ML20247H548
| ML20247H548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/18/1998 |
| From: | Holahan G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Rigdon L ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| JCN-J-2611, NUDOCS 9805210194 | |
| Download: ML20247H548 (22) | |
Text
'
pp w..,g e
et dfvE C N C.h 4-i g
NVCLEAR BEGULtJCFif CO3MSEM me,mu a c ww
~#
rey L: 79 %
Mr. L. Douglas Rigdon, Director Laboratory Programs Division U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Field Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
LANL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, NRC " TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE BWR ECCS STRAINER CLOGGING ISSUE AND THE STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CLOGGING OF PWR SUMPS SCREENS BY LOCA-GENERATED DEBRIS," JCN-2611
Dear Mr. Rigdon:
f This letter is a request for a proposal from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to provide technical assistance to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The enclosed Statement of Work details the required work and should be used as the basis for preparing a proposal. Within 10 working days of receipt of this request, please submit your proposal. NRC Form 189 contains the minimum information required for proposal preparation.
The standard terms and conditions form NRC work, as approved by Headquarters, DOE, apply to this effort. A copy of these terms and conditions have been furnished to your office separately.
The proposal should be submitted in three copies to:
Lawrence Ruth, Program Manager Division of Systems Safety and Analysis, NRR Mad Stop: O "E2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 The request for proposal is not an authorization to start werk. Authorization to commence work becomes effective upon the DOE LANL Field Office acceptance of an appropriately executed NRC Form 173, Standard Order for DOE Work.
g CONTACT: Lawrence Ruth, DSSA/NRR (301) 415-1211 980521o194 98o518 7'
PDR ORO EUSDOE C k i.~ u m a y Qh#
PDR l
et T)\\ o ]
li m
.~0 O f/1-F Doe L
O l
Mr. L. Douglas Ridgon If you have any questions about this request please contact Mr. Lawrence C. Ruth at (301) 415-1211 or Mr. Robert B. Elliott at (301)415-1397.
Sincerely,
/s/ S. Newberry for:
Gary M. Holahan, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Statement of Work cc w/ encl: Richard Givens, DOE DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosure:
SPSB R/F File Center PDR Official Contract File GHolahan CBerlinger LRuth REhiott DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lanirfpa ltr
'By concurring in this contract action, I certify that I do not have a personal or financial interest in the contractor who will be performing the work.
To receive a copy of this document. indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE SPSB:DSSA CSSA:NRR C.
BC:SPSB:DSSA D:DSSA:NRR NAME RElliott LRuth L CBerlinger
[
GMHolaha [(
DATE 5/. /98 5/11798 5/ r//98 d
5/ T' */98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1
1
.i 7
Mr. L. Douglas Ridgon )
If you have any questions about this request please contact Mr. Lawrence C. Ruth at (301) 415-1211 or Mr. Robert B. Elliott at (301)415-1397.
Sincerely,
/s/ S. Newberry for:
Gary M. Holahan, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Statement of Work cc w/ encl: Richard Givens, DOE DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosure:
SPSB R/F File Center PDR Official Contract File GHolahan CBerlinger.
LRuth RElliott DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lantrfpa.itr 2 "By concurring in this contract action, I certify that I do not have a personal or financial interest in the contractor who will be performing the work."
To receive a co)y of this document. indicate in the box C= Copy w/o at*3chment/ enclosure EoCopv with attachment / enclosure N = No copy -
OFFICE SPSB:DSSA 6 DSSA:C, BC:SPSB:DSSA D:DSSA:NRF1 4
CBerlinger hd'h GMHolahk/
NAME RElliott k317 LRuth
/
DATE 5/G/98 5/ [ 79 8 5///98 d
5/N/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY L
l Enclosure STATEMENT OF WORK FOR JOB CODE J 2611 TITLE:
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE BWR ECCS STRAINER CLOGGING ISSUE AND THE STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CLOGGING OF PWR SUMPS SCREENS BY LOCA-GENERATED DEBRIS B&R NUMBER:
820-15-11-101J NRC PROJECT (PROGRAM) MANAGER:
Lawrence Ruth, NRR/DSSA (301-415-1211)
NRC PROGRAM TECHNICAL MONITOR:
Rob Elliott, NRR/DSSA (301-415-1397)
TAC NO.:
Will be assigned for each task within the program.
NRR PRIORITY:
1 BACKGROUND On July 28,1992, an event occurred at Barsebsck, Unit 2, a Swedish boiling water reactor (BWR), which involved the plugging of two containment vessel spray system (CVSS) suction strainers. The strainers were plugged by mineral woolinsulation that had been dislodged by steam from a pilot-operated relief valve that spuriously opened while the reactor was at 3,100 l
kPa [435 psig]. Two of the three strainers on the suction side of the CVSS pumps were in service and became partially plugged with mineral wool. The Barsebsck eve it demonstrated that the potential exists for a pipe break to generate insulation debris and transport a sufficient amount of the debris to the suppression pool to clog the ECCS strainers.
