ML20056F172

Ltr Contract,Awarding Task Order 14, IPE Review - Internal Events - Human Factors Only (Duane Arnold), to Contract NRC-04-91-069

ML20056F172
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	04/14/1993
From:	Mattia M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Haas P CONCORD ASSOCIATES, INC.
References
CON-FIN-L-1934, CON-NRC-04-91-069, CON-NRC-4-91-69 NUDOCS 9308260143
Download: ML20056F172 (8)

Text

P DL p** "4%

g% 1+, UNITED STATES y'

j C

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 205554001 l

\ ,* /

• • • j Concord Associates, Inc.

ATIN: Pa.s1 M. Haas 725 Pellissippi Parkway 14 E Suite 101, Box 6 Knoxville, TN 37933

Subject:

Contract No. NRC-04-91-069, Task Order No. 14 Entitled,

" Internal Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews - Internal Events -

Human Factors Only (Duane Arnold)"  ;

This confirms the verbal authorization provided to you on April 14, 1993, to commence work under the subject task order.

In accordance with Section G.9 entitled, " Task Order Procedures" of the '

subject contract, this letter definitizes Task Order No.14. This effort shall be performed in accordance with the enclosed Statement of Work.

Task Order No. 14 shall be in effect from April 14, 1993 through April 13, 1994, with a total cost ceiling of $16,739.00. The amount of $15,644.00 represents the total estimated reimbursable costs and the amount of

$1,095.00 represents the fixed fee.

The obligated amount of this task order is $16,739.00.

Accounting Data for Task Order No. 14 is as follows:

APPN No.: 31X0200.360 B&R No.. 36019202300 FIN No.: L-1934 BOC: 2542 OBLIGATED AMOUNT: $16,739.00 RES IDENTIFIER: RES-C93-076 The following individuals are considered to be essential to the successful performance for work hereunder: Paul M. Haas and Philip J. Swanson.

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.

}

9308260143 930414 .

PDR CONTR NRC-04-91-069 PDR A[

1 l

NRC-04-91-069 Task Order No. 14 Page 2 i Your contacts during the course of this task order are:

Technical Matters: John Flack l Project Officer j (301) 492-3979 Contractual Matters: Edna Knox-Davin Contract Administrator (301) 492-4731 Please indicate your acceptance of this Task Order No. 14 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,

/ /-

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

Office of Administration l Enclosure- I As stated l ACCEPTED: ggyffkf[afg$FL-NAME: Paul M. Haas TITLE: President DATE: April 21, 1993 i

~

^ ENCLOSURE 1 Contract NRC-04-91-069 Concord Associates, Inc.

STATEMENT O' WORK Task Order - 14 TITLE: Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Reviews,  :'

Internal Events Human Reliability Analysis Only (Duane Arnold)

DOCKET NUMBER: 50-331 NRC PROJECT MANAGER: John H. Flack, RES (301-492-3979)

NRC TEAM LEADER FOR DUANE ARNOLD: Ed Chow, RES (301-492-3984)

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

PERIOD OF PERFORMNCE: April 14, 1993 to April 13,1994 1

BACKGROUND l

l On November 23, 1988, the NlC issued Generic Letter 88-20, " Individual Plant Examination," which stated that licensees of existing plants should perform a i systematic examination (IPE) to identify any plant-specific vulnerabilities to' l 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 tn , 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' l probability of core damage and radioactive releases by modifying procedures  !

and hardware to prevent or mitigate severe accidents. All IPE submittals will l l

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 includes the examination and evaluation of the Duane Arnold IPE submittal, specifically 1 with regard to the human reliability analysis. The contractor review will be of limited scope and consist of a " submittal only" review. The " submittal 4 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 o

l l

. l l By identifying the IPE's strengths and weaknesses, extracting important insights and findings, and providing a comparison to staff reviewed and 1 accepted PSAs (e.g. NUREG-1150, PSAs identified in NUREG-1335 Appendix B), it  !

is expected that the NRC will be in a better position to expeditiously 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 subm.ittal as described in the work requirements listed below.

l l

WORK RE0VIREMENTS AND SCHEDULE The contractor will perform a " submittal only" review of the Duane Arnold human reliability 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 reference as well as other interim guidance provided by the NRC ,

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

Subtask 1. Review and Identification of IPE Insichts .

