ML18234A046

Interagency Agreement No. 31310018F00038

ML18234A046
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/22/2018
From:	Jeffrey Mitchell Acquisition Management Division
To:
References
31310018F0038
Download: ML18234A046 (14)

Text

1. IAA NO. PAGE OF INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT 31310018F0038 1 3

2. ORDER NO. 3. REQUISITION NO. 4. SOLICITATION NO.

RES-18-0321

5. EFFECTIVE DATE 6. AWARD DATE 7. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE 08/15/2018 08/15/2018 08/15/2018 TO 12/31/2020

8. SERVICING AGENCY 9. DELIVER TO OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LAB MEREDITH CARR ALC: US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUNS: 012075755 +4: MAIL STOP TWFN 10A12 US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 11555 ROCKVILLE PIKE OAK RIDGE NATION LABORATORY SITE OFFICE ROCKVILLE MD 20852 BUILDING 4500N MS 6269 PO BOX 2008 OAK RIDGE TN 37831-6269 POC Deborah Garland, CO TELEPHONE NO. (865) 241-9566

10. REQUESTING AGENCY 11. INVOICE OFFICE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT DIVISION US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ALC: 31000001 ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH DUNS: 040535809 +4:

US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11555 ROCKVILLE PIKE ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH MAILSTOP O3-E17A 11555 ROCKVILLE PIKE ROCKVILLE MD 20852-2738 ROCKVILLE MD 20852-2738 POC Jeffrey R. Mitchell TELEPHONE NO. 301-415-5074

12. ISSUING OFFICE 13. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 US NRC - HQ ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT DIVISION MAIL STOP TWFN-07B20M WASHINGTON DC 20555-0001 14. PROJECT ID

15. PROJECT TITLE METHODS FOR ESTIMATING JOINT PROBABILITIES OF COIN

16. ACCOUNTING DATA 2018-X0200-FEEBASED-60-60D002-11-6-182-1014-251D

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT The NRC and the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) hereby enter into this Task Order 31310018F0038 under Agreement, NRC-HQ-25-14-D-0004 for the project entitled, "Methods for Estimating Joint Probabilities of Coincident and Correlated Flooding Mechanisms for Nuclear Power Plant Flood Hazard Assessments ".

The performance period for this agreement shall commence on August 15, 2018 and will expire on December 31, 2020.

Continued ...

23. PAYMENT PROVISIONS 24. TOTAL AMOUNT

$192,625.00 25a. SIGNATURE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE (SERVICING) 26a. SIGNATURE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE (REQUESTING) 25b. NAME AND TITLE 25c. DATE 26b. CONTRACTING OFFICER 26c. DATE JEFFREY R. MITCHELL 08/22/2018

IAA NO ORDER NO PAGE OF 31310018F0038 3 3 parties.

ALC: 31000001 DUNS: 040535809 TAS: 31X0200.320 The total amount of award: $480,000.00. The obligation for this award is shown in box 24.

STATEMENT OF WORK NRC Agreement Number NRC Agreement NRC Task Order Number NRC Task Order Modification Number Modification Number (If Applicable)

NRCHQ2514D0004 31310018F0038 Project Title Methods for Estimating Joint Probabilities of Coincident and Correlated Flooding Mechanisms for Nuclear Power Plant Flood Hazard Assessments Common Cost Center Code B&R Number DOE Laboratory 11-6-213-1014 Oak Ridge National Laboratory NRC Requisitioning Office Office of Research NRC Form 187, Contract Security and Classification Requirements Involves Proprietary Information Applicable Involves Sensitive Unclassified Not Applicable Non Fee-Recoverable Fee-Recoverable (If checked, complete all applicable sections below)

Docket Number (If Fee-Recoverable/Applicable) Inspection Report Number (If Fee Recoverable/Applicable)

Technical Assignment Control Number (If Fee- Technical Assignment Control Number Description (If Recoverable/Applicable) Fee-Recoverable/Applicable)

1. BACKGROUND Regulatory Context:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has developed regulations regarding siting and design of nuclear power plants (NPPs) aimed at providing safety from various natural hazards, including flooding. 10 CFR Part 100 addresses siting criteria. 10 CFR Parts 50 and Part 52 address design criteria for nuclear power plants with respect to natural hazards.

10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 2 Design bases for protection against natural phenomena provides the regulatory criterion for protection of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) important to safety against natural phenomena. GDC-2 states that SSCs important to safety must be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated. The regulation also states that the design bases shall reflect appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena.

