ML20155K836
| ML20155K836 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/2020 |
| From: | Christina Antonescu Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Antonescu, C, ACRS | |
| References | |
| NRC-0913 | |
| Download: ML20155K836 (135) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Digital Instrumentation and Control Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, May 20, 2020 Work Order No.:
NRC-0913 Pages 1-100 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
1 2
3 DISCLAIMER 4
5 6
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 7
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 8
9 10 The contents of this transcript of the 11 proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 13 as reported herein, is a record of the discussions 14 recorded at the meeting.
15 16 This transcript has not been reviewed, 17 corrected, and edited, and it may contain 18 inaccuracies.
19 20 21 22 23
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
(ACRS) 5
+ + + + +
6 DIGITAL INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE 7
+ + + + +
8 WEDNESDAY 9
MAY 20, 2020 10
+ + + + +
11 The Subcommittee met via teleconference, 12 at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, Charles H. Brown, Jr.,
13 Chairman, presiding.
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
15 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Chairman 16 RONALD G. BALLINGER, Member 17 DENNIS BLEY, Member 18 VESNA B. DIMITRIJEVIC, Member 19 WALTER L. KIRCHNER, Member 20 JOSE MARCH-LEUBA, Member 21 DAVID A. PETTI, Member 22 JOY L. REMPE, Member 23 PETER RICCARDELLA, Member 24 MATTHEW SUNSERI, Member 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 ACRS CONSULTANT:
1 MYRON HECHT 2
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:
ALSO PRESENT:
5 NEIL ARCHAMBO, Duke Energy 6
KATI AUSTGEN, NEI 7
ERIC BENNER, NRR 8
STEPHEN GEIER, NEI 9
PETER LeBLOND, LeBlond & Associates 10 PHILIP McKENNA, NRR 11 STEPHEN VAUGHN, NEI 12 MICHAEL WATERS, NRR 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 CONTENTS 1
Page 2
I. Opening Remarks by Chairman Brown 4
3 II. Opening Remarks, Eric Benner 7
4 III. NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Application of 10 CFR 5
50.59 to Digital Modifications and Draft Final Reg 6
Guide 1.187, Rev. 2 and Resolution of Public Comments 7
.............. 15 8
Mike Waters................ 61 9
IV. NEI Perspectives on Recent Revisions to NEI 96-07, 10 Appendix D 11 Stephen Geier............... 75 12 Kati Austgen
............... 77 13 V. Public Comments
............... 99 14 VI. ACRS Members Comments............ 99 15 VII. Closing Remarks 16 Chair Brown...............
100 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
9:30 a.m.
2 CHAIR BROWN: The meeting will now come to 3
order.
This is a
meeting of the Digital 4
Instrumentation and Control Subcommittee. I am 5
Charles Brown, Chairman of the Subcommittee.
6 ACRS Members in attendance are Dennis 7
- Bley, Matt
- Sunseri, Jose March-Leuba, Vesna 8
Dimitrijevic, Walt Kirchner, Joe Rempe, Ron Ballinger, 9
Pete Riccardella, Dave Petti. And our consultant, 10 Myron Hecht, is on with us. That means we have a full 11 house.
12 Christina Antonescu of the ACRS staff is 13 the Designated Federal Official for this meeting.
14 She's already confirmed that the court reporter is 15 connected.
16 So, the purpose of this meeting is for the 17 staff to brief the Subcommittee on Final NEI 96-07, 18 Appendix D, Supplemental Guidance for Application of 19 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications and Draft Final 20 Regulatory Guide 1.187, Revision 2.
21 In particular, the staff is to identify 22 the changes made throughout Section 4.3.6, and any 23 other section, and the basis for why those changes 24 resulted in their agreement that the exception that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 they had earlier was no longer required. Today we 1
have members of the NRC staff and NEI to brief the 2
Subcommittee.
3 The ACRS was established by statute and is 4
governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
5 That means the committee can only speak through its 6
published letter reports. We hold meetings to gather 7
information to support our deliberations. Interested 8
parties who wish to provide comments can contact our 9
office requesting time. That said, we set aside ten 10 minutes for comments from members of the public 11 attending or listening to our meetings. Written 12 comments are also welcome.
13 The meeting agenda for today's meeting was 14 published on the NRC's public meeting notice website, 15 as well as the ACRS meeting website. On the agenda 16 for this meeting and on the ACRS meeting website are 17 instructions as to how the public may participate. No 18 request for making a statement to the Subcommittee has 19 been received from the public.
20 Due to the COVID-19, we are conducting 21 today's meeting virtually. A transcript of the 22 meeting is being kept and will be made available on 23 our website. Therefore, we request that participants 24 in this meeting should first identify themselves and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 speak with sufficient clarity and volume so that they 1
can be readily heard. All presenters please pause 2
from time to time to allow members to ask questions.
3 Please also indicate the slide number you are on when 4
moving to the next slide.
5 We have the bridgeline established to the 6
public to listen to our meeting. The public line will 7
be kept in a listen-in only mode until the time for 8
public comment. To avoid audio interference, I 9
request all attendees to make sure they are muted 10 while not speaking. Based on our experience with 11 previous virtual meetings, I would like to remind the 12 speakers and presenters to speak slowly.
13 We will take a short break after each 14 presentation to allow time for screen sharing, as well 15 as at the Chairman's discretion during longer 16 presentations.
17 We do not have -- we do have, excuse me, 18 a backup call-in number should Skype go down and has 19 been provided to the ACRS,embers. If we need to go 20 to the backup number, the public line will also be 21 connected to the backup line.
22 Lastly, please do not use any virtual 23 meeting feature to conduct sidebar technical 24 discussions. Rather, contact the DFO if you have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 technical questions so we can bring those to the 1
floor.
2 Note that we have scheduled the ACRS Full 3
Committee meeting on June 3rd based on the outcome of 4
this meeting.
5 We will now proceed with the meeting. And 6
I will ask Ms. Tekia Govin to share her screen with us 7
while Mr. Eric Benner, the Director of Division of 8
Engineering and External Hazards in the Office of 9
Nuclear Reactor Regulations, for any introductory 10 remarks to make before we begin today's presentations.
11 Eric, it's all yours.
12 MR. BENNER: Thank you, Member Brown. As 13 you indicated, I'm the Director of Division of 14 Engineering and External Hazards. With that comes the 15 responsibility for the technical expertise for 16 instrumentation and controls.
17 The other two presenters today are Mike 18 Waters, who is the Branch Chief for that technical 19 discipline, and Phil McKenna, who is a Branch Chief in 20 a different division with responsibility for 10 CFR 21 50.59. So we're well equipped to answer your 22 questions today.
23 I appreciate the Committee's interest in 24 this topic. I know that were it not for digital 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 technologies we would not be conducting this meeting 1
today in this environment. So clearly there are 2
benefits of digital technologies.
3 And the Committee's letter of exactly 11 4
months ago today applauded the staff's efforts to 5
provide guidance for how licensees could use 10 CFR 6
50.59 to do digital upgrades. But, at the same time, 7
acknowledge that there was a disconnect between the 8
staff and the industry on potential limitations on 9
what modifications could be done.
10 So the Committee appropriately challenged 11 us to try to work through that issue. I am happy to 12 report that through the interactions we were able to 13 eliminate the condition that was in the Reg Guide. We 14 do have some additional clarifications that are in the 15 Reg Guide, which we will talk through today.
16 And I note that we're not completely done 17 with those clarifications because we're still trying 18 to get those right. We worked hard to clarify what is 19 permissible under the rule. Because another point I 20 want to make is, nothing that goes on in this document 21 really has any bearing as to whether an upgrade is 22 acceptable. There are broader technical requirements 23 as to how a system needs to perform at a nuclear power 24 plant.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 Clearly, licensees have to follow their 1
quality assurance programs, do good designs, good 2
engineering and good implementation and good testing.
3 50.59 is strictly a test as to whether such a mod can 4
be done without NRC review or not. So, it is a 5
standard we hold here because, while it is the 6
licensee's responsibility to implement, upgrade in a 7
quality manner, there is a reason why there's certain 8
latitudes that licensees have to make mods while there 9
are certain things that necessitate NRC review.
10 So, we have now changed from past 11 precedent on what is allowed. And part of the 12 revision to the Reg Guide, one of the clarifications 13 is to explicitly acknowledge that we now are allowing 14 certain types of mods to be done under 50.59 that past 15 guidance would have indicated were not allowable.
16 Such change doesn't come without 17 controversy. And I note there have been different 18 views on this matter that we are not being consistent 19 with the rule. But we have worked very closely with 20 NRC's legal counsel to ensure that the guidance that 21 we are planning to put out there does indeed comport 22 with the rule. And one of the clarifications that's 23 in the Reg Guide explicitly acknowledges that change 24 in position.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 So, with that, I will turn it over to Phil 1
McKenna to start the more detailed presentation.
2 MEMBER BLEY: Can I ask a quick question?
3 MR. BENNER: Certainly.
4 MEMBER BLEY: This is Dennis Bley. I 5
didn't have it open until you just said that.
