ML20210F449

Ltr Contract:Mod 2 to Task Order 17 Under Contract NRC-04-95-065

ML20210F449
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/20/1999
From:	Mace M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Schossow F ICF, INC.
References
CON-FIN-J-5236, CON-NRC-04-95-065 NUDOCS 9907300175
Download: ML20210F449 (9)

Text

,

F

}) (f)

M#%

l u

UNITED STATES

~f j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001 00l !$ 199g e,,,,

ICF Incorporated ATTN: Ms. Frances Schossow Project Administrator 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031-1207

Subject:

Modification No. 2 to Task Order No.17 under Contract No. NRC-04-95-065 The purpose of this modification is to (1) add within scope work to the Statement of Work in accordance with the contractor's letter dated 05/11/99, as revised on 06/14/99 and the attacheo pages; (2) increase the ceiling by $168,021 from $106,451 to $274,472, all of which represents the reimbursable costs; (3) increase the obligated amount by $4,500 from $106,451 to $110,951; and (4) amend the expiration date to 03/30/2000. The subject modification shall be effective from the date both parties have signed this document.

Accounting Data for Task Order No.17, Modification No. 2 is as follows:

A P P N N o.:

31X0200 B&R No. -

95015203115 Job No..

J5236 BOC No.

252A Amt. Obligated:

$4,500.00 A summary of obligations for this task order from award date through the date of this action is given below:

Total FY98 Obligation Amount:

$ 60,000.00 Total FY99 Otzligati.onAmount: -

$ 50,951.00 Cumulative i'otal $f'NRb ObligMions:

$110,951.00 This modification obligates FY99. funds in the amount of $4,500.00.

The issuance of this modification does not amend any other terms or conditions of the subject task order.

t

\\

\\

30N79 moi 9907300175 990720 PDR CONTR NRC-04-95-065 PDR

r

-2?

Contract No. NRC-04-95-065 Mod!fication No. 2 to Task Order No.17 Please indicate your acceptance of Modificat;on No. 2 to Task Order No.17 by having an official, authorized to bind your organization, execute three (3) copies of this document in the space provided and return two (2) copies to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Ms. Amy Siller, ADM/DCPM/CMB1, Mail Stop T-7-1-2, Washington, D.C. 20555. You should retain the third copy for your records.

Should you have any questions regarding this modification, please contact the contract specialist, Ms. Amy Siller, on (301) 415-6747.

Sincerely,

[ -+

ary Mace, C ntiacthg Officer Contract Management Branch 1 Division of Contracts and Property Management Office of Administration A

PTED:

(

/

h l

NhME

~

~

in rG /LWl TITLE 7

I kb9 i

' ATE I

I i

l l

l

\\

l I

A O.

v Statement of Work

~

TASK ORDER # 17 Modification #1 NRC-04-95-065 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT RULEMAKING Geological and Seismological Characteristic for Siting and Design of Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installatior's,10 CFR Part 72 C

BACKGROUND:

The technical basis for NRC staff decisions pertaining to the revision of the Geological and Seismological Characteristics for Siting and Design of Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage instahations (ISFSI) (10 CFR Part 72) needs to be established and documented. The revision to Part 72 will be structured after Section 100.23, the seismic portion of Part 60, and the seismic portion of proposed Part 63.

The rule language will be similar to that contained in.Section 100.23:

"(1) Determination of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion, The Safe Sht.tdown Earthquake Ground Motion for the site is characterized by both horizontal and vertical tree-field ground motion response spectra at the free ground surface. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion for the site is determined considering the results of the investigations required by paragraph (c) of this section. Uncertainties are inherent in such estimates. These uncertainties must be addressed through an appropriate analysis, such as a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis or suitable sensitivity analyses. Paragraph IV(a)(1) of Appendix 8 to Part 50 of this chapter defines the minimum Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion for design."

The technical Justification for addressing uncertainties and for using probabil stic eeismic hazard analysis can be found in SECY-96-118 and the Stater! dnt of Considerations for the final rule (61 FR C5157).

