,

dependencies between top events.  !

1.2.6 The IPE identified the most probable core damage sequences and  !

these are consistent with insights from PSAs of similar design. i Check that sequences were expanded to identify dominant contributor, i.e., specific components, plant conditions or behavior, common cause failures that contribute to plant  ;

vulnerabilities.

1.2.7 The IPE appropriately treated front-end and back-end dependencies:

- important sequences were not screened out ,

- considered containment by-pass i

- considered containment isolation 3

4

- plant damage states considered reactor system / containment system availability

- source term

- system mission times

- inventory depletion

- dual usage (spray vs. injection) 1.2.8 For multi-unit plant analyses, that the IPE considered initiating events affecting more than one unit, and treated systems shared between units.

Work Reauirement 1.3. Review the IPE's Ouantitative Process Check the following:

1.3.1 The IPE quantitatively evaluated the impact of integrated system and component failures on plant safety. Check that the analysis used mean values and/or employed sensitivity studies to determine the impact of vital assumptions.

1.3.2 The technique used to perform data analysis appears consistent with other PSAs, [ note: plant specific data is expected to be used for important components and systems as identified in.NUREG-1335.]

1.3.3 Sources of generic failure data used in the IPE are identified, and a rationale for their use provided. Data source should be reasonably consistent with data reported in NUREG-2815, Appendix C.

1.3.4 The licensee quantified contribution from common cause failure data and identified data sources.

Work Reauirement 1.4. Review the IPE Aporoach to Reducino the Probability of Core Damaae or Fission Product Release Check the following:

1.4.1 The IPE analysis supports the licensee's definition of vulnerability with respect to core damage, and that the analysis probed beyond the system level, to train or segment level to uncover vulnerabilities. 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.

1.4.2 The identification of plant improvements and proposed modifications are reasonably expected to enhance plant safety.

4

l I

- Work Reouirement 1 5. Review Licensee's Evaluation of the Decay Heat Removal

'- Function Check the following:

1.5.1 The IPE explicitly focused on reliability of the DHR function. ,

IPE findings and conclusions are consistent with other PSA findings.

1.5.2 IPE explored the benefit of diverse means of decay heat removal, r l e.g. feed-and-bleed, recovery of main feedwater.

I 1.5.3 Any unique features or other means which contribute to increased DHR reliability were substantiated.

Complete data sheets.

Work Reauirement 2.0 Complete the NRC data summary sheets and note lack of information as appropriate. However, exclude those data entries marked "BNL Data Entry."

These data will be collected by Brookhaven National Laboratcry under a separate contract.

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

I. 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. Note plants with similar features and any important insights stemming from other relevant PSA studies. Discuss any important or unique plant characteristics.

II. Contractor Review findings Explicitly address each work requirement element listed under subtask 1,

" Review and Identification of.IPE Insights." Discuss any strength or weakness so identified and significance with respect to the overall IPE effort. Identify any additional information (in the form of questions 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 in this section.

5

REPORT REQUIREMENTS i

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

l contract. 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 sumuarize 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 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. ,

l The contractor shall meet with' the NRC staff after submittal of the TER to present and discuss its findings, results, and conclusions.

1 The NRC staff shall review the T[k submittal, prepare questions for the licensee,and submit a package for the licensee's response within two to three weeks after " e contractor's presentation. The licensee is given at least 60 days to re,pord to NRC's questions. Upon receipt of the licensee responses, 4

the NRC s'.aff sill review the responses against the TER within one to two montns a ter the receipt of the responses to determine the need for further 4

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

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

i BUSINESS LETTER REPORT ,

d The contractor shall provide monthly progress reports in accordance with the requirements of the basic contract. l l i nEETINGS AND TRAVEL

< One, one person trip to NRC Headquarters to present and discuss review findings and conclusions.

i

< I 6 i i

,a ..am +. 6. a- .

e f l

. I

~

l. NRC FURNISHED. MATERIAL i '

l Licensee's IPE submittal.  ;

l l TECHNICAL DIRECTION l

l The NRC Project Manager is: 1 John H. Flack Severe Accident Issues Branch .

Division of Safety Issue Resolution t U.S. NRC, Hail Stop NL/S 324 Washington, D.C. 20555  :

Telephone No. (301) FTS-492-3979 l 3

l L

1 I

i l

l l

1 l

l 7

l

---_--a-____-- -