On January 16 and April 14,1993, two events involving the clogging of ECCS strainers also occurred at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, a domestic BWR. The first Perry event involved clogging of the suction strainers for the residual heat removal (RHR) pumps by debris in the suppression pool. The second Perry event involved the deposition of filter fibers on these g
strainers. The debris consisted of glass fibers from temporary drywell cooling unit filters that had i
been inadvertently dropped into the suppression pool, and corrosion products that had been filtered from the pool by the glass fibers which accumulated on the surface of the strainer. The Perry events demonstrated the deleter;ous effects on strainer pressure drop caused by the filtering of suppression pool particuhtes (corrosion products or " sludge") by fibrous materials adhering to the ECCS strainer surfaces. Separate test programs have been conducted by the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) and the staff to quantify this filtering effect.
Based on these events, the NRC issued Bulletin 93-02, " Debris Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers" (NRCB 93-02), on May 11,1993. The bulletin requested licensees to remove f;brous air filters and other temporary sources of fibrous material, not designed to withstand a LOCA, from the containment. In addition, licensees were requested to take any immediate compensatory measures necessary to ensure the functional capability of the ECCS.
The staff then conducted a detailed study of a reference BWR 4 plant with a Mark I containment.
The study results were published in NUREG/CR-6224, " Parametric Study of the Potential for BWR ECCS Strainer Blockage Due to LOCA Generated Debris,"in October 1995. Based on the preliminary results of the staff's study, however, the staff issued NRCB 93-02, Supplement 1, 1
" Debris Plugging of Eme gor.y Cxt C %rg Sc & Men ' x Emuary 18,1994. The purpose of the bulletin suppeerd ms % mauem m W/mwnnees ake appropriate interim actions to ensure the rehable opemlice d v,e ECCS 'ohowg a LOCA so that the staff and industry would have sufficient time to develop a permanent resoluton in addition, the bulletin supplement informed licensees 'of pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) and BWRs of the latest information on the vulnerability of ECCS suction strainers in BWRs and containment sumps in PWRs to clogging during the recirculation phase of a LOCA.
}
On September 11,1995, Limaock, Unit 1, was being operated at 100-percent power when control room personnel observed alarms and other indications that one safety relief valve (SRV) was open. Emergency procedures were implemented. Attempts to close the valve were unsuccessful, and a manual reactor scram was initiated. Prior to the opening of the SRV, the licensee had been running the "A" loop of suppression pool cooling to remove heat being released into the pool by leaking SRVs. Shortly af ter the manual scram, and with the SRV still open, the "B" locp of suppression pool cooling was started. Operators continued their attempts to close the SRV and reduce the cooldown rate of the reactor vessel. Approximately 30 minutes hier, fluctuating motor current and flow were observed on the "A" loop. Cavitation was believed to be the cause, and the loop was secured. Af ter it was checked, the "A" pump was successfully restarted and no further problems were observed. After the cooldown following the blowdown event, a diver was sent into the suppression pool at Unit 1 to inspect the condition of the strainers and the general cleanliness of the pool. Both suction strainers in the "A" loop of suppression pool cooling were found to be almost entirely covered with a thin " mat" of material, consisting mostly of fibers and sludge. The "B" loop suction strainers had a similar coverir g, but less of it. Analysis showed that the sludge was primarily iron oxides and the fibers were polymeric in nature. The source of the fibers was not positively identified, but the licensee has determined that the fibers did not originate within the suppression pool, and that no trace of either fiberglass or asbestos was in the fibers.
The Limerick event demonstrated the need to ensure adequate suppression pool cleanliness. In addition, it re-emphasized that materials other than fibrous insulation could also clog strainers (Perry's strainers were clogged by fibrous filter media). In response to this event, the staff issued NRC Bulletin 95-02," Unexpected Clogging of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Pump Strainer While Operating in Suppression Pool Cookng Mode" (NRCB 95-02), on October 17, 1995. The bulletin requested that licensees (1) assess the operability of their ECCS based on the cleanliness of their suppression pool and ECCS strainers, (2) verify tha operability of the ECCS througn an appropriate pump test and strainer inspection within 120 days from the date of the bulletin, (3) establish a pool cleaning program, (4) review their foreign material exclusion (FME) practices and correct any identified weaknesses, and (5) implement any appropriate additional measures for ensuring the availability of their ECCS.
Section 50.46 of Title 10 of the Code of Federa/ Regulations (10 CFR 50.46) requires that licensees design their ECCS systems to meet five criteria, one of which is to provide long-term cooling capability of sufficient duration following a successful system initiation so that the core temperature shall be maintained at an acceptably low value and decay heat shall be removed for the extended period of time required by the long-lived radioactivity remaining in the core. The ECCS is designed to meet this criterion, assuming the worst single failure. Experience gained from operating events and detailed analysis, as previously discussed, demonstrate that excessive buildup of debris from thermalinsulation, corrosion products, and other particulate on ECCS pump strainers is highly likely to occur, creating the potential for a common-cause 2
failure of the ECCS, wnich could prevent the ECCS from providing long term cooling following a LOCA. The staff concluded, therefore, that this action must be taken by licensees in order to ensure compliance with the regulations.