6 One of those clarifications, and I think 7
you just gave me the answer as to why you made it, is 8
like the second one you have. I don't have my 9
document open right now, but I think it's the second 10 one. And it seems to me it was much more confusing 11 than the statement you were clarifying, but I suspect 12 that goes to the things you were talking about with 13 the change of position and the lawyers being involved, 14 is that correct?
15 MR. BENNER: Yeah. I'm pulling it up now.
16 And that's why I say we're not done. We're not 17 completely done with these clarifications, because we 18 have had some discussions about, are they as clear as 19 they want to be? And, you know, we want them to be 20 clear. There's an acknowledgment that guidance that's 21 unclear isn't good guidance. So we do want to be 22 clear about that explicit change in position.
23 We do also intend to explicitly let the 24 Commission know of that change in position. But, like 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 I said, we will go through our more detailed 1
discussion. And we'll get a little more into the 2
clarifications.
3 And I think NEI is going to speak to their 4
perceptions about are the clarifications adequately 5
clear or not also.
6 MEMBER BLEY: Okay. It was the first one, 7
1A, of that Section 4.38 of NEI 96-07. And has a lot 8
of references to 50.59. So that's the one that I 9
found pretty difficult to parse. But go ahead.
10 MR. BENNER: Okay.
11 CHAIR BROWN: Eric, is that the one you 12 were referring to, to 1A?
13 MR. BENNER: No. The interesting is 1A 14 was not changed; that was a part of Revision 1, which 15 looked at method of evaluation. This is Revision 2 of 16 96-07. So that, none of that discussion there that 17 was for Revision 1 to NEI 96-07 -- which I'm sure Phil 18 has the date of when that was issued -- was changed as 19 a result of this dialogue.
20 MEMBER BLEY: Yeah, I asked the same 21 comment the last time we talked. That one just was 22 hard for me.
23 And 1B also, when we get to it, if you can 24 explain what point you're trying to make, because I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 didn't find it hard to parse, but I found it more 1
difficult than just the statement that was in the NEI 2
document. So if you can explain those two when we get 3
to them. Well, the second one has changed a bit, but 4
go ahead. Sorry.
5 MR. BENNER: Yeah. Well, I just want to 6
be clear: the only thing that should change were the 7
ones under 2. Anything under 1 was tied to Revision 8
1, which was not the subject of this activity.
9 MEMBER BLEY: Okay.
10 MR. BENNER: Revision 1 was not dealing 11 with digital I&C; it was a broader discussion on 12 method of evaluation.
13 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, Eric, this is Charlie.
14 MR. BENNER: Yes.
15 CHAIR BROWN: I did, when I was doing my 16 review, I did look at the Reg Guide and I compared it 17 to the one we reviewed for the Subcommittee meeting 18 back in April of '19.
19 MR. BENNER: Okay.
20 CHAIR BROWN: 1A and 1C and 1B. 1A you 21 all revised a little bit, a few different words. It's 22 not exactly the same. It's the same as the Full 23 Committee one, but not the April version; it's 24 slightly revised from the April version. That was the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 June of '19 version.
1 1B was the same. Fundamentally, both of 2
them.
3 I thought there are two places -- and I 4
didn't highlight them, unfortunately -- you mentioned 5
them -- where you all made explicit statements where 6
you were changing your position, which you just said 7
in your opening remarks.
8 MR. BENNER: Yes.
9 CHAIR BROWN: That's how you're going to 10 do this. Could you make it clear as you go through 11 the slides what part of the Reg Guides were those in 12 so that I can just confirm that I understood?
13 MR. BENNER: Yes. Certainly.
14 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
15 MR. BENNER: Certainly.
16 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. Because I think I've 17 got them marked but I didn't mark them clear enough.
18 Okay, thank you very much, Eric.
19 MR. BENNER: Okay.
20 MEMBER REMPE: Eric, this is Joy Rempe and 21 I have a question about schedule. I think during your 22 opening remarks you mentioned that you and OGC are 23 still iterating a bit on trying to make sure that the 24 Reg Guide is as clear as possible. Are those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 iterations going to be done in the next week or two, 1
or what's your schedule?
2 MR. BENNER: Yes, that's our intention.
3 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, Eric --
4 MEMBER REMPE: So at the Full Committee 5
meeting we'll have the final version?
6 MR. BENNER: That is our intention.
7 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 8
Joy. I forgot to mention that. Thank you, Eric.
9 MR. MCKENNA: Okay, so this is Phil 10 McKenna. Again, I'm a branch chief in the division of 11 reactor oversight, in the branch that has 12 responsibility for 50.59 for inspection.
13 Tekia, could you go to the next slide, 14 please? That would be Slide Number 2.
15 Okay. Again, Eric touched on this slide 16 somewhat, but, again, the purpose of today's meeting 17 is to brief the ACRS Digital I&C Subcommittee on 18 Recommendations 3 and 4 out of your June 20th letter 19 from 2019.
20 Recommendation 4 was to bring back the 21 final version of 96-07, Appendix D, and Reg Guide 22 1.187, Revision 2. And to discuss how we resolved the 23 exception that was on Section 4.3.6 in Appendix D. So 24 we will do that today.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 Next slide please, Tekia. So I'm on Slide 1
- 3. So this highlights that I'm about to discuss 2
Appendix D, and not in particular the Reg Guide.
3 So, next slide please, Tekia. Number 4.
4 Okay, so I just want to present the timeline of where 5
we've been over the past two years on this effort.
6 This first slide is the starting point in July 2018 7
when got the version of Appendix D from NEI that we 8
provided 85 comments on, originally, through trying to 9
resolve those through the ACRS Full Committee meeting 10 on the 5th of June back in 2019.
11 Next slide, please. I'm on Slide Number 12
- 5. So this details what occurred from the June Full 13 Committee meeting. We had two public meetings right 14 up-front. The first one in June, a few days after the 15 ACRS brief. And I'll go more in detail what we 16 discussed at that public meeting. The next one in 17 September.
18 We spent the next following six months 19 after that trying to resolve wording in Appendix D.
20 We finally hit a very fast pace in April when NEI 21 submitted the final version of Section 4.3.6 wording, 22 which we all agreed upon. The examples in that 23 section had to be updated. NEI did that. We reviewed 24 those examples in a public meeting in April and we got 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 the final version of Appendix D on May 13th.
1 Next slide, please, Tekia. So now I'm on 2
Slide 6. And I just want to highlight on this slide 3
we're really talking about the exception in the 4
previous Reg Guide, for the draft Reg Guide, was on 5
Criterion 6. Which I've highlighted on this slide.
6 Criterion 6 in 50.59 is "create the 7
possibility for a malfunction of a structure system 8
and component with a different result than any 9
previously evaluated in the FSAR as updated."
10 Next slide, please, Tekia. So now I'm on 11 Slide 7. And this slide is not really meant to be 12 read, but is just demonstrating what the exception was 13 in the Reg Guide, in the draft Reg Guide, and the 14 length of the exception.
15 So, to summarize the exception in the Reg 16 Guide, the NRC had taken exceptions to Steps 5 and 17 Steps 6 in Section 4.3.6 where NEI was making the 18 determination of the different results only against 19 the safety analysis section of the FSAR and not the 20 entire FSAR. So that language is now changed in the 21 current Appendix D. And I'll go more into that in a 22 future slide.
23 Next slide, please. Okay, I'm now on 24 Slide Number 8. So, the first public meeting we had 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 in June of 2019 after the Full ACRS Committee. NEI 1
and NRC brought examples to the public meeting and did 2
a tabletop exercise on a total of seven examples, four 3
from NEI and three from the NRC, where we compared if 4
we went through the Reg Guide -- or we went through 5
the Appendix D, 4.3.6, and went through the Reg Guide, 6
if we will come up with different results using those 7
modifications in the examples.
8 And after that meeting we came up with 9
basically the same results, with the exception of one 10 example. But we also clarified quite a bit in that 11 meeting on the wording in Section 4.3.6 where Appendix 12 D would use the word "safety analysis." We always 13 thought that meant accident analysis, but NEI 14 clarified that that meant any safety analysis in the 15 entire FSAR.
16 And we also came to the conclusion that 17 the current wording in the draft Reg Guide could lead 18 the licensee to submit license action requests when 19 they weren't necessary. So we knew that we had to 20 change the wording in the Reg Guide to remove that 21 possibility.
22 In the September meeting we met again to 23 go over some proposed wording to Appendix D. And out 24 of that meeting, NEI submitted, eventually, their 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 first -- next draft of Appendix D, which changed the 1
initial wording of Steps 5 and Steps 6.
2 Next slide, please, Tekia. Okay, so this 3
is the six-step process. And I used the slide from 4
the ACRS meeting back in June of 2019 and updated the 5
new language in blue. So you can see in Steps 5 and 6
6 the word "safety analysis" was removed and instead 7
the language now conforms with the rule language. So 8
Step 5 now reads, "identify all involved malfunctions 9
of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated in 10 the FSAR." And for Step 6, "for each of those 11 involved malfunctions of an SSC important to safety, 12 compare the results with the previously evaluated 13 results."
14 Next slide, please. I'm now on Step 10.
15 I'm highlighting this step because this is where we 16 get into the one clarification in the Reg Guide where 17 we spent the most amount of time revising or making 18 suggestions to revise the wording, because this is 19 where we were expanding Criterion 6 in the 50.59 20 rules, which Eric had mentioned.