In Part 50, certain structures, systems, and components (SSCs), including their foundations and supports, are designated as Seismic Category I and should be designed to withstand the effects of the safo shutdown earthquake (SSE) ground motion and remain functional. SSCs that are classified as Seismic Category I are designed to the SSE, and the analyses is subject to review by the staff. SSCs that are not classified as Seismic Category I are designed to something else;

- for example, local building codes. These SSCs receive limited staff review.

c e

.+

%/

.a I

2"-

i l

l In Parts 60 and 63, simplistically stated, the SSCs are placed in one of two categories; the first is equivalent to the SSE at a nuclear power plant, the second is a lower level. Hence, the characterization of a " graded approach" because the design levelis based on safety significance. Analyses associated with these two categories is subject to staff review. Like Part 50, there is a third category where the SSCs are designed to local building codes and receive limited staff review. Topical Report YMP/TR-003-NP, "Preclosure Seismic Design Methodology for a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain," describes the application of the graded approach to seismic design that is acceptable to the NRC staff. The graded approach and associated design guidance contained in DOE Standard-1020 has not been accepted by the NRC staff.

l l

OBJECTIVE:

L 4

To provide a Regulatory Analysis (RA), an Environmental Assessment (EA), an information collection burden report, and an analysis of public comments on the proposed rule.

To support preparing an RA and EA, the development of a technical basis is needed to address l

uncertainties and use of probabilistic seismic hazards analysis for the proposed rule.

SUBTASKS:

There are five sebtasks to be performed under this task order. First, to support the rulemaking package, the contractor shall perform analyses for development of techncial basis to address l

l the uncertainties and perform probabilistic seismic hazards analysis to be used in conjunction with preparing the RA and EA. Second, the contractor shall provide a draft Preliminary RA that l

will contain the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments to Part 72. After receipt of the l

NRC comments on the draft Preliminary RA, the contractor shall finalize the Preliminary RA.

Third, the contractor shall provide a draft Preliminary EA. After receipt of the NRC comments on the draft Preliminary EA, the contractor shall finalize the Preliminary EA. Fourth, the contractor shall provide an information collection buiden report for the proposed rule amendments. Fifth, the contractor shall perform an analysis of public comments submitted on the proposed rule and document the results for the NRC.

WORKSCOPE:

The workscope for the five subtasks will be as folicws:

I 1.

Development of technical basis and supporting documents.

1 l

1 1

V

~

3~-

1.1 Recommend if the Part 72 rule should be based on one design level for everything (Part 50 approach) or a graded approach with two design levels (Parts 60 and 63 approach).

Document the technical basis for the recommendation.

1.2 Based on input from nationally recognized experts, ISFSI fragility and probabilistic risk assessment data and other sources of pertinent information, recommend an appropriate retum period / reference probability (see Regulatory Guide 1.165, Appendix B) to be used

)

in subsequent analyses (see Regulatory Guide 1.165, Appendix C). If the Parts 60 and

~

63 graded approach is recommended, two retum periods / reference probabilities will be needed and a document, similar to Regulatory Guide 1.29, shall be developed stating what SSCs/ functions are designed to each retum period / reference probability.

Document the technical basis for the recommendations.

1.3 Section 2.2, Step 1, of NUREG/CR-6606 justifies the use of the 5 and 10Hz ground motion measures for nuclear power plant applications. Verify that this is appropriate for the ISFSI covered by the proposed rulemaking. Also verify the appropriateness to ISFSI of the scaling of the site-specific spectral shape recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.165, Appendix F). Document the technical basis for the decision.

1.4 Review the studies and analyses in NUREG/CR-6606 that were performed to support the technical positions in Regulatory Guide 1.165. Identify, by section or table number, the studies or analyses that will be performed to support the regulatory guide that accompanies the Part 72 rule. Provide a short justification for the studies and analyses that are not recommended, i

Based on: 1) the plant sites used in support or Regulatory Guide 1.165; 2) sites where ISFSI are currently located or proposed; and 3) the primary / secondary site soil conditions, recommend sites that will be included in NUREG/CR-6606 equivalent studies and analyses.

The scope of the studies and analyses and the locations that will be studied (reference sites) must be approved by the NRC before significant work is started.

1.5 Review Regulatory Guide 1.165 and Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.2. Recommend changes that are appropriate for ISFSI applications; for instance, the radii of investigations in Regulatory Position 1.1, the investigations to characterize seismic sources (Appcndix D), and the evaluation of new information (Appendix E). These changes wi!! be the basis for a new regulatory guide that will accompany the Part 72 rule.

NRC shall approve the location (reference sites) and the scope of the studies and analyses before starting work.

i

c.

%)

C 4

44

~

16 Assemble a panel, with a maximum of four members, of nationally recognized experts to I

perform review and comment on the contractor's analyses and recommendations.

2.

Draft Preliminary RA: Identify the number of potential ISFSI licensees and power reactor licensees that will be affected by the proposed amendment. Calculate / estimate the costs / benefits of the proposed amendments to potential ISFSI licensees and power reactor licensees. Identify and describe any other options for potential amendments that the NRC can use in proposed rulemaking. Calculate / estimate the costs and benefits of these options to licensees and the NRC. Recommend a preferred option to proceed with rulemaking on the basis of preceding analysis. The draft Preliminary RA will be considered in the rulemaking.