On May 6,1996, the staff issued NRC Bulletin 96-03, " Potential Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in Boiling-Water Reactors," to request BWR licensees to implement hardware and procedural modifications to resolve the issue. Regulatory Guide 1.82, Revision 2," Water Sources for Long-Term Recirculation Cooling Following a Loss-of-Coolant Accident,"(RG 1.82) was also issued in May 1996, and provided non-prescriptive guidance on analyzing a plant for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46. In response to NRCB 96-03, the BWROG prepared Topical Report NEDO-32686, entitled " Utility Resolution Guidance for ECCS Suction Strainer Blockage,"(URG) dated November 1996. The URG was written to provide licensees with methodologies which are consistent with the guidance in RG 1.82 for performing plant analyses to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.
The staff is currently evaluating licensee solutions implemented (or undergoing implementation) in response to NRCB 96-03. In addition, the staff is evaluating the applicability of lessons learned from the BWRs to PWRs. Additional concerns have recently been identified relative to the potential for containment and piping coatings to clog ECCS suction strainers in BWRs and sump screens in PWRs.
OBJECTIVE The objective of this contract is to obtain the necessary technical expertise, on a task ordering basis, to support the staff's evaluation of resolutions implemented by BWR licensees in response to NRCB 96-03 and NRCB 95-02. The technical support willinclude onsite review of licensee engineering analyses performed to determine the adequate sizing of the new suction l
strainers installed in resolving the issue, as well as review of plant specific submittals to the NRC. The contiactor will also provide support for the staff in its evaluation of regulatory issues i
related to the potential for clogging by coating debris in BWRs and PWRs as well as providing technical support to the staff in evaluation of plant-specific issues related to potential clogging of ECCS sump screens in PWRs by LOCA-generated debris. These reviews willinclude review of plant-specific submittals and analyses.
TECHNICAL AND OTHER SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) shall provide specialists with expertise and expe,,ance in: a) evaluating the potential for ECCS suction strainer clogging in BWRs and sump screen clogging in PWRs, b) use of evaluation tools and methods such as the BLOCKAGE Computer Code, methodologies described in the URG, and debris transport models used by PWR licensees, c) evaluation of LOCA sequences, including containment pressure and temperature responses, use of emergency procedures by operators, and calculation of net positive suction head (NPSH) for both BWRs and PWRs, d) assessment of the potential of containment and piping coatings to clog suction strainers / sump screens, e) methodologies for calculation and evaluation of hydrodynamic loads on submerged BWR structures (i.e., ECCS suction strainers),
and, f) the application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies and risk-based techniques to evaluate the potential for, and safety significance of, clogging of the ECCS sump screens in PWRs.
3 l
as it is the responsibility of the laboratory to assign technical staff, employees, subcontractors, or specialists who have the required educational background, experience, or combination thereof to meet both the technical and regulatory objectives of the work descrioed in general terms in this program level statement of work (SOW) and in the project level SOWS. The NRC will rely on representations made by the contractor concerning the qualifications of the personnel assigned to this contract including assurance that an information contained in the technical and cost proposal, including resumes, is accurate and truthful.
The use of key personnel and any proposed change to key personnel on this contract is subject to the NRC Project Manager's approval. This includes proposed use of principle persons (i.e.,
key contributors) during the life of the contract.
If any work will be subcontracted or performed by consultants, LANL shall obtain the NRC Project Manager's written approval of the subcontractor or consultant prior to initiation of the subcontract effort Conflict of interest considerations shall apply to any subcontracted effort.
WORK REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE On an "as needed/when needed" tasking basis, specified in task level SOWS, LANL shall provide personnel with the required technical expertise and/or necessary support expertise to perform work in the following areas:
Proiects Sample Description Approximate Task #'s Schedule 1
A Review of BWR plant specific submittals in support of strainer April 1999 installations being performed in response to NRCB 96-03.
Review of BWROG response to URG draft SER and General Electric's response to staff questions on GE's strainer topical report.
B Onsite review (total of 6 BWR sites) of plant-specific analyses Sept.1999 performed to size strainers / demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.
2 A
On-call tech.acal support for emerging plant-specific issues Dec.1999 (e.g., coatings issues, suppression pool and containment cleanliness issues, sump and strainer design issues, etc.)
B Qualitative assessment of the potential safety significance March 1999 of sump screen clogging in PWRs 3
Review of hydrodynamic load analyses for three BWRs who October 1998 have completed installation of their new strainers.
The above " sample tasks" represent parts of the technical support required with emphasis on the variety of technical support that would be required. The laboratory should be prepared to support the currently planned activities described above. The laboratory should also be 4
l.
prepared to write reports that identify and characterize significant issues raised during the work and their corresponding resolutions. Task descriptions, schedules, and reporting requirements will be specified in each project level SOW and task order issued in accordance with the procedures established in the following section of this statement of work.
l The first project level statement of work is attached to this Tate of work.
PROCEDURES FOR PLACING TASK ORDERS 1
1.
When a need for a task assignment arises, the NRC project manager (PM) and the program technical monitor will contact the LANL principalinvestigator (or program manager) to discuss the work requirements and determine tne availability of the personnel recommended by the laboratory. If qualified personnel are available to perform the work, the parties will reach agreement, in principle, on the level of effort and schedule required to complete the proposed task order. The NRC PM will provide a draft task order SOW for discussion purposes. In unique cases of long-term or ccmplex task orders, a written cost or technical proposal may be requested to facilitate discussion and negotiation of the proposed task order.