21 So, in this Step 6, there is discussion of 22 acceptance criteria. And this acceptance criteria is 23 basically best defined by going over examples, which 24 we spent quite a bit of time in the Reg Guide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 suggesting to refine. And that example deals with 1
feedwater flow. And, previously in the FSAR, only one 2
of the four feedwater flow control valves was assumed 3
to fail open. So now, with a digital mod being placed 4
in, there could be a common-cause failure that would 5
have all four of the feedwater flow valves open.
6 So when you go through the six-step 7
process and get to Step 6, the severity of that event 8
has increased due to all four of the supply feedwater 9
flow valves opening. But, in this case, the 10 acceptance criteria is what is being evaluated. So, 11 the initial acceptance criteria was the departure from 12 nucleate boiling. And that acceptance criteria in the 13 safety analysis had a number of, let's say, 1.3. And 14 the current safety analysis in the FSAR was at 1.42.
15 So, after the severity of this has changed 16 to cause more feedwater flow into the core, you have 17 a new DNBR value of 1.33. So the conclusion out of 18 this is, since you're still within the acceptance 19 criteria of 1.3, that this is not a different result.
20 And I'll stop there.
21 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Excuse me, this is 22 Pete Riccardella. Would you spend a little time on 23 defining this involved malfunction? That's kind of a 24 new term to me. Could you help with that?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 MR. MCKENNA: Yeah, so if I said involved 1
malfunction, I didn't mean to highlight that. So, on 2
the slide I've presented right now, can you just read 3
the words for me?
4 CHAIR BROWN: Eric, it's on Slide 9.
5 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: It's on this slide 6
and also the previous slide.
7 MR. MCKENNA: Okay. Tekia, can you go 8
back to Slide 9, please?
9 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Identify all involved 10 malfunctions of an SSC. In Step 5 and then in 6. You 11 just use that term "involved malfunction." I'd just 12 like a definition of.
13 MR. MCKENNA: Yes, so I'm going to go to 14 Appendix D right now to make sure that we didn't use 15 16 CHAIR BROWN: They're the same words, 17 Eric. I've got it open. Steps 5 and 6 both say 18 involved malfunctions. You quoted them before.
19 MR. MCKENNA: Okay. So, all Appendix D is 20 saying right there is you're identifying all the 21 malfunctions that would be involved with the new 22 modifications.
23 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: Okay.
24 CHAIR BROWN: Before you go on, you can go 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 back to Step 10, if you want to.
1 MR. MCKENNA: Tekia, can you go to Step 2
- 10. Or Slide 10. Thank you.
3 CHAIR BROWN: Slide 10, yeah. This is 4
Charlie. This paragraph has two thoughts in it. I 5
want to make sure everybody -- relative to all the 6
stuff you talked about, and so I want to make sure I 7
got this right.
8 The first, until the second set of blue 9
stuff, the first part goes through where you come to 10 a conclusion if this is no longer valid and something 11 else is no longer bounding, then the analysis no 12 longer satisfies the "acceptance criteria, therefore 13 it is a malfunction important to safety with a 14 different result." And that kicks back into your 1A, 15 1B, 2B, and C categories from Step 2.
16 But the next sentence separates that. The 17 first one says, hey, it's a different result. The 18 second one says, if the acceptance criteria are still 19 satisfied and the basic assumptions remain valid, 20 therefore there is no result, and there's no different 21 result of the malfunction important to safety that 22 would cause changes.
23 So, there's two separate thoughts there.
24 One says it's not okay and the other one says it is.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 Am I correct with that? That's the way I read that.
1 MR. MCKENNA: That is correct. So, the 2
way Appendix D is worded, if you still meet the 3
acceptance criteria and the basis assumptions are 4
still valid, then it is not treated as a different 5
result.
6 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. Now, and my 7
understanding of how you said how NRC has changed 8
their position, this would then allow the licensee to 9
proceed, if they meet the second blue part?
10 MR. MCKENNA: That's to proceed without 11 coming into the NRC with a license amendment.
12 CHAIR BROWN: Exactly. I wanted that to 13 be very clear to all the members. And the first part 14 would be that then they have to submit an LAR.
15 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct.
16 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. And that comports 17 with your earlier comment about -- this is one the 18 places where you changed your position slightly?
19 MR. MCKENNA: That is correct.
20 CHAIR BROWN: Or one of the accommodations 21
-- I don't want to call it an accommodation -- where 22 you put some commonsense into it. Let me put it that 23 way. That's my phraseology. So I just wanted to make 24 sure that was clear on the record that we knew what we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 were talking about relative to the changes. You said 1
you had two changes to the position; this was one of 2
them or was this both of them?
3 MR. MCKENNA: So this is -- basically this 4
is both of them.
5 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
6 MR. MCKENNA: The other one is in this for 7
the description of a basic assumption, which we worded 8
both of those in the last clarification in the Reg 9
Guide.
10 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
11 MR. WATERS: Member Brown, this is Mike 12 Waters.
13 CHAIR BROWN: Yes.
14 MR. WATERS: We'll get to that, what's 15 called a change of position. And that really is that 16 use of acceptance criteria in the parenthetical.
17 I want to be very technical also. What 18 you said is correct. If you meet this, they'll pass 19 Criterion 6. I just want to remind, you also have to 20 address the other criteria in 50.59. There may be 21 cases where an example would pass this criteria but 22 not pass other criteria in 50.59. I just want to make 23 that point.
24 CHAIR BROWN: Oh, yeah, you're talking 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 about the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 --
1 MR. WATERS: Yes. Yes.
2 CHAIR BROWN: That's understood. We're 3
only dealing with how you work your way through 4
Criterion 6.
5 MR. WATERS: Okay, thank you. I just 6
wanted to make sure everyone understood that 7
listening. Thanks.
8 CHAIR BROWN: Yes.
9 MEMBER REMPE: Charlie?
10 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Charlie, this is 11 Jose.
12 CHAIR BROWN: Yes.
13 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Can I ask a question?
14 CHAIR BROWN: I've got two people talking.
15 Who wants to go first, Jose or Joy?
16 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: You decide.
17 CHAIR BROWN: Joy, opened up her mouth --
18 excuse me, I didn't mean to say it that way, Joy.
19 MEMBER REMPE: I opened up my mic first.
20 (Laughter.)
21 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. I heard something 22 click, okay.
23 MEMBER REMPE: Yes.
24 CHAIR BROWN: You go ahead.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. So, I'm not an 1
expert at 10 CFR 50.59, but is this different than how 2
other changes would be interpreted? Is digital I&C 3
going to get a bigger flexibility or a more flexible 4
approach than if somebody wanted to change out some 5
other SSC?
6 CHAIR BROWN: You want my personal 7
opinion?
8 MEMBER REMPE: I'd like the staff -- I 9
meant to say in your and the staff's opinion.
10 CHAIR BROWN: Why don't the staff go ahead 11 and talk on that first.
12 MR. MCKENNA: Okay, so I'll go first, 13 because that's an excellent question. So, no. Once 14 we have made this position -- and that's one of the 15 reasons why Eric mentioned that we will notify the 16 Commission, is that it's an interpretation for all of 17 50.59, not just for digital.
18 MEMBER REMPE: So you're changing your 19 interpretation for 50.59 across the board because of 20 this interaction. Is that a true statement?
21 MR. MCKENNA: Right. And so, for this 22 portion, Appendix D is only for digital I&C mods. And 23 the changes to the Reg Guide are only for digital I&C 24 mods. But once we make that clarification in the Reg 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 Guide, it would hold for any thought for any other 1
modifications.
2 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. All right, let me --
3 Joy?
4 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, thank you. That's a 5
good, important clarification that I think needs to be 6
brought up here. So I'm interested in that point.
7 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. Appendix D is I&C 8
only. That means we're not -- how all these criteria 9
apply to I&C, this one criteria out of the eight has 10 been modified slightly. That's for I&C. Digital I&C.
11 That is the change.
12 MEMBER REMPE: I get that, but now they're 13 going to have to go back and notify the Commission 14 that this has broader implications, because digital 15 I&C doesn't get more flexibility than other SSCs, 16 right?
17 CHAIR BROWN: It's not, okay. I mean, if 18 you look -- I don't look at it that way. It's a 19 different beast than pipes and valves and motors.
20 MEMBER REMPE: No, but I think -- maybe 21 I'm misunderstanding what the staff said, but I think 22 the staff
- said, yeah, we are changing our 23 interpretation of 50.59 and we're going to have to 24 also go back and tell the Commission this has broader 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27
- impacts, that we're going to change our 1
interpretation. Did I misunderstand what the staff 2
just told me?
3 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters, and 4
maybe I can say it a slightly different way. Staff 5
believes this is an acceptable way to meet Criterion 6
6 of 50.59. It's one means to meet it for the 7
specific failure modes we're talking about for digital 8
I&C. And you've got to remember we're talking about 9
interconnecting systems or components of digital I&C, 10 and if common-cause failure is not sufficiently low 11 you need to look and treat it like other malfunctions 12 in the FSAR or other impacts.