Statement of Work Page 1

10 CFR Part 52, more specifically 10 CFR Part 52.17(a)(1)(vi), for early site permits (ESPs) and 10 CFR Part 52.79 (a)(1)(iii) for combined licenses provide the requirements for new reactor applications as they relate to the hydrologic characteristics of the proposed site. These regulations require consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area and with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated.

The requirements to consider physical site characteristics (including hydrologic features) in site evaluations are specified in 10 CFR Part 100.10(c) for applications before January 10, 1997, and 10 CFR Part 100.20(c) for applications on or after January 10, 1997.

Current Guidance:

It is well understood that flooding is often the result of multiple forcing mechanisms. Examples include elevated sea levels caused by concurrent waves and storm tides, coastal flooding caused by both storm tides and high river flows and riverine flooding resulting from extreme rainfall occurring during snowmelt events. However, at this time, comprehensive and consistent guidance that supports risk-informed decision-making with respect to estimating joint probabilities of coincident and correlated flooding mechanisms for nuclear power plant flood hazard assessments is lacking. Existing deterministic guidance relies upon highly stylized discrete combinations of contributing forcing mechanisms along with empirical or qualitative treatment of probability.

NRCs current regulatory guidance for new reactors on estimation of design basis flooding hazards, is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.59 Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants (RG-1.59, U.S. NRC 1977). ANSI/ANS-2.8 Determining Design Basis Flooding at Nuclear Power Plant Sites (ANS 1992) has also been used by licensees and NRC for design basis flood estimation at new NPPs. These documents adopt a deterministic, standards-based approach to flood hazard assessment, employing deterministic concepts such as probable maximum precipitation, (PMP), probable maximum flood (PMF) etc. They do not provide quantitative information useful for risk-informed decision-making, and many of the analytical techniques discussed are seriously outdated.

Technical Context:

Existing deterministic approaches for flood hazard assessment (e.g., ANS-2.8-1992, NUREG/CR-7046) recognize that no single flood-causing mechanism or event is adequate as a design basis for NPPs. The solution adopted in existing deterministic approaches has been to identify combinations of flood-causing mechanisms that, collectively, do provide an adequate design basis. Typically, a few alternative mechanism combination sets are identified for different settings and scenarios (e.g., a set of alternative combinations for open coastal settings subject to storm surge or tsunamis, a set of alternative combinations for a riverine setting subject to flooding due to rainfall or snowmelt).

Because extreme events, such as a probable maximum flood or probable maximum storm surge, are by definition rare events, combining two or more of these events is discouraged.

Instead, it is advised that only one of the flood-causing events in the combination should be a probable maximum event, while the others should be more commonly occurring events. The combinations identified in ANS-2.8-1992 and continued in NUREG/CR-7046 were selected to have an estimated annual exceedance probability of less than 1 x 10-6 (ANS 1992). ANS-2.8-1992 provided some supporting information related to the probability-of exceedance of selected combined events; however, rigorous statistical analyses for these estimates was not performed.

Statement of Work Page 2

This project will focus mainly on summarizing and providing a critical review of the state of practice in estimating joint probabilities for coincident and/or correlated flooding mechanisms that may affect NPPs in a variety of settings. Where feasible and appropriate, promising extensions of existing practice or novel approaches will be investigated.

This research project is part of the NRCs Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment (PFHA)

Research program. The proposed work will aid development of guidance on the use of PFHA methods and support risk-informing NRCs licensing framework (flood hazard design standards at proposed new facilities as well as the significance determination process for evaluating potential deficiencies related to flood protection at operating facilities) in the context of flooding hazards due to dam failure. The guidance developed will support and enhance NRCs capacity to perform thorough and efficient reviews of license applications and license amendment requests. They will also support risk-informed significance determination of inspection findings, unusual events and other oversight activities.

2. OBJECTIVE The objective of this Agreement is for the DOE Laboratory to assist NRC in developing the technical basis for guidance on developing flood hazard curves for combinations of mechanisms. Knowledge transfer and training for NRC staff to guide them in performing reviews of flooding hazard assessments are also important objectives of this project.