2.
After reaching an agreement with the Laboratory's principal investigator or program manager, the NRC PM will issue the task order in writing to the Laboratory program manager. The task order will include the agreed-upon statement of work and will state the cost ceiling established to complete the task order.
l 3.
Task orders associated with each project will be numbered consecutively, as shown above (e.g., the second task order under the project would be numbered 1.2). Each project level task order will normally include the NRC technical assignment control (TAC) and NRR priority number.
4.
Within ten (10) working days after receipt of the task order, the LANL program manager shall acknowledge receipt and acceptance of the task order by signing the task order transmittalletter in the space provided, and returning the original of the letter to the NRC PM. In the event that the laboratory requests a change in the agreed-upon scope, level of effort, cost, or schedule, the Laboratory program manager shall initiate discussions with the NRC PM to reach a mutual agreement on the change. The Laboratory program manager shall make pen-and-ink changes to the task order transntittal letter, the statement of work, or attact. ment thereto, to document any agree-upon changes before returning them to tne NRC PM.
5.
In the event that a work scope or cost ceiling modification is required after acceptance of the task order, the individual NRC PM or Laboratory principal investigator or project manager requesting the change shall initiate contact with the other to reach agreement.
Any resulting modification will be confirmed in writing by the person initiating the modification.
6.
If it becomes necessary to stop work or terminate a task order, the NRC PM will orally notify the Laboratory principal investigator or project manager. All stop work orders or terminations will be confirmed in writing by the NRC PM within ten (10) working days of the oral notification.
I 5
L
7.
In urgent situations, the NRC may require the Laboratory to start work on project level tasks before receipt of the written task order. In such cases, the Laboratory shall begin work on the task order (assuming availability of personnel and agreement on the SOW) subject to the monetary limitation established for the task order by the NRC PM and agreed to by the Laboratory's principalinvestigator or program manager. When this accelerated procedure is used, the Laboratory will begin negotiating the term's of a definitive task order with the NRC PM by the target date mutually agreed upon. The written task order will be issued by the NRC PM within ten (10) days of completion of the negotiations. The other terms of this section will apply.
8.
Funds for this project will be obligated incrementally commensurate with the number of task orders issued, the level of effort required to complete the task orders for the fiscal year plus a reasonable carryover.
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The level of effort is estimated at about 1.8 professional staff years over an 18 month period.
This estimate is provided for the purpose of preparing a proposal and is expected to change as work progresses.
A more definitive level of effort for each task will be specified in each Task SOW as Task Order proposals are requested from LANL.
DELIVERABLES Monthly Letter Status Reports Letter status reports shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of specific task orders (e.g., see attached SOW). As a minimum, each letter report shall provido a description of the work performed during the month, the status and current schedule for all ongoing projects, funds expended during the current report period, the cumulative funds expended, and the remaining funds available to the cost ceiling for the task. The monthly status report should also describe the basis for scheduler changes (e.g., reprioritization by the NRC PM of ongoing work, etc.), description of any problems encountered which may affect meet the task requirements Iechnical Reportino Requirements Technical reports shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the specific task orders. The transmittalletter and cover page of each report, or other deliverables as appropriate, shall contain the Job Code Number (JCN), task order number and title, and, if assigned, the NRC TAC number.
The Laboratory shall submlt all reports and documents in draft form to the NRC PM with a copy to the NRC technical monitor. The Laboratory shallincorporate NRC comments on the drafts into the final reports and documents and submit the reports to the NRC PM with a copy to the j
technical monitor.
6 I
7_
?
NRC FURNISHED MATERIALS Any reports, documents, equipment, and other materials that are required for the Laboratory to perform the authorized work will be stated in the SOW for each task order. These materials will be returned to the NRC at the completion of this contract.
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL For the purpose of providing a proposal, the following meetings and travel can be used:
1)
Six one-person, five-day trips (five days on-site) to six different Nuclear Power Plant sites.
2)
Six two-person, three-day trips (three days on-site) to NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD.
LICENSEE FEE RECOVERY The licensee fee recovery status of tasks will be identified in the individual task SOWS.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Utilization Review it is not anticipated that the Laboratory will be required to purchase any equipment, including computer hardware or software to perform the work contemplated under this contract, however, if equipment is required, DOE or the Laboratory shall conduct a utilization review of DOE and other appropriate sources of not required, excess, and surplus property before purchasing the required equipment with NRC funds. Property identified during this review that meets NRC project needs shall be transferred to this project I lieu of purchasing new equipment. NRC written approval is required before equipment is acquired.
Reports DOE shall monitor property assigned to this contract on a regular basis to identify surplus property that was purchased by the NRC under the terms of the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Property not required shall be reported to the NRC for utilization screening in accordance with established procedures.