13 And for those particular failure modes, 14 NEI has provided this method to look at it. What it 15 does, it does go beyond what the base guidance is in 16 NEI 96-07, the base guidance of 1.36 where the base 17 guidance really talks about the way to look at it is 18 at the component level, for lack of better words.
19 Staff has determined that this is an 20 acceptable approach. Not only looking at component 21 level in these circumstances; you can look at the 22 acceptance criteria, but there are some clarifications 23 that we make. The acceptance criteria have to be 24 within the FSAR and the base exceptions still have to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 be valid.
1 And one thing we found is, even with the 2
examples, they are kind of conceptual. When you look 3
at every FSAR it is different. It's not clear every 4
FSAR can do this.
5 The answer is, yes, it is a partial form 6
of use of Criterion 6 in the base guidance. I don't 7
know if I would use the word different interpretation; 8
I would say it's a different means to meet the 9
regulatory requirements. We have not made a decision 10 to notify the Commission of what needs to do that, but 11 that is a consideration.
12 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. So, I guess I could 13 put what Phil said a little differently because he was 14 a bit more succinct, and I thought he said, yeah, it 15 is a different way to meet this criteria and it could 16 have broader impact beyond digital I&C. Am I 17 misunderstanding again?
18 And, Mike, you have a vibration in your 19 speaking so I'm having trouble understanding partly 20 what you're saying. I apologize.
21 MR. MCKENNA: So, I can summarize it even 22 more succinctly. So, we're endorsing this position in 23 Appendix D, but there's nothing special about digital 24 I&C that would limit the position.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron Ballinger.
1 Pardon my confusion. Does this mean that something, 2
some additional wording or clarification will 3
eventually need to be put back in another revision of 4
96-07, the general text, and the Reg Guide? Because 5
that would make it very clear to any applicant.
6 MR. MCKENNA: Yeah, so, that's a good 7
question, but it would be up to NEI to revise their 8
base document of 96-07. And if they revise their base 9
document, then, of course, we would revise the Reg 10 Guide.
11 MEMBER BALLINGER: So what you're saying 12 is that if they make such a revision that would be 13 consistent with your new interpretation?
14 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct. We would 15 endorse it the same way.
16 MEMBER BALLINGER: Thank you.
17 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Charlie, can I go 18 now? This is Jose.
19 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, go ahead.
20 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay. Yes, I'm going 21 back to Slide 10. The previous discussion was very 22 relevant, too, don't get me wrong, but I'm going back 23 to mine.
24 When I read Slide 10, acceptance criteria, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 there are two requirements. One is, you don't 1
invalidate the design basis. If you invalidate the 2
design basis, certainly you have to change it. That's 3
an obvious one.
4 The one I'm having problems with is the 5
second one. Apparently, there is a mysterious safety 6
analysis that the licensee performs and they reach 7
conclusions. And if they say this is a design 8
acceptance criteria, the staff doesn't get to see the 9
mysterious safety analysis and takes their word for 10 it.
11 If they don't satisfy the acceptance 12 criteria, can you give me an example where a licensee 13 wants to make a modification where the acceptance 14 criteria is not satisfied and they send it to NRC 15 hoping that you find the error in their ways and tell 16 them what they do?
17 I do not see the logic. If they do not 18 satisfy the acceptance criteria, the staff will never 19 see the LAR, because that will be insane to send it.
20 And if they do satisfy the acceptance criteria, they 21 don't have to send the LAR. So is NRC saying we don't 22 want to see these types of submittals anymore?
23 MR. MCKENNA: No. So, I guess another way 24 to look at it -- again, you need to step back. So, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 they're building the design of the modification, which 1
is a totally separate process. Then they get to the 2
50.59. So, they design the modification safely, and 3
then they get to the 50.59 process, which is the 4
decision point of if they need to come to the NRC for 5
a license amendment or not for the modification. Did 6
that answer your question?
7 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: No. What I'm saying 8
is, for them to decide that the modification meets the 9
acceptance criteria is if the modification -- two 10 cases: the modification was very simple and didn't 11 affect anything, or the previous safety analysis was 12 too broad and covered the new modification, they have 13 already performed analysis. But there's a third case 14 in which they do have to perform a new safety 15 analysis.
16 MR. MCKENNA: Mm-hmm. So, yes. But --
17 (Simultaneously speaking.)
18 MR. MCKENNA: Right. So they would come 19
-- so, in that case, when it doesn't satisfy the 20 acceptance criteria in the safety analysis, so that is 21 what they're bringing in for a license amendment, to 22 basically have new acceptance criteria in their FSAR 23 for us to approve it.
24 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Modified acceptance 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 criteria, that's what they would be asking?
1 (Simultaneous speaking.)
2 MR. MCKENNA: There could be all different 3
kinds of acceptance criteria and not just the one that 4
I presented in the example.
5 CHAIR BROWN: Can I make an observation on 6
the interchange? This is Charlie again.
7 If you look at 50.59 straight up, all 8
50.59, Item 2 in 50.59 says, "a licensee shall obtain" 9
-- shall obtain -- "a license amendment if the change 10 test or experiment would create a possibility of a 11 malfunction of an SSC with a different result."
12 And this language that they put in there, 13 the way I read it, was if they look at their design 14 change and they end up doing this analysis and they 15 come up with a different result, then they have to 16 submit an LAR based on 50.59, the first line in Number 17 2, whatever it is, B2, I think -- or C2, excuse me, in 18 the 50.59 itself.
19 If they do meet the requirements in the 20 acceptance criteria, then they don't. So, yes, NRC 21 would see the LAR if they don't meet these. So if 22 they no longer satisfy it, then they would have to 23 submit their design change to the NRC. If they do 24 satisfy it, then they don't have to and --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 MEMBER BLEY: With a full analysis 1
justifying it.
2 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. So all I'm saying is 3
50.59 provides a differentiation in Item C2 where the 4
lead-in for all eight criteria say they will obtain an 5
LAR unless, okay, and then these are the criteria.
6 And all it does it work on one criteria. That's the 7
way I read it.
8 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron again. But 9
isn't there a backstop here in the sense that there's 10 a periodic review by the staff of 50.59-related issues 11 from each applicant -- I forget what the -- is it once 12 a year or --
13 MR. MCKENNA: Once again, this is Phil 14 McKenna. That's correct. But none of these are that 15 backstop. We had the inspection process also. So, 16 for the inspection process at each site, we review 17 certain samples on modifications by the resident 18 inspectors. And then there's a team inspection every 19 three years that reviews 50.59 changes and 20 modifications.
21 MEMBER BALLINGER: Okay. I didn't 22 remember what the periodicity was. But you would 23 catch, eventually, if something were not consistent in 24 the staff's mind they'd pick it up?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct. In the 1
inspection process, in particular.
2 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: That is an audit 3
process. I mean, we audit, the staff audits anything 4
they want to audit.
5 But what I'm seeing when I'm reading this, 6
I don't see the second condition on the Slide 10.
7 Will that ever get triggered if, criteria is not 8
satisfied by the modification the licensee won't 9
submit it. You got to satisfy the criteria.
10 MEMBER BALLINGER: But again, this is Ron 11 again. But it's not just an audit process, the audit 12 process might be with the resident inspector. But the 13 periodic review, that's a complete review, is it not?
14 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: No, it's not. You 15 select the sample of things audit, they don't review 16 everything.
17 MR. MCKENNA: So, again, this is Phil 18 McKenna. So the licensee submits a letter every two 19 years of all the
- lists, listing all their 20 modifications.
21 But they don't get, everyone single one of 22 those does not get inspected.
23 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes. And then you 24 pick your three that sound suspicious or interesting 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 to you and then you look at those in more detail. But 1
90 percent is not.
2 CHAIR BROWN: But, Jose, if the way, I'm 3
trying to understand a little bit. The part about, 4
they no longer satisfy the acceptance criteria then 5
nobody will ever say anything.
6 I don't say that, I don't see that because 7
if they make their modification, or if they design 8
their modification and they find they don't meet the 9
criteria therefore they got to make a decision. Do 10 they submit it as an LAR or do they leave the system 11 as it is. That's the choice at that point.
12 So it's not like it's going to disappear.
13 If it disappears and they never say anything to 14 anybody that means the modification didn't get done.
15 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Correct. Correct.
16 CHAIR BROWN: So that's fine, if they 17 don't want to do the modification that's their choice.
18 (Simultaneously speaking.)
19 MR. MCKENNA: This is Phil McKenna. Or 20 they could redesign so that the acceptance criteria 21 are met then.
22 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, they could do that.
23 MR. MCKENNA: There's a synergy between 24 the design and then whether there needs to be a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 review. I think Member Brown captured it correctly.
1 This is not about changing the acceptance 2
criteria as documented in the FSAR, it's clarifying 3
how you make that determination of what acceptance 4
criteria are applicable. Because FSARs aren't 5
written necessarily as cleanly as we would like.
6 Right?
7 If they had flashing red lights around 8
everything that was an acceptance criteria that was 9
used to make the regulatory finding, this would be 10 simple. But they're not.