This project will seek to summarize and critically review approaches and methods for developing flooding hazard curves that include coincident and/or correlated flooding mechanisms in a variety of settings. Flooding mechanisms to be addressed will include, but not be limited to:

• Rainfall and/or snowmelt

• Antecedent soil moisture or snowpack conditions

• Wind waves

• Storm surge

• Tsunami

• Ice effects

• Dam failure Settings and scenarios to be examined will include, but not be limited to:

• Riverine settings subject to warm season precipitation processes

• Riverine settings subject to cool season precipitation processes (e.g., snowpack, snowmelt, ice effects)

• Riverine settings subject to dam failure

• Open coastal settings subject to surge, seiche, tsunamis

• Closed or semi-enclosed coastal settings subject to surge and seiche A number of approaches and methods have been applied in various disciplines to estimate flooding hazards due to coincident or correlated mechanisms. Approaches range from purely statistical (e.g. multivariate extreme value analysis) to simulation-based (e.g. continuous simulation, event-based simulation). Methods are relatively mature and standardized for some combinations (e.g. joint probability of waves and water levels in coastal engineering), but relatively under-developed for others (e.g., dependence between extreme rainfall and storm surge). This project will examine available approaches for flooding phenomena of interest to Statement of Work Page 3

NPP flood hazards assessment, critically review selected methods, identify best practices, and develop illustrative example cases of their application. Because assessment of flooding and modeling of flood causing mechanisms are subject to considerable uncertainties, the project will also focus on for characterizing and quantifying key uncertainties to support risk-informed decision-making.

3. SCOPE OF WORK The following list provides the general scope of work (SOW) under this project. To accomplish the objectives of this project the DOE Laboratory will:

1. Provide a summary (literature review) of the current state of practice in developing flooding hazard curves for coincident and/or correlated flooding mechanisms.

2. Conduct a critical assessment of selected methods and approaches summarized in (1) to identify best practices, and where feasible suggest extensions or improvements that could substantially improve upon current practices.

3. Develop a set of example cases to illustrate use of selected best practices.

4. Prepare a draft NUREG/CR report summarizing activities 1-3.

5. Assist the NRC in conducting a training workshop/seminar at the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD covering the topics in items 1-3.

6. Prepare final NUREG/CR report.

The DOE Laboratory must provide all resources necessary to accomplish the tasks and deliverables described in this SOW.

4. SPECIFIC TASKS This section describes the specific tasks under this Agreement.

Task 1: Current State of Practice in Developing Hazard Curves for Coincident and/or Correlated Flooding Mechanisms The DOE Laboratory will conduct research to develop a comprehensive summary of the current state of practice in assessing flooding hazards due to coincident and/or correlated flooding mechanisms. The intent is address the broad range of phenomena, settings, and available analysis approaches and methods (e.g., a wide-ranging survey of approaches and methods that have been applied to various flooding phenomena and settings).

This survey will be challenging since, due to the multidisciplinary nature of the flood hazard assessment in general and the several distinct settings in which floods of interest to NRC can occur, the scientific literature to be covered is fragmented. Various aspects of flood hazard assessment are examined in journals devoted to meteorology, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering, civil engineering, coastal engineering, physical oceanography, natural hazards, risk analysis, applied mathematics, probability and statistics. Therefore the DOE Laboratory will conduct an initial reconnaissance level review, using the mechanisms and settings listed in Section 2 as a starting point, to prepare a work plan outlining the scope of a full survey for NRC approval. In preparing this plan, the DOE Laboratory will survey and establish a structure to address the distinction between coincident and correlated hazard mechanisms and the characterization of those hazards.

Statement of Work Page 4

A draft of the full survey will be provided for NRC review and comment. After addressing NRC comments the literature survey will be submitted as a DOE Laboratory Technical Memorandum Report and made publically available.

Deliverables: Work plan, Draft and Final DOE Laboratory Technical Memorandum Report Task 2: Critical Assessment of Selected Methods and Approaches Based on the summary developed in Task 1, the DOE Laboratory will conduct research to provide a critical review of selected approaches. Task 1 is designed to be a wide-ranging survey of approaches and methods that have been applied to various flooding phenomena and settings. Task 2 will comprise a critical review of the methods identified in Task 1 to focus further efforts on a smaller collection of methods that are sufficiently general or flexible for application to the range of flooding phenomena expected at NPPs in the U.S. (it is anticipated that one single method may not be optimal for all phenomena and settings). Where feasible and appropriate, promising extensions of existing practice or novel approaches may also be investigated.

The DOE Laboratory will prepare a work plan for NRC approval outlining the scope of the critical review. A draft of the critical review will be provided for NRC review and comment. After addressing NRC comments the literature survey will be submitted as a DOE Laboratory Technical Memorandum Report and made publically available..