Before the close-out of this contract, a reconciliation report shall be prepared by DOE or the Laboratory to identify available equipment anu.oaterial purchased with NRC funds. The report shall contain the MOU property description or nomenclature, manufacturer, model number, serial number, quantity, acquisition cost, receipt date, condition code, and property identification number. The report also shallidentify any active or contemplated NRC projects on which the MOU property could tee used. If no MOU property is assigned to the contract, DOE shall proved 7
__a
a negative report. Any MOU property requiring special handling for security, health, safety, or other reasons shall be noted as part of the report. This report shall be submitted as soon as possible after a decision regarding contract completion or termination has bee made, but not later than 60 days after the expiration of the period of performance. The report shall be submitted to the NRC PM.
OTHER PROVISIONS Some proprietary information is anticipated in this contract. If any proprietary information is required, it will be stated in the individual task order and will be handled in accordance with NRC Management Directive 11.7.
8
[p %
UNITED STATES 7
/
(((7j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
[
was m oros ac m :u.
May 18, 1998 1
1 Mr. L. Douglas Rigdon, Director Laboratory Programs Division U.S. Department of Energy l
Albuquerque Field Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 l
SUBJECT:
LANL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, NRC " TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE BWR ECCS STRAINER CLOGGING ISSUE AND THE STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CLOGGING OF PWR SUMPS SCREENS BY LOCA-GENERATED DEBRIS," JCN-2611
Dear Mr. Rigdon:
This letter is a request for a proposal from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to provide technical assistance to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The enclosed Statement of Work details the required work and should be used as the basis for preparing a proposal. Within 10 working days of receipt of this request, please submit your proposal. NRC Form 189 contains the minimum information required for l
proposal preparation.
l The standard terms and conditions form NRC work, as approved by Headquarters, DOE, apply to this effort. A copy of these terms and conditions have been furnished to your office separately.
The proposal should be submitted in three copies to:
Lawrence Ruth, Program Manager Division of Systems Safety and Analysis, NRR Mail Stop: 0-8E2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 The request for proposal is not an authorization to start work. Authorization to commence work becomes effective upon the DOE LANL Field Office acceptance of an appropriately executed NRC Form 173, Standard Order for DOE Work.
CONTACT: Lawrence Ruth. DSSA/NRR (301) 415-1211 l
f l
l L___
e J
Mr. L. Douglas Ridgon l' you have any questions about this request please contact Mr. Lawrence C. Ruth at 0 01)415-1211 or Mr. Robert B. Elliott at (301)415-1397.
Sincerely,
/s/ S. Newtc ry for:
Gary M. Holarian, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Statement of Work cc w/ encl: Richard Givens, DOE DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosure:
SPSB R/F File Center PDR Official Contract File GHolahan CBerlinger LRuth RElliott DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lantrfpa.ltr "By concurring in this contract action, I certify that I do not have a personal or financial interest in the contractor who will be performing the work."
To receive a copy of this document. indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE SPSB:DSSA DSSA:NRRC, BC:SPSB:DSSA D.DSSA:NRR CBerlinger / ' l GMHolahdb [<
NAME RElliott LRuth L
~
DATE 5/ /98 5/ h798 5/ //98 d
5/ I'J/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure STATEMENT OF WORK FOR JOB CODE J-2611 TITLE:
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE BWR ECCS STRAINER CLOGGING ISSUE AND THE STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CLOGGING OF PWR SUMPS SCREENS BY LOCA-GENERATED DEBRIS 1
B&R NUMBER:
82M S-11 1 J NRC PROJECT (PROGRAM) MANAGER:
Lawrence Ruth, NRR/DSSA (301-415-1211)
NRC PROGRAM TECHNICAL MONITOR:
Rob Elliott, NRR/DSSA (301-415-1397)
TAC NO.:
Will be assigned for each task within the program.
NRR PRIORITY:
1 BACKGROUND On July 28,1992, an event occurred at Barsebsck, Unit 2, a Swedish boiling water reactor (BWR), which involved the plugging of two containment vessel spray system (CVSS) suction strainers. The strainers were plugged by mineral woolinsulation that had been dislodged by steam from a pilot-operated relief valve that spuriously opened while the reactor was at 3,100 kPa (435 psig]. Two of the three strainers on the suction side of the CVSS pumps were in service and became partially plugged with mineral wool. The Barsebsck event demonstrated that the potential exists for a pipe break to generate insulation debris and transport a sufficient amount of the debris to the suppression pool to clog the ECCS strainers.
On January 16 and April 14,1993, two events involving the clogging of ECCS strainers also occurred at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, a domestic BWR. The first Perry event involved clogging of the suction strainers for the residual heat removal (RHR) pumps by debris in the I
suppression pool. The second Perry event involved the deposition of filter fibers on these strainers. The debris consisted of glass fibers from temporary drywell cooling unit filters that had j
been inadvertently dropped into the suppression pool, and corrosion products that had been
~
filtered from the pool by the glass fibers which accumulated on the surface of the strainer. The Perry events demonstrated the deleterious effects on strainer pressure drop caused by the i
filtering of m.ppression pool particulate (corrosion products or " sludge") by fibrous materials adhering to the ECCS strainer surfaces. Separate test programs have been conducted by the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) and the staff to quantify this filtering effect.