11 So this whole effort was to try to clarify 12 how a licensee can look through their FSAR and 13 determine, yes, what are the boundaries that have been 14 documented in their licensing basis that they have to 15 determine their skill within to help them make this 16 judgement of whether there is a different result.
17 CHAIR BROWN: And they have --
18 MR. MCKENNA: So if there is a different 19 result they have to come in for a LAR.
20 CHAIR BROWN: Or change the design.
21 MR. MCKENNA: Or change the design. Or 22 not do the mod, right?
23 CHAIR BROWN: Or not do the mod.
24 MR. MCKENNA: There is the do-nothing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 option.
1 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. So this does not get 2
lost. It's not like this is, that's a decision 3
process for the licensee.
4 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Right. But my point, 5
Charlie, is if you follow this logically how it's 6
going to be implemented, the staff will not see a 7
single LAR because of this condition. For the other 8
condition maybe.
9 But I don't see why the licensee will not 10 modify the design to make sure to satisfy the 11 criteria.
12 CHAIR BROWN: Well, what's wrong with 13 that?
14 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: That's perfectly 15 good. The only problem is there is a hidden safety 16 analysis that is performed at the plant and the staff 17 never gets to see the review. And that safety 18 analysis can be very involved.
19 MEMBER BLEY: But it's just something that 20 doesn't exist. The other thing I think, Jose, is 21 you're assuming nobody is ever going to request a 22 change to their license. And they might.
23 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: But not because they 24 don't meet the criteria.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 MEMBER BLEY: But --
1 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: What's worse, that 2
you change the criteria?
3 MEMBER BLEY: They can't change the 4
criteria --
5 (Simultaneously speaking.)
6 MR. BENNER: This is Eric Benner again.
7 We get 700 --
8 MEMBER BLEY: -- criteria that's in 9
guidance if they have analysis to back up the basis 10 for it. And that does happen.
11 MR. BENNER: Yes, this is Eric --
12 (Simultaneously speaking.)
13 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: -- basis.
14 MR. BENNER: This is Eric Benner. We 15 process 700 LARs a year for operating reactors. So 16 there, this is not going to really change that number 17 significantly.
18 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: What this is going to 19 achieve, and I fully support this by the way, is that 20 it's going to be actually modifications to, I didn't 21 see any, it's probably more digital I&C than now, 22 simply because after these decisions they'll be able 23 to do it.
24 And I support that completely because that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 is a safety improvement for the plant. And so I'm not 1
complaining about it.
2 I was just bringing out, the way it's 3
written it makes no sense to me. How it's going to be 4
implemented. Basically you're saying, don't send us 5
anything.
6 MR. WATERS: So, this is Mike Waters. I 7
do want to add that there are limited examples where 8
they will be able to assume a common-cause failure.
9 And by looking at the FSAR and defining what existing 10 safety analysis is, which this is about, what does it 11 mean to have existing safety analysis and start 12 looking at acceptance criteria and verifying the basic 13 assumptions that are changed that will be permitted to 14 do this now whereas the base guidance probably will 15 lead them not to.
16 But I would say that our examples were 17 just to not pass when basic assumptions change or the 18 acceptance criteria cannot be derived from the FSAR.
19 And if you look at Appendix D they show implementing 20 examples. And there are other examples where it would 21 not pass.
22 For example, there is an example of diesel 23 generator voltage control regulators and RPS. There 24 are examples where even with this guidance it would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 not pass Criterion 6 because of the basic assumptions, 1
single failure assumptions and perhaps acceptance 2
criteria.
3 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I like the examples.
4 I mean, I particularly like the example of the 5
feedwater controller where there was an analog 6
controller, you can only fail one of the four valves.
7 With a common-cause failure in the 8
software you can fail all four. And the four you have 9
a much worse feedwater loss failure.
10 But the safety analysis report was 11 performed with a complete loss of feedwater, which it 12 bounds in the condition. And this is perfectly 13 acceptable because you are not changing the safety 14 analysis.
15 Anyway, we've talked about it. I just 16 wanted to put this on the record that there's a chance 17 that there is a hidden safety analysis, an internal 18 safety analysis, that the licensee performs by 19 himself, hopefully under Appendix B, we never get to 20 see it.
21 MR. BENNER: And there are multiple 22 criteria in appendix, in 50.59, the last of which 23 talks about methods of evaluation. So they are able 24 to do some analytical work as long as that analytical 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 work is using methods that have been already approved 1
for their use.
2 And we go back to that all, any of those 3
things could be subject to inspection.
4 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Okay.
5 MR. BENNER: They do have to do all that 6
under Appendix B. Any mods they, any changes they 7
make under 50.59 do need to be reflected in a revised 8
version of the FSAR. And that's the biennial update 9
that we refer to.
10 We do inspect, it is an audit process but, 11 right, we do look at the ones that are of complexity 12 or interest. So it is a feedback mechanism to ensure 13 that even if licensees are making modifications under 14 50.59, that they're doing it in a manner that comports 15 with the rule and comports with the other 16 methodologies and quality assurance requirements that 17 they have.
18 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And don't get me 19 wrong, I'm a very big fan of 50.59, I think we should 20 be using it more. I think you make a big case, I'm 21 just pointing out what the language is.
22 But let me give you an example. I know, 23 Charlie, we're wasting your time, but this will go to 24 your heart.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 Say that I decide to modify my protection 1
system and I take my analog system and make a 2
completely digital protection system. And I hire 3
Charlie to help me go through the system and make it 4
redundant, diverse, unidirectional diodes, all the 5
goodies.
6 And I make an evaluation and I find out 7
that that protection system is perfectly acceptable.
8 It satisfies all the requirements, doesn't change the 9
design basis.
10 Would the protection system modification 11 to digital fall under the category of 50.59?
12 Because by the language you have in here 13 I can do it.
14 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters. I think 15 for that example, and the implementing examples that 16 NEI have for Appendix D, that likely would not pass 17 Criterion 6. And the specific example, I believe it's 18 4-23 of 4-44, I forget the number.
19 But the bottom line is, there are 20 diversity requirements for those types of systems.
21 And your single failure assumption is no longer 22 maintained when you have a common-cause failure that 23 challenges that would likely not pass given --
24 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I designed the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 protection system because I hired Charlie to do it for 1
me. I'm a licensee.
2 I hired Charlie to do it for me. I 3
designed the best protection system ever. One that if 4
the staff would review it you would say, yes, it's 5
good.
6 But I did the review myself, I made it 7
redundant, I made it diverse, I used two different 8
- teams, two different performing
- language, two 9
different systems to implement it. It's good. I did 10 the analysis, it's good.
11 At what point do we need to review it?
12 Clearly, from this one, the staff shouldn't be 13 involved on that.
14 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters. It's 15 sometimes hard to talk conceptually. I have complete 16 confidence in the design-based system and it should be 17 said, what's key here is, on the slide is, is it 18 within the existing safety analysis, if the existing 19 safety analysis is no longer bounding.
20 If it's no longer bounding it would 21 require NRC to review it and it will be safe. But the 22 point of this is, it will not require NRC review.
23 In the example you've given, I think most 24 would say it's no longer bounding for the existing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 safety analysis because some of the basic assumptions 1
are no longer valid therefore --
2 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I don't see why --
3 MR. WATERS: -- review it.
4 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: I don't see what 5
assumptions are involved by my example. I have a 6
beautiful performing system, it doesn't fail.
7 CHAIR BROWN: Jose? Jose?
8 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes, sir.
9 CHAIR BROWN:
Your
- example, 4-22, 10 postulates the entire reactor protection system being 11 redesigned with microprocessors.
12 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes.
13 CHAIR BROWN: And by the time they walk 14 through the six-steps, Step 6 comes to the conclusion 15 that it's not sufficiently low and therefore the basic 16 assumptions are not meet and therefore it would 17 require an LAR.
18 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes.
19 CHAIR BROWN: So that one of the examples 20 is complete replacement of the reactor protection and 21 safeguard, or the safeguard system applies also.
22 Since they're intertwined.
23 So they already have an example that 24 addresses what you just postulated. And they come to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 the conclusion that they could not do this without NRC 1
approval.
2 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And I concur with 3
that evaluation I just don't see how they reach that 4
conclusion.
5 CHAIR BROWN: Well, I --
6 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Anyway, I'll leave it 7
at that.
8 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
9 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters. In very 10 general terms I think that would violate the single 11 failure criterion for those systems if you assume 12 multiple, if you come across with the challenge, for 13 example, would not meet the single failure criterion 14 and would exceed what's the basis of existing safety 15 analysis. That's the reason why it would likely not 16 pass Criterion 6 and have to come in for a LAR review.
17 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: We have planned 18 slices with this is a protection system to satisfy 19 the, anyway, yes, I made my point I'll let you guys 20 continue.
21 MR. MCKENNA: Okay, thank you. Again, 22 this is Phil McKenna. Tekia, could you move to Slide 23 11 please?
24 Okay, so now I'll start discussing the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 changes to the Reg Guide. In particular, the 1
clarifications that are in Rev. 2 to Reg Guide 1.187.
2 And I do want to clarify one thing up 3
front, because when we opened up the meeting we were 4
discussing Rev. 1 to Reg Guide 1.187. And this 5
revision, Rev. 2, does not affect any of the technical 6
language in Sections C1.