Perform a " submittal only" review of human reliability analysis and identify important IPE insights by completing the NRC IPE Data Summary Sheets. (The sheets identify the information that will be entered into the IPE insights and findings data base.) During the review, focus on the areas described below under " Work Requirement." The contractor will note any: (1) inconsistencies  ;

between methodology employed in the IPE submittals and other PSA studies, (2) inconsistencies between the submittal's IPE findings and findings stemming from other PSAs (See NUREG-1335, Appendix B). The contractor will respond explicitly to each work requirement by noting important review findings including any IPE strengths and weaknesses. The contractor will also list under each listed work requirement, any questions (back to the licensee) associated with the lack of appropriate information or need for further clarification.

1 Work Recuirement 1.1. Eerform a General Review of the Human Reliability Anaevsis Check the following:

1.1.1 The IPE submittal is essentially complete with respect to the type  ;

of information and level of detail requested in the IPE Submittal Guidance Document, NUREG-1335. List any obvious omissions.

1.1.2 The employed HRA methodology is clearly described and justified for selection.

1.1.3 The methodology (including the human action taxonomy) employed is capable of identifying important human actions, and contains a discussion of the most important human actions and errors.

2

a I

l t

i  ;

l I

i 1.1.4 The IPE submittal employed a viable process to confirm that the l IPE represents the as-built, as-operated plant.

1.1.5 The HRA had been peer-reviewed to help assure the analytic  ;

techniques were correctly applied.

Work Reauirement 1,2. Review the Most Likelv Seauences that Could Occur at  ;

the Plant Check the following:

1.2.1 The accident sequences appropriately considered human actions consistent with NUREG-1150 and other NRC accepted PSAs (see table l NUREG-1335 Appendix B). +

1.2.2 The accident sequences screened out because of low human error  ;

(see NUREG-1335, Section 2.1.6.6) appears appropriate, based on l l HRA techniques employed.

1 l Work Reauirement 1.3. Revjew the Ouantitative Nature of the IPE Submittal  :

l Check the following: j 1.3.1 The employed human error probability (HEP) screening values appear capable of screening jn significant human errors.

1.3.2 The IPE developed human error probabilities (HEPs) for sisaf ficant human actions, or provided rationale for using screening values.

1.3.3 Sources of generic human reliability data used in the IPE were  ;

identified and rationale for their use provided. Generic human I error probability (HEP) data were modified using plant-specific '!

Performance Shaping Factors (PSFs) as appropriate, and rationale l provided for selection of employed PSFs. j i

1.3.4 The recovery method is clearly described and credit for recovery )

' actions appears justified. j l

Work Reauirement 1.4. Review the IPE Anoroach to Reducina the Probability of l

Core Damaae or Fission Product Release Check the following:

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

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

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

3

l. .. l Work Reauirement 2.0. Comolete Data Sheets  !

l Complete the NRC data summary sheets and note lack of information, as appropriate, 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. Discuss any important or unique plant i characteristics. Note plants with similar features and any important  !

insights stemming from other relevant PSA studies. 1 II. Contractor Review Findings Explicitly address each work requirement element listed above under subtask I, " 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. l IV. IPE Evaluation and Data Summary Sheets l Attach the completed IPE Data Summary Sheets.

REPORT RE0UIREMENTS Technical Reports i The contractor will submit to the NRC technical monitor four copies of the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) six weeks after the initiation of this i 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 i NRC IPE Team Leader). The TER shall summarize all findings, results, and l 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 4

1 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.

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

The NRC staff shall review the TER submittal, prepare questions for the licensee, and submit a package for the licensee's response within two to three weeks after the contractor's presentation. The licensee is given at least 60 l

days to respond to NRC's questions. Upon receipt of the licensee responses, the NRC staff will review the responses against the TER within one to two months after the receipt of the responses to determine the need for further clarification. If further clarification is required, the contractor shall provide NRC with their response.

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

l l

BUSINESS LETTER REPORT \

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

MEETINGS AND TRAVEL One, one person trip to NRC Headquarters to present and discuss review -

findings and conclusions.

I i

l I

i 5

.. i l

HRC FURNISHED MATERIAL Licensee's IPE submittal.

I TECHNICAL DIRECTION The NRC Project Manager is:

John H. Flack Severe Accident Issues Branch Division of Safety Issue Resolution U.S. NRC, Hail Stop NL/S 324 Washington, D.C. 20555 Telephone No. (301) FTS-492-3979 f

l i

i

)

I 6

I

-!