Deliverables: Work Plan, Draft and Final DOE Laboratory Technical Memorandum Report of Critical Assessments Task 3: Develop Example Cases to Illustrate Best Practices Based on the critical review developed in Task 2, the DOE Laboratory will develop a set of illustrative examples for selected approaches and settings. The DOE Laboratory will prepare a work plan identifying the methods and example cases to be considered for NRC approval. A draft of the best practices report will be provided for NRC review and comment. After addressing NRC comments the best practices report will be submitted as a DOE Laboratory Technical Memorandum Report and made publically available.

Deliverables: Work Plan, Draft and Final DOE Laboratory Technical Memorandum of Example Cases Task 4: Knowledge Transfer Task 4a: Draft NUREG/CR Report Based on the work in Tasks 1-3, the DOE Laboratory will prepare a draft NUREG/CR report.

The DOE Laboratory will organize a peer review of the report using one or two experts from outside of the organization performing the work of this project. The draft NUREG/CR report will be submitted to NRC for review and comment in advance of the training seminar in Task 4b.

Deliverables: Draft NUREG/CR Task 4b: Knowledge Transfer Seminar for NRC Staff Statement of Work Page 5

The DOE Laboratory will assist RES staff to develop and conduct a knowledge transfer seminar based on the draft NUREG/CR, with a focus on items in tasks 2 and 3. The seminar will be held at the at the NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD. The seminar will include basics theory as needed, and examples to illustrate application of methods.

The DOE Laboratory will work with the NRC COR to develop an agenda for a seminar 1-2 days in length. The agenda shall not go outside the scope of Tasks 1-3. The DOE Laboratory will provide the materials for the seminar in paper and electronic format.

Deliverables: Seminar Agenda, seminar materials.

Task 4c: Finalize NUREG/CR Report Following the peer reviews and NRC reviews, as well as feedback from the seminar in Task 4b, the DOE Laboratory will address comments and prepare a Final NUREG/CR report for delivery to the NRC.

Deliverable: Final NUREG/CR Report

5. DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULE The main project deliverables will be (1) monthly letter status reports (MLSRs); (2) work plans; (3) DOE laboratory technical memorandum reports, a training workshop, and a NUREG/CR report summarizing the results of Tasks 1-3. As they are completed, NRC will review and provide comments on the letter reports and draft reports to DOE Laboratory, in order to ensure the timely completion of the NUREG/CR reports.

Task Deliverable/Milestone Description Due Date Number Monthly Letter Status Report 20th calendar day of the following month 1 DOE Laboratory will provide work plan for Task 1 NLT 1 month from the commencement of this agreement 1 DOE Laboratory will provide draft TM report for NLT 4 months from the Task 1 commencement of this agreement 1 DOE Laboratory will provide publically available NLT 3 months after receipt of final TM report for Task 1 NRC comments on the Draft Letter Report 2 DOE Laboratory will provide work plan for Task 2 NLT 7 months from the commencement of this agreement 2 DOE Laboratory will provide draft TM report for NLT 12 months from the Task 2 commencement of this agreement Statement of Work Page 6

2 DOE Laboratory will provide publically available NLT 3 month after receipt of final TM report for Task 2 NRC comments on the Draft Letter Report 3 DOE Laboratory will provide work plan for Task 3 NLT 15 months from the commencement of this agreement 3 DOE Laboratory will provide draft TM report for NLT 18 months from the Task 3 commencement of this agreement.

3 DOE Laboratory will provide publically available NLT 3 months after receipt of final letter TM for Task 3 NRC comments on the Draft Letter Report 4 DOE Laboratory will provide a draft NUREG/CR NLT 22 months from the Report commencement of this agreement.

5 DOE Laboratory will provide a seminar agenda NLT 24 months from the and deliver seminar and seminar materials commencement of this agreement 6 DOE Laboratory will provide final NUREG/CR NLT 1 month after receipt of Report NRC comments on the Draft NUREG/CR Report

6. TECHNICAL AND OTHER SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED This project requires broad technical expertise in the field of water resources engineering and specific technical expertise in the following areas: 1) hydrometeorology; 2) hydrology; 3) coastal hydrodynamics; 4) flood hazard modeling; and 5) probabilistic modeling. This project also requires broad knowledge of natural hazards assessment and risk analysis.

7. MEETINGS AND TRAVEL The Principal Investigator (PI) will participate in Annual PFHA Research Workshops at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD. NRC plans two such workshops during the period of performance for this project.