7 There is some slight wording changes from 8
the issued Reg Guide in the first paragraph, but none 9
of the technical wording was changed and was not meant 10 to be changed. So, Section C1 does not deal with the 11 endorsement that we just did for Appendix D.
12 Next slide please, Tekia, Number 12.
13 Okay, so I'm going to step through the clarifications 14 that are now in the Reg Guides.
15 And I will mention which clarifications 16 were in the draft Reg Guide and if they were changed 17 at all. And then I'll hand over the discussion for 18 new clarifications to Mike Waters.
19 Okay, so the first clarification that's on 20 the screen right now on Slide 12 was in the draft Reg 21 Guide and has been reworded slightly based on public 22 comments during the public comment period for the 23 draft guide.
24 And all this Reg
- Guide, all this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 clarification is saying is that NEI 01-01, which is 1
the guidelines on licensing digital upgrades, still 2
remains, is still endorsed by the NRC and the licensee 3
does have the choice to use that guidance in NEI 4
01-01. So I'm just trying to point that out.
5 Next slide please. Slide 13. Oh, sorry.
6 CHAIR BROWN: Oh, Eric, I just, go back to 7
12 again.
8 I guess one of the things that was, just 9
wanted to point out, it's the last sentence, that the 10 intent with this is that Appendix D, Rev. 1 is only 11 digital and not generically applicable to any other 10 12 CFR 50.59 process.
13 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct. And that's 14 also stated in the endorsement, the first endorsement 15 paragraph in the Reg Guide.
16 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. That's what I, I just 17 wanted to emphasize that people saw that and 18 recognized it, that's all. Okay, thank you.
19 MR. MCKENNA: Okay. Next slide please, 20 Tekia, Slide 13.
21 So in this slide, again, this was, this 22 clarification was in the draft Reg Guide. And the 23 reason why we're making this clarification is because 24 NEI 96-07 proffer for the 50.59 screening process had 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 human-system interface automatically screening in.
1 Meaning you had to do an evaluation for that.
2 That guidance changed in NEI 01-01. And 3
now there is further detailed guidance for screening 4
human-system interface in Appendix D, which we 5
endorse.
6 CHAIR BROWN: All this is saying is that 7
NEI, even though there is some differences between 8
Rev. 1 and 96-01 and the revisions to NEI 01-01, NEI 9
01-01 is okay?
10 MR. MCKENNA: What we're really saying in 11 this is that the guidance in NEI 96-07, Appendix D, is 12 endorsed by the NRC. It defers from the base guidance 13 in 96-07.
14 CHAIR BROWN: Thank you. I didn't say 15 that, that's what I was trying to say and I just 16 didn't say it right. Thank you.
17 MEMBER REMPE: So, Charlie, I want to go 18 back to the point you just raised on the prior slide, 19 okay?
20 Because you're right, that's what it says 21 about, it's generically applicable to the 10 CFR 50-59 22 process. So this is on Slide 12 rather than 13. It's 23 the end of the discussion.
24 But yet earlier you, I believe said, that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 there is nothing special about I&C that should limit 1
it. So right now you're saying --
2 CHAIR BROWN: I didn't say that.
3 MEMBER REMPE: No, you didn't, the staff, 4
Philip did, right?
5 MR. MCKENNA: So, what I said is that, so 6
a licensee, if it's doing a digital modification, 7
would use Appendix D. A licensee would not use 8
Appendix D to do any other modifications. It's only 9
applicable to digital modifications.
10 But what we have endorsed in Appendix D is 11 not necessarily just special to digital I&C for the 12 acceptance criteria.
13 CHAIR BROWN: But it has --
14 MEMBER REMPE: Well --
15 CHAIR BROWN: But it has, Joy, hold on.
16 Joy? Joy, hold on.
17 But right now it's only been closed, well, 18 I don't want to say accepted, it's been only accepted 19 for digital modifications.
20 MR. MCKENNA: Correct.
21 CHAIR BROWN: But you're just saying, it 22 doesn't mean it couldn't be used somewhere else if 23 some other evaluations were made?
24 MR. MCKENNA: So, if the guidance would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 change.
1 CHAIR BROWN: Yes.
2 MR. MCKENNA: So the licensee, right now, 3
could not use Appendix D to perform a non-digital 4
modification.
5 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. And that's what I'm 6
trying to, Joy was, I'm trying to clarify Joy's 7
comment because you cannot merge this back to anything 8
else unless other accommodations were made. Similar 9
to what you're doing.
10 Somebody could come in and say, hey, we 11 like what you did in Appendix D and we now want to 12 apply it to some other category of changes. Something 13 else would have to be written and approved and issued 14 for that.
15 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron. But 16 you've also said that you're notifying the Commission 17 of your change in interpretation.
18 MR. MCKENNA: So, there is consideration 19 that we would have to notify the Commission about the 20 interpretation for acceptance criteria.
21 MEMBER BALLINGER: So that in turn, that 22 would be a general note on interpretation, so based on 23 that, that sort of starts the process of getting 24 wording put in the general document, does it not?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 CHAIR BROWN: No.
1 MR. MCKENNA: It doesn't start so, go 2
ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Brown.
3 CHAIR BROWN: No, I was going to say I 4
think that's an extension. When you say you would 5
have to identify your change, and correct me if I'm 6
wrong on this, your change in interpretation would be 7
the application to digital, not to anything else.
8 MR. MCKENNA: So that is correct. So, 9
again, as we mentioned, if NEI decided to revise the 10 base documents then we would have to go through a 11 different endorsement process for that.
12 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, the 96-07 itself.
13 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct.
14 CHAIR BROWN: Where that applies, and that 15 guidance for all of 50.59 changes not just digital.
16 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct.
17 CHAIR BROWN: So that would be a change, 18 and somebody would have to issue an Appendix E or an 19 Appendix F or something. Or based document changes, 20 whatever it would be.
21 And when you identified it to the 22 Commission, this interpretation, I presume you would 23 not say, you would just say this is for digital only.
24 I presume you would be telling that explicitly, is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 that correct?
1 MR. MCKENNA: So in the Reg Guide, again, 2
we endorse Appendix D for digital only. That's 3
correct.
4 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. Okay. It's just, to 5
me it's very clear I just --
6 (Laughter.)
7 MEMBER REMPE: It's very clear, I agree 8
with you, Charlie, but I just am kind of wondering, 9
when you guys were thinking about this, I mean, your 10 interpretation in prior meetings was pretty rigid 11 based on what you've done in the past with other, in 12 your knowledge of how 50.59 has been interpreted.
13 Now you're changing that interpretation to 14 digital I&C. Are there any concerns that you have 15 about a broader opening of this interpretation?
16 MR. MCKENNA: So, that's probably why it 17 took the past nine months to get to the point where we 18 were at. So, any concerns have been discussed amongst 19 the staff.
20 MEMBER BALLINGER: This is Ron again. It 21 makes no sense, based on this not to go after, not for 22 NEI to go after the base document. You have logical 23 inconsistencies here now.
24 CHAIR BROWN: No, that's not right, Ron.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 MEMBER BALLINGER: Well, I've been wrong 1
before.
2 CHAIR BROWN: I'm sorry, I didn't mean 3
phrase it, I'm not poking you in the eye, okay. I 4
mean, that's the purpose of the regulatory process, is 5
to identify how we utilize the guidance that's out 6
there right now.
7 And all this does is provide, you know, an 8
extension or maybe apply some common sense to an area 9
that wasn't even available when 50.59 was originally 10 written. I mean, there have been huge changes in the 11 technology which have not been incorporated, if you 12 want to call it that, by some of the stuff that was 13 written 25 years ago.
14 MEMBER BALLINGER: I don't doubt the 15 digital IMC thing, but to use the word common sense, 16 I guess I rest my case.
17 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. That's my personal 18 opinion. It's amazing to me how difficult it has been 19 over the last 20 years for the licensees to make 20 upgrades to some of these systems using the newer 21 technology because of the way things have been very 22 tightly interpreted, or evaluated, or viewed.
23 And here is a case of the staff is 24 working, trying to stay within the intent of the rule, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 but provide some latitude to allow, you know, people 1
to design stuff and say, hey look, we meet, all the 2
touch points are met.
3 And, you know, from analyses, to the 4
acceptance criteria, to other types of evaluations, 5
and whatever they are, and this is just an attempt to 6
try to do that. So I'm not a cheerleader, but I just 7
think this is a step in the direction.
8 And maybe if this thought process migrates 9
to some other parts, other people will have to take 10 the thought process and generate something, either a 11 Reg Guide, or an appendix to some other Reg Guide, or 12 have generic changes to 96.07 itself come in for 13 approval.
14 But this at least provides some guidance 15 for licensees and gives them some categories. And 16 some of the accommodations they've made, if you go 17 back to Step 2 and how they've broken out changes 18 based on design basis, and license requirements, and 19 everything else, it categorizes things pretty nicely 20 so that the licensee can say, hold it, do I fall into 21 these, are these the right holes or not?