Based on these events, the NRC issued Bulletin 93-02, " Debris Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers" (NRCB 93-02), on May 11,1993. The bulletin requested licensees to remove fibrous air filters and other temporary sources of fibrous material, not designed to withstand a LOCA, from the containment. In addition, licensees were requested to take any immediate compensatory measures necessary to ensure the functional capability of the ECCS.
The staff then conducted a detailed study of a reference BWR 4 plant with a Mark I containment.
The study results were published in NUREG/CR-6224, " Parametric Study of the Potential for BWR ECCS Strainer Blockage Due to LOCA Generated Debris,"in October 1995. Based on the preliminary results of the staff's study, however, the staff issued NRCB 93-02, Supplement 1, 1
" Debris Plugging of Emergency Core Cooimg Srbon S;mm" at Fetsuary 18,1994. The purpose of the bulletin supplement was to request that BWR bcenseesiake appropriate interim actions to ensure the reliable operation of the ECCS following a LOCA so that the staff and industry would have sufficient time to develop a permanent resolution. In addition, the bulletin supplement informed licensees of pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) and BWRs of the latest information on the vulnerability of ECCS suction strainers in BWRs and containment sumps in PWRs to clogging during the recirculation phase of a LOCA.
On September 11,1995, Limerick, Unit 1, was being operated at 100-percent power when control room personnel observed alarms and other indications that one safety relief valve (SRV) was open. Emergency procedures were implemented. Attempts to close the valve were unsuccessful, and a manual reactor scram was initiated. Prior to the opening of the SRV, the licensee had been running the "A" loop of suppression pool cooling to remove heat being released into the pool by leaking SRVs. Shortly after the manual scram, and with the SRV still open, the "B" loop of suppression pool cooling was started. Operators continued their attempts to close the SRV and reduce the cooldown rate of the reactor vessel. Approximately 30 minutes later, fluctuating motor current and flow were observed on the "A" loop. Cavitation was believed to be the cause, and the loop was secured. After it was checked, the "A" pump was successfully restarted and no further problems were observed. After the cooldown following the blowdown event, a diver was sent into the suppression pool at Unit 1 to inspect the condition of the strainers and the general cleanliness of the pool. Both suction strainers in the "A" loop of suppression pool cooling were found to be almost entirely covered with a thin " mat" of material, consisting mostly of fibers and sludge. The "B" loop suction strainers had a similar covering, but less of it. Analysis showed that the sludge was primarily iron oxides and the Ubern /ere polymeric in nature. The source of the fibers was not positively identified, but the licensee has determined that the fibers did not originate within the suppression pool, and that no trace of either fiberglass or asbestos was in the fibers.
The Limerick event demonstrated the need to ensure adequate suppression pool cleanliness. In addition, it re-emphasized that materials other than fibrous insulation could also clog strainers (Perry's strainers were clogged by fibrous filter media). In response to this event, the staff issued NRC Bulletin 95-02," Unexpected Clogging of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Pump Strainer While Operating in Suppression Pool Cooling Mode" (NRCB 95-02), on October 17, 1995. The bulletin requested that licensees (1) assess the operability of their ECCS based on the cleanliness of their suppression pool and TCCS strainers, (2) verify the operability of the ECCS through an a, propriate nump test and strainer i, ipection within 120 days from the date of the bulletin, (3) establish a pooi cleaning program, (4) review their foreign material exclusion (FME) practices and correct any identified weaknesses, and (5) implement any appropriate additional measures for ensuring the availability of their ECCS.
Section 50.46 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.46) requires that licensees design their ECCS systems to meet five criteria, one of which is to provide long-term cooling capability of sufficient duration following a successful system initiation so that the core temperature shall be maintained at an acceptably low value and decay heat shall be removed for the extended period of time required by the long-lived radioactivity remaining in the core. The ECCS is designed to meet this criterion, assuming the worst single failure. Experience gained from operating events and detailed analysis, as previously discussed, demonstrate that excessive buildup of debris from thermal insulation, corrosion products, and other particulate on ECCS pump strainers is highly likely to occur, creating the potential for a common-cause 2
4 failure of the ECCS, which could prevent the ECCS from providing long-term cooling following a LOCA. The staff concluded, therefore, that this action must be taken bylicensees in order to ensure compliance with the regulations.
On May 6,1996, the staff issued NRC Bulletin 96-03, " Potential Plugging of E.mergency Core l
Cooling Suction Strainers by Det'ris in Boiling-Water Reactors," to request BWR licensees to implement hardware and procedural modifications to resolve the issue. Regulatory Guide 1.82, Revision 2," Water Sources for Long-Term Recirculation Cooling Following a Loss-of-Coolant Accident,"(RG 1.82) was also issued in May 1996, and provided non-prescriptive guidance on analyzing a plant for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46. In response to NRCB 96-03, the BWROG prepared Topical Report NEDO-32686, entitled " Utility Resolution Guidance for i
ECCS Suction Strainer Blockage,"(URG) dated November 1996. The URG was written to provide licensees with methodologies which are consistent with the guidance in RG 1.82 for performing plant analyses to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.
l The staff is currently evaluating hcensee solutions implemented (or undergoing implementation) in response to NRCB 96-03. In addition, the staff is evaluating the applicability of lessons learned from the BWRs to PWRs. Additional concerns have recently been identified relative to the potential for containment and piping coatings to clog ECCS suction strainers in BWRs and sump screens in PWRs.