2.1 Revise draft Preliminary RA on the basis of : 1) comments received from the Commission on the rulemaking; and 2) any additional information found by the contractor or the NRC staff. This Preliminary RA will be incipded in the proposed rulemaking.

L 3.

Draft Preliminary EA: Use information collected in Subtask 1, other relevant information from literature search performed by the contractor, and NRC-provided documents to the contractor in order to perform a comprehensive draft Preliminary EA 9

appropriate for this proposed rulemaking action.

3.1 Revise draft Preliminary EA including a comprehensive consequences analysis as appropriate for proposed rule on the basis of : 1) comments received from the Commission on the rulemaking; and 2) any additional information found by the contractor or the NRC staff. This Preliminary EA will be included in the proposed rulemaking.

4.

Information Collection Burden Report: Use information collected in Subtasks 1 and 2 to calculate / estimate the information colledion burden impact on potential or existing licensees and NRC which will result from the proposed amendments. If the submission of this infonution to the Office of Management and Budget is required, NRC will provide the contractor with the.NRC format that has been used in the past for such submissions.

^

5.

Analysis of Public Comments: Analyze public comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents, categorize and provide suggested responses to these comments, and provide recent data or information that may be relevant and needed to confirm and/or refute any claims made by commenters. The contractor _shall recommend needed

' changes to the proposed rule and documents.

d v

5-DELIVERABLES:

Subtask PRODUCT TIME TO PERFORM DUE DATE THE TASK 1.

Starting Dato (Estimated)

April 30,1999 Develop Technical Basis &

Supporting Documents Preliminary Draft Technical Basis 2.0 months June 30,1999

& Supporting Document Report l

NRC Comments 0.5 month July 15,1999 Final Draft Technical Basis &

0.5 month July 31,1999 Support Document Report NRC Comments 0.5 month August 15,1999 Final Technical Basis &

0.5 month August 30,1999 Supporting Document Report 2.

Draft Preliminary RA 2.0 months October 31,1999*

NRC Review & Comments 0.5 month November 15,1999*

Revised Preliminary RA 0.5 month after receipt November 30,1999*

of NRC comments 3.

Draft Preliminary EA 2.0 months October 31,1999*

NRC Review & Comments 0.5 r:'onth November 15,1999*

Revised Preliminary EA 0.5 month after receipt November 30,1999*

of NRC comments 4.

Information Collec3on Burden 1.0 month December 31,1999*

NRC Review & Comments 0.5 month January 15,2000*

FinalInformation Collection 0.5 month January 31,2000*

5.

Analysis of Public Comments 1.0 months February 29,2000*

NRC Review & Comments 0.5 month March 15. 2000*

Final Comments 0.5 month March 31,2000*

• Date of deliverables subject to change depending on rulemaking action.

I i

j i

7..

6.

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

The overall period of performance for this task order is approximately 12 months. Subtasks 2 and 3 are not sequential, therefore, the contractor can work on these subtasks simultaneously.

l The contractor can work on Subtask 4 once Subtask 2 results are available.

LEVEL OF EFFORT:

Total level of effort for this task order modification is estimated to increase 11 staff months.

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE TM NRC Technical Project Manager for this task order is Mr. Mark L Au. Mr. Au nmy be ca.'seted on (301) 415-6181.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The following documents and reports are enclosed:

SECY-98-126, Rulemaking Plan: Geological and Seismological Characteristics for Siting and Design of Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations,10 CFR Part 72.

SECY-96-118, Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50,52, and 100, and issuancu of a New Appendix S to Part 50, for Use By Future Applicants.

I NUREG-1536, " Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems."

NUREG-1567, " Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities."

Regulatory Guide 1.165, " Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion."

Code of Federal Regulations: 10 CFR Part 60; 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A; and 10 CFR 100.23.

DOE Topical Report YMP/TR-003-NP, Rev.1, "Preclosure Seismic Design Methodology I

for a Geologic Repository at Yucca Meuntain."

Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 234, Dec. 4,1996, " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories; Design Basis Events.*

Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 55, March 22,1995, " Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories; Design Basis Events."

v' v

7 -,.

DOE Standard 1020-94, April 1,1994 (Change Notice #1, January 1996), " Natural

=

Phenomena Hezards Designs and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy."

NUREGICR-6606, " investigation of Techniques for the Development of Seismic Design Basis Using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis."

l l

l l

l l

1 l

I l

l

.