22 I think it's been a good accommodation 23 between NEI and the staff. So I don't want to get 24 tied up in this generic thing getting thrown back.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 And then, oh, my God, they're going to take it, and 1
everybody's going to run and design stuff based on 2
what people did for the digital modifications. I 3
think there's too much other stuff that would have to 4
be done to get there. Anyway, that's my soliloquy.
5 MEMBER BLEY: This is Dennis. I'm just 6
curious. Question to the staff or the NEI folks, 7
either one, are people still using 01-01, or are we 8
just preserving something that's historical?
9 MR. MCKENNA: So, Mike, do you want me to 10 answer that or would you like to answer that?
11 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters. I can 12 answer it to some extent, but I can't tell you how 13 many and what number of industry people are using 14 01-01.
15 What I can tell you is, as we brief for 16 ACRS, and at the time, and this was years ago we 17 issued Supplement 1 to RIS 2002-22. And that RIS, 18 endorses the 01-01 and provided a pathway to use a 19 qualitative assessment that common-cause failure 20 sufficiently low.
21 We have received industry 22 feedback that they are indeed implementing digital 23 upgrades using that RIS supplement which, again, 24 provides for a qualitative assessment of common-cause 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 failure which is based on 01-01.
1 So I guess it's a yes, they are still 2
using that for cases where they can have design 3
measures and quality processes where they can justify 4
that common-cause failure is sufficiently low. Once 5
you demonstrate a common-cause failure is sufficiently 6
low, it is a much easier path, Criterion 6 and other 7
criteria.
8 But, you know, it's a good point. Here 9
again, we're talking about digital upgrades where 10 licensees cannot demonstrate a common-cause failure is 11 sufficiently low. You need to look at their results.
12 CHAIR BROWN: I would also point out, this 13 is Charlie again, that 96-07, Appendix D, at least the 14 version we had back then, that has not changed. The 15 basic, that Appendix D it says, and this part did not 16 change, it says a qualitative assessment should not be 17 used for digital IMC replacements for the reactor 18 protection systems, engineered safeguard systems, or 19 modifications of internal logic portions of these 20 systems, voting logic, basket cable inputs, signal 21 condition process.
22 That's
- still, you cannot use that 23 qualitative assessment. You can use that qualitative 24 assessment for other digital upgrades. Isn't that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 correct, Mike?
1 MR. MCKENNA: Yes. This is Phil. That is 2
correct.
3 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, sorry. Okay. When we 4
were talking, Mike brought up the qualitative 5
assessment in RIS 2002-22. I wanted to make clear 6
that the qualitative part still does not apply to 7
reactor protection systems, and safeguard systems, and 8
associated internal parts.
9 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters again.
10 Just to clarify, essentially we have agreed, in the 11 RIS supplement, that the qualitative assessment is 12 appropriate for the things the person sends in. It's 13 not that appropriate for the reactor protection 14 systems, for example, those type of things.
15 I will tell you though, you know, industry 16 feedback we
- received, and it's part of the 17 conversation, is they make the point there may be more 18 ways than one to have a qualitative assessment beyond 19 what industry has endorsed in Supplement 1.
20 And they've expressed concern about having 21 all kinds of advantage to 01-01. But at this point in 22 time, we have established a pathway for what I believe 23 to be the vast majority of digital upgrades to 24 demonstrate that common-cause failure is sufficiently 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 low.
1 CHAIR BROWN: That's right. Even though 2
they might want to do something else, they'll have to 3
address that separately.
4 MR. WATERS: Exactly.
5 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. Can we go on? Or are 6
there some other questions on this? Okay.
7 MR. MCKENNA: Tekia, can you go to Slide 8
14, please? We covered 13, so Slide 14 is the last 9
clarification that remained from the draft Reg Guide.
10 Again, this was reworded slightly from the draft Reg 11 Guide to the public comment period.
12 And all this clarification is saying is 13 that the RIS 2002-22 Supplement 1, which we just 14 discussed, is the only guidance that NRC has reviewed 15 and endorsed for providing an acceptable basis to 16 determine that the likelihood of software CCF is 17 sufficiently low.
18 CHAIR BROWN: That's really a restatement.
19 You addressed in, just to make sure I understand, in 20 96-07, I've forgotten, but up in the background you 21 talk about the RIS.
22 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct.
23 CHAIR BROWN: It's not mentioned anyplace 24 else. So this effectively, with the Reg Guide says, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 hey guys, if you're going to do a qualitative 1
assessment, this is where you do it.
2 MR. MCKENNA: Yes. It is mentioned in 3
Appendix D, in the first couple of pages of Appendix 4
D.
5 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, I think that's the 6
background. I meant Appendix D, I'm sorry. But it's 7
in the background part. It's not up in what I would 8
call the meat-and-potatoes part. And you all, with 9
the Reg Guide, you've made sure that's clear.
10 MR. MCKENNA: That's correct. Okay, so 11 I'm going to move on Slide 15 and handoff the speaking 12 role to Mike Waters.
13 MR. WATERS: Thanks, Phil. So we've 14 covered a lot of this in our earlier conversations 15 with ACRS. And I'll talk about the two clarifications 16 regarding acceptance criteria and bounding 17 assumptions.
18 And I'll try to not cover old ground to 19 that extent, but we thought it was important to 20 provide these clarifications in writing in the Reg 21 Guide just because we had, just as you explained to 22 ACRS, right now what it meant for acceptance criteria, 23 the ramifications in using these assumptions. That's 24 why we put this clarification into the Reg Guide.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 Again, the concept applying, based on 1
assumptions of the acceptance criteria in Step 6, was 2
a focal area. And this is what got us past our 3
previous exception to 4.3.6. And now we can accept 4
the written version of Appendix D.
5 So the first clarification here on the 6
slide focuses really on the question today of using 7
acceptance criteria to evaluate malfunction results.
8 This is a clarification, B, or 2B2 on Page 8 of the 9
Reg Guide.
10 The clarification does essentially 11 acknowledge a licensee can consider the use of 12 acceptance criteria now determining whether there's a 13 different result.
14 This is a departure from the base guidance 15 for addressing different results which focuses on 16 component or system level. That's a point that we 17 just talked about.
18 So concerning the latest clarification 19 here that the licensee may also consider this, it was 20 important, because we wanted to make sure that there 21 was continuity between what the base guidance says and 22 what Appendix D says. Because they are meant to 23 complement each other.
24 And I would say, again, determining 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 whether or not the existing analysis is bounding, 1
likely the acceptance criteria has one meaning along 2
with the basic assumption to make this decision.
3 That's what the clarification says.
4 Slide 16, so the next clarification is a 5
little more detail on the basic assumptions on 6
acceptance criteria. There's a little bit more to 7
unpack here when you look at the actual clarification.
8 This is text that we've been talking 9
about, this actual clarification text. That's down on 10 the bottom of Page 8 of the Reg Guide and I believe 11 Clarification D. The clarification focuses in the Reg 12 Guide on how basic assumptions and acceptance criteria 13 are used in Step 6. And originally, we had raised 14 multiple points.
15 The clarification begins with the fact 16 that we know that Step 6 is what we call a two-pronged 17 test where you determine whether the proposed change 18 would create the possibility of a malfunction with a 19 different result. But either one of these paths, if 20 failure of either prong results in the -- I'm sorry, 21 failure of either prong would result in a need for a 22 license amendment.
23 The first prong, basic assumptions, it 24 really addresses whether they are interchanging the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 basic assumptions in the existing safety analysis.
1 For clarification notes, it used to see more failures 2
at basic assumption.
3 But I also note that at basic assumption 4
in an existing analysis would also no longer be valid 5
if the malfunction was only the scenario beyond the 6
scope of a method evaluation which could occur during 7
introduction of a new phenomenon that was not 8
previously modeled or use of a method or correlation 9
is outside range of possibility approved by the NRC.
10 We made that clarification. That's part 11 of the basic assumption consideration. In other 12 words, if analysis of the new common-cause of failure 13 or malfunction caused the licensee to mount a 14 phenomenon at a different range, that was not 15 considered an issue in fuel. It would likely not pass 16 the basic assumption criteria.
17 CHAIR BROWN: You're right, this was a 18 tough one to unpack.
19 MR. WATERS: We call the second prong, the 20 second prong of the test addressed one of the existing 21 safety analyses that's longer bounding after the 22 proposed change. And again, this is focused on the 23 parenthetical where, what Member Brown refers to, the 24 parenthetical talks about acceptance criteria.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 The reason I clarify that, if (audio 1
interference) are
- unmet, then it constitutes 2
satisfaction of acceptance criteria, and it satisfies 3
the acceptance criteria results in the safety analysis 4
but also notes that applicable acceptance criteria 5
must be based on the licensee's FSAR.
6 And many FSARs in the acceptance criteria 7
are not clearly identified or specified. So the 8
licensee may need to refer to supporting documents 9
referenced in the FSAR to rely on these acceptance 10 criteria.
11 In short, the licensee should ensure that 12 they have correctly identified all possible acceptance 13 criteria for the event being analyzed for purposes of 14 Step 6.