OBJECTIVE The objective of this contract is to obtain the necessary technical expertise, on a task ordering basis, to support the staff's evaluation of resolutions implemented by BWR licensees in response to NRCB 96-03 and NRCB 95-02. The technical support willinclude onsite review of licensee engineering analyses performed to determine the adequate sizing of the new suction strainers installed in resolving the issue, as well as review of plant specific submittals to the NRC. The contractor will also provide support for the staff in its evaluation of regulatory issues related to the potential for clogging by coating debris in BWRs and PWRs as well as providing technical support to the staff in evaluation of plant-specific issues related to potential clogging of ECCS sump screens in PWRs by LOCA-generated debris. These reviews willinclude review of plant-specific submittals and analyses.
TECHNICAL AND OTHER SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) shall provide specialists with expertise and experience l
in: a) evaluating the potential for ECCS suction strainer clogging in BWRs and sump screen l
clogging in PWRs, b) use of evaluation tools and methods such as the BLOCKAGE Computer i
Code, methodologies described in the URG, and debris transport models used by PWR licensees, c) evaluation of LOCA sequences, including containment pressure and temperature responses, use of emergency procedures by operators, and calculation of net positive suction head (NPSH) for both BWRs and PWRs, d) assessment of the potential of containment and piping coatings to clog suction strainers / sump screens, e) methodologies for calculation and evaluation of hydrodynamic loads on submerged BWR structures (i.e., ECCS suction strainers),
and, f) the application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodologies and risk-based 1
techniques to evaluate the potential for, and safety significance of, clogging of the ECCS sump screens in PWRs.
3
It is the responsibility of the laboratory to assign technical staff, employees, subcontractors, or specialists who have the required educational background, experience, or combination thereof to meet both the technical and regulatory objectives of the work described in general terms in this program level statement of work (SOW) and in the project level SOWS. The NRC will rely on representations made by the contractor concerning the qualifications of the personnel assigned to this contract including assurance that all information contained in the technical and cost proposal, including resumes, is accurate and truthful.
The use of key personnel and any proposed change to key personnel on this contract is subject to the NRC Project Manager's approval. This includes proposed use of principle persons (i.e.,
key contributors) during the life of the contract.
If any work will be subcontracted or performed by consultants LANL shall obtain the NRC Project Manager's written approval of the subcontractor or consultant prior to initiation of the subcontract effort. Conflict of interest considerations shall apply to any subcontracted effort.
WORK REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE On an "as needed/when needed" tasking basis, specified in task level SOWS, LANL shall provide personnel with the required technical expertise and/or necessary support expertise to perform work in the following areas:
Projects Sample Description Approximate Task #'s Schedule 1
A Review of BWR plant specific submittals in support of strainer April 1999 installations being performed in response to NRCB 96-03.
Review of BWROG response to URG draft SER and General Electric's response to staff questions on GE's strainer topical report.
B Onsite review (total of 6 BWR sites) of plant-specific analyses Sept.1999 performed to size strainers / demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46.
2 A
On-call technical support for emerging plant-specific issues Dec.1999 (e.g., coatings issues, suppression pool and containment cleanliness issues, sump and strainer design issues, etc.)
B Qualitative assessment of the potential safety significance March 1999 of sump screen clogging in PWRs 3
Review of hydrodynamic load analyses for three BWRs who October 1998 have completed installation of their new strainers.
The above " sample tasks" represent parts of the technical support required with emphasis on the variety of technical support that would be required. The laboratory should be prepared to support the currently planned activities described above. The laboratory should also be 4
l I
prepared to write reports that identify and characterize significant issues raised during the work and their corresponding resolutions. Task descriptions, schedules, and reporting requirements will be specified in each project level SOW and task order issued in accordance with the procedures established in the following section of this statement of work.
The first project level statement of work is attached to this Tate of work.
PROCEDURES FOR PLACING TASK ORDERS 1.
When a need for a task assignment arises, the NRC project manager (PM) and the program technical monitor will contact the LANL principal investigator (or program manager) to discuss the work requirements and determine the availability of the personnel recommended by the laboratory, if qualified personnel are available to perform the work, the parties will reach agreement, in principle, on the level of effort and schedule required to complete the proposed task order. The NRC PM will provide a draft task order SOW for discussion purposes. in unique cases of long-term or complex task orders, a written cost or technical proposal may be requested to facilitate discussion and negotiation of the proposed task order.
2.
After reaching an agreement with the Laboratory's principal investigator or program manager, the NRC PM will issue the task order in writing to the Laboratory program manager. The task order willinclude the agreed-upon statement of work and will state the cost ceiling established to complete the task order.
3.
Task orders associated with each project will be numbered consecutively, as shown above (e.g., the second task order under the project would be numbered 1.2). Each project level task order will normally include the NRC technical assignment control (TAC) and NRR priority number.
4.