The PI will also make a two-day trip to NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD for the technology-transfer/training seminar (Task 4b).

8. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Monthly Letter Status Report A Monthly Letter Status Report (MLSR) will be submitted to the NRC Contracting Officer Representative by the 20th of the month following the month to be reported with copies to the Statement of Work Page 7

Not Applicable.

12. RESEARCH QUALITY Each year the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards assesses the quality of NRC research programs. Within the context of their reviews of RES programs, the definition of quality research is based upon several major characteristics:

Results meet the objectives (75% of overall score)

Justification of major assumptions (12%)

Soundness of technical approach and results (52%)

Uncertainties and sensitivities addressed (11%)

Documentation of research results and methods is adequate (25% of overall score)

Clarity of presentation (16%)

Identification of major assumptions (9%)

It is the responsibility of the DOE Laboratory to ensure that these quality criteria are adequately addressed throughout the course of the research that is performed. The NRC COR will review all research products with these criteria in mind.

13. STANDARDS FOR CONTRACTORS WHO PREPARE NUREG-SERIES MANUSCRIPTS The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) began to capture most of its official records electronically on January 1, 2000. The NRC will capture each final NUREG-series publication in its native application. Therefore, please submit your final manuscript that has been approved by your NRC Project Manager in both electronic and camera-ready copy.

The final manuscript shall be of archival quality and comply with the requirements of NRC Management Directive 3.7 NUREG-Series Publications. The document shall be technically edited consistent with NUREG-1379, Rev. 2 (May 2009) "NRC Editorial Style Guide." The goals of the "NRC Editorial Style Guide" are readability and consistency for all agency documents.

All format guidance, as specified in NUREG-0650, Preparing NUREG-Series Publications,"

Rev. 2 (January 1999), will remain the same with one exception: the NUREG-series designator is no longer required on the bottom of each page of the manuscript. The NRC will assign this designator when we send the camera-ready copy to the printer and will place the designator on the cover, title page, and spine. The designator for each report will no longer be assigned when the decision to prepare a publication is made. The NRC's Publishing Services Branch will inform the NRC COR of the assigned designator when the final manuscript is sent to the printer.

For the electronic manuscript, the Contractor shall prepare the text in Microsoft Word, and use any of the following file types for charts, spreadsheets, and the like.

File Types to be Used for NUREG-Series Publications File Type File Extension MicrosoftWord .doc Statement of Work Page 9

MicrosoftExcel .xls MicrosoftAccess .mdb Portable Document Format .pdf This list is subject to change if new software packages come into common use at NRC or by our licensees or other stakeholders that participate in the electronic submission process. If a portion of your manuscript is from another source and you cannot obtain an acceptable electronic file type for this portion (e.g., an appendix from an old publication), the NRC can, if necessary, create a tagged image file format (file extension.tif) for that portion of your report.

Note that you should continue to submit original photographs, which will be scanned, since digitized photographs do not print well.

If you choose to publish a compact disk (CD) of your publication, place on the CD copies of the manuscript in both (1) a portable document format (PDF); (2) a Microsoft Word file format, and (3) an Adobe Acrobat Reader, or, alternatively, print instructions for obtaining a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader on the back cover insert of the jewel box.

14. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Not Applicable.

15. REFERENCES ANS (1992). Determining Design Basis Flooding at Nuclear Power Plant Sites. La Grange Park, IL, American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society.

DEFRA (2005a). Joint Probability: Dependence Mapping and Best Practice, R&D Technical Report FD2308/TR1, United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA (2005b). Use of Joint Probability Methods in Flood Management: A Guide to Best Practice, R&D Technical Report FD2308/TR2, United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs U.S. NRC (1977). Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 2. Washington, DC, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

U.S. NRC (1987). Evaluation of External Hazards to Nuclear Power Plants in the United States (NUREG/CR-5042). Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

U.S. NRC (1988). Supplement 4 to NRC Generic Letter 88-20, Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities". Washington, DC, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisison.

U.S. NRC (2011). Design-Basis Flood Estimation for Site Characterization at Nuclear Power Plants in the United States of America. Washington, DC, prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratories for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

U.S. NRC (2012). Request for Information Pusuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1,2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Statement of Work Page 10

U.S. NRC (2013). Interim Staff Guidance for Estimating Flooding Hazards due to Dam Failure, JLD-ISG-13-01. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Japan Lessons-Learned Directorate.

Statement of Work Page 11