Within ten (10) working days after receipt of the task order, the LANL program manager shall ackriowledge receipt and acceptance of the task order by signing the task order transmittal letter in the space provided, and returning the original of the letter to the NRC PM. In the event that the laboratory requests a change in the agreed-upon scope, level of effort, cost, or schedule, the Laboratory program manager shallinitiate discussions with the NRC PM to reach a mutual agreement on the change. The Laboratory program m; ager shall make pen-and-ink changes to the task order transmittal letter, the j
statement of work, or attachment thereto, to document any agree-upon changes before j
returning them to the NRC PM.
5.
In the event that a work scope or cost ceiling modification is required after acceptance of j
the task order, the individual NRC PM or Laboratory principal investigator or project i
manager requesting the change shall initiate contact with the other to reach agreement.
Any resulting modification will be confirmed in writing by the person initiating the modification.
l 6.
If it becomes necessary to stop work or terminate a task order, the NRC PM will orally I
notify the Laboratory principal investigator or project manager. All stop work orders or terminations will be confirmed in writing by the NRC PM within ten (10) working days of the oral notification.
5
e 7.
In urgent situations, the NRC may require the Laboratory to start work on project level tasks before receipt of the written task order. In such cases, the Laboratory shall begin work on the task order (assuming availability of personnel and agreement on the SOW) j l
subject to the monetary limitation established for the task order by the NRC PM and agreed to by the Laboratory's principalinvestigator or program manager When this accelerated procedure is used, the Laboratory will begin negotiating the term's of a definitive task order with the NRC PM by the target date mutually agreed upon. The written task order will be issued by the NRC PM within ten (10) days of completion of the negotiations. The other terms of this section will apply.
8.
Funds for this project will be obligated incrementally commensurate with the number of task orders issued, the level of effort required to complete the task orders for the fiscal year plus a reasonable carryover.
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The level of effort is estimated at about 1.8 professional staff years over an 18 month period.
This estimate is provided for the purpose of preparing a proposal and is expected to change as work progresses.
A more definitive level of effort for each task will be specified in each Task SOW as Task Order proposals are requested from LANL.
DELIVERABLES Monthly Letter Status Reports Letter status reports shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of specific task orders (e.g., see attached SOW). As a minimum, each letter report shall provide a description of the work performed during the month, the status and current schedule for all ongoing projects, funds expended during the current report period, the cumulative funds expended, and the remaining funds available to the cost ceiling for the task. The monthly status report should also describe the basis for scheduler changes (e.g. reprioritization by the NRC PM of ongoing work, etc.), description of mny problems encountered which ri. ty affect meet the task requirements.
Technical Reportina Requirements Technical reports shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the specific task orders. The transmittalletter and cover page of each report, or other deliverables as appropriate, shall contain the Job Code Number (JCN), task order number and title, and, if assigned, the NRC TAC number.
The Laboratory shall submit all reports and documents in draft form to the NRC PM with a copy to the NRC technical monitor. The Laboratory shallincorporate NRC comments on the drafts into the final reports and documents and submit the reports to the NRC PM with a copy to the technical monitor.
6
~
I NRC FURNISHED MATERIALS Any reports, documents, equipment, and other materials that are required for the Laboratory to l
perform the authorized work will be stated in the SOW for each task order. These materials will be returned to the NRC at the completion of this contract.
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL For the purpose of providing a proposal, the following meetings and travel can be used:
1)
Six one-person, five-day trips (five days on-site) to six different Nuclear Power i
Plant sites.
l l
2)
Six two-person, three-day trips (three days on-site) to NRC Headquarters in
{
Rockville, MD.
1 LICENSEE FEE RECOVERY The licensee fee recovery status of tasks will be identified in the individual task SOWS.
j PROPERTY MANAGEMENT l
l Utilization Review it is not anticipated that the Laboratory will be required to purchase any equipment, including j
computer hardware or software to perform the work contemplated under this contract. however, if equipment is required, DOE or the Laboratory shall conduct a utilization review of DOE and other appropriate sources of not required, excess, and surplus property before purchasing the required equipment with NRC funds. Property identified during this review that meets NRC project needs shall be transferred to this project I lieu of purchasing new equipment. NRC written approval is required before equipment is acquired.
Reports DOE shall monitor property assigned to this contract on a regular basis to identify surplus property that was purchased by the NRC under the terms of the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Property not required shall be reported to the NRC for utilization screening in accordance with established procedures.
Before the close-out of this contract, a reconciliation report shall be prepared by DOE or the Laboratory to identify available equipment and material purchased with NRC funds. The report shall contain the MOU property description or nomenclature, manufacturer, model number, serial number, quantity, acquisition cost, receipt date, condition code, and property identification number. The report also shallidentify any active or contemplated NRC projects on which the MOU property could be used. If no MOU property is assigned to the contract, DOE shall proved 7
o
e a negative re,nort. Any MOU property requnng sprial handiorgior r,uunty, health, safety, or other reasons shall be noted as part of the report. This reporisha'l be submitted as soon as possible after a decision regarding contract completion o, ermination has bee made, but not later than 60 days after the expiration of the period of performance. The report shall be submitted to the NRC PM.
OTHER PROVISIONS Some proprietary information is anticipated in this contract. If any proprietary information is required, it will be stated in the individual task order and will be handled in accordance with NRC Management Directive 11.7.
I l
l I
1 l
l 8
1 l