15 And finally, if that's clarified for 16 purposes of applying this rule, licensee's cannot use 17 NRC regulations, SRP, or any of the documents outside 18 of their licensee basis as a source for applicable 19 acceptance criteria. That's because in 10 CFR 50.59 20 requires comparison to results that could be found 21 within the FSAR.
22 CHAIR BROWN: That's kind of a critical 23 statement in the second paragraph at that second prong 24 discussion. They can't invent acceptance criteria out 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 of other regulations or other documents that is not 1
called out in their updated FSAR.
2 MR. WATERS: Right. And so, you know, a 3
critical phrase or existing safety analysis, and that 4
was a struggle, how do we define existing safety 5
analysis and what does that mean? And it has to be 6
based on existing safety analysis to pass this 7
criterion.
8 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. Okay.
9 MR. WATERS: So just to summarize these 10 two clarifications, we felt it very important to put 11 it in here. So we have the Reg Guide and the base 12 guidance will provide a discussion of acceptance 13 criteria, a discussion of basic assumptions. We put 14 it in here for clarity of NRC's approval of Appendix 15 D.
16 So I know that was a lot. I stuck to it 17 kind of fast. Any questions?
18 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, go on.
19 MR. MCKENNA: Okay, next slide, 17, Tekia.
20 So that basically ends our brief on the changes to 21 Appendix D and the changes to Reg Guide 1.187 which 22 will be in Rev 2. That Reg Guide is currently in the 23 concurrence process at NRC. And it will be ready for 24 issuance in June.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 Final slide, Tekia. There we go.
1 CHAIR BROWN: Now, you anticipate, you 2
noted that you were still headed in the concurrence 3
process. Hopefully, you will have this concurrence 4
process. And whatever other things you've got going 5
on will be completed by the full committee meeting in 6
June.
7 MR. MCKENNA: Yes, as Eric Benner stated, 8
that is the goal.
9 CHAIR BROWN: You will let us know if you 10 don't meet that goal?
11 MR. MCKENNA: Yes, sir.
12 CHAIR BROWN: And what the hang-ups are?
13 MR. MCKENNA: Yes.
14 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, we can discuss that, 15 what we do with that if you get to that point. Are 16 there any other issues associated with this that we 17 need to know about?
18 MR. MCKENNA: Was that a question for me, 19 Member Brown?
20 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. I'm sorry.
21 MR. MCKENNA: No. So we presented our 22 presentation. Could you restate your question maybe.
23 CHAIR BROWN: I said are there any other 24 issues within your group that you have to deal with, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 I mean, people, you're on board, you've got OGC that 1
you're still working with, I guess. And are there 2
other divisions that you have to work with? What are 3
the hangups?
4 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters. We are 5
in the final stages of concurrence and with the 6
process. We are not actively changing. We did this, 7
we're in the concurrence process concerning different 8
views. And we'll proceed forward.
9 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 MR. MCKENNA: I will also mention that, 12 you know, we had to make the Reg Guide public for this 13 meeting. So NEI has seen the current version of the 14 Reg Guide. So in their brief, they're going to 15 discuss, you know, some high level items on the Reg 16 Guide.
17 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. Are there any other 18 questions before we shift over to NEI, take a break 19 and shift over to NEI from, maybe walk through all the 20 members' names. Or do you all just want to talk out.
21 I can walk through everybody.
22 MEMBER BLEY: We're not voting.
23 CHAIR BROWN: No, we're not voting on 24 anything. So if we're all solid, we will take our 15 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 minute break right now. We're right on ---
1 MEMBER PETTI: Sorry, I have a question.
2 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, who's talking?
3 MEMBER PETTI: Dave Petti.
4 CHAIR BROWN: Oh, Dave. Yes, go ahead.
5 MEMBER PETTI: I'm just struggling. It 6
may be a fake question in reality. I have an 7
acceptance criteria, and I have a calculation in MUSA.
8 They go through a digital upgrade. The numerical 9
value changes, but it's still within the acceptance 10 criteria.
11 Doesn't that mean that the safety margin 12 has degraded or eroded in some way? So, you know, if 13 it's two or three percent, I'm not worried about it.
14 But what if they took 95 percent of the distance from 15 where they were in the acceptance criteria with the 16 change?
17 Well, you know, I think about this in the 18 concept of the power uprates. They're trying to eke 19 more out. That gets full review, because it's all 20 about the safety margin. Is that not a fair 21 comparison? I guess I'd like to know what the staff 22 thinks.
23 MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters. I think 24 the answer is yes, an analytical margin may be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 decreased. And that's what Example 418 highlights, 1
the fact that you may be able to recalculate the 2
thermal hydraulic effects for the two water valves 3
opening. Your DNBR may go lower, closer to the 4
acceptance criteria limit in the existing safety 5
analysis and still be fine.
6 So yes, there an analytical margin may 7
decrease, maybe up to a point of acceptance criteria 8
and associated with fuel failure, for example, a DNBR 9
of 1.3, I believe, is a correlation used for some 10 Westinghouse designs. And that could be an exception 11 to criteria that you can go up to.
12 So safety margin is kind of a little 13 tricky. That's the best definition for me, but I 14 agree with the point about analytical margin, yes. If 15 it can pass the basic assumption test, and if it can 16 pass the acceptance criteria test in terms of the 17 relevant acceptance criteria from the existing safety 18 analysis.
19 CHAIR BROWN: Dave?
20 MEMBER PETTI: Yes?
21 CHAIR BROWN: The Example 418 that he's 22 talking about, it was a feedwater flow control valves 23 all go open.
24 MEMBER PETTI: Right.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 CHAIR BROWN: Or maybe it's all go closed.
1 I guess it's all failing open. And the acceptance 2
criteria was a DNBR of 1.3. The current safety 3
analysis was 1.42. And the new calculated for the 4
design change is 1.33.
5 So they lost 0.09 of margin down to one 6
point. So now they've got three percent vice 12, or 7
three points vice 12 points. So that illustrates 8
your point, yes. But that one is deemed as if, based 9
on the weights proposed, it does not create the 10 possibility with a different result. Because it's 11 still within the acceptance criteria.
12 MEMBER PETTI: Yes. I guess I just 13 struggle with how is that different than a power 14 upgrade where I'm going to recalculate all these 15 thermal hydraulic parameters.
16 And, you know, you're going to have to 17 show that you're okay filing for acceptance criteria.
18 And you probably are, because we do the upgrade. But 19 everybody gets to see it. It gets reviewed by NRC.
20 That's, I guess, where I was still struggling.
21 CHAIR BROWN: But I guess the point people 22 are making that, if it's within the acceptable 23 boundaries of the FSAR, then it's not like it's 24 hidden. I mean, people will know about it. But it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 meets the acceptance criteria, and therefore they are 1
authorized to proceed with the change without an LAR.
2 MEMBER PETTI: Right. And I understand 3
the process.
4 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. The point is the 5
point.
6 MEMBER PETTI: Yes, I understand that.
7 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
8 MEMBER REMPE: So maybe Jose can help us 9
take your example further, Dave. They do a reload 10 calculation. So we do see safety margin, and now they 11 are getting ready to do a fuel reload calculation.
12 Does everybody know that the margins 13 reduced can pull some of these calculations where they 14 decide that the new core loading's going to be okay?
15 Does it ever, how does it get passed back and forth?
16 Does someone know this? Jose, do you know, or does 17 someone on the staff know how the deduction in safety 18 margin is accommodated?
19 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Typically, there is, 20 what is called a reload safety analysis report that's 21 a convention to set points. And they typically get 22 reflected in the COLA, the COLA based on industry 23 report which does not, it's referenced like text, but 24 it's not up to the licensee. So you can modify COLA 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 numbers without having to need an LAR.
1 So you asked the question, these numbers 2
need to be reported to the staff on the reload SAR.
3 If you have to change things that belong on the tech 4
specs before this happens, the safety limit, then you 5
need an LAR just to change the safety limit.
6 And the majority of the LARs I have seen 7
myself, yes. Hey, our safety limit used to be 114, 8
we're 115 now. But that's trivial. So yes, the staff 9
gets these numbers on the reload system as a report.
10 MEMBER REMPE: So again, okay, so someone 11 in the plant does an IMC change. They reduce the 12 safety margin. How do they communicate that to the 13 fuel reload folks that are doing the analysis? Does 14 that ever come in, are there interactions?
15 (Simultaneous speaking.)
16 MR. MCKENNA: This is Phil McKenna. So 17 that's picked up in the inspection process. So I just 18 wanted to clarify though. They're within the 19 acceptance criteria that is in their FSAR. So they're 20 not talking about safety margin. The safety margin is 21 from the acceptance criteria to failure. So we've 22 given them the bounds in the FSAR. And they're 23 allowed to use those bounds.
24 MEMBER REMPE: Okay.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 MEMBER BLEY: That helps a lot.
1 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, thank you.
2 MEMBER BLEY: That clarifies it, thanks.
3 CHAIR BROWN: Anymore questions? Okay, we 4
will now go ahead. We're a little bit later, but we 5
will now reconvene at 25 after 11:00 for the NEI. And 6
they can take possession of the shared space or what 7
have you. So we are adjourned for the, not adjourned, 8
recessed, excuse me, until 11:25.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 10 off the record at 11:05.m. and resumed at 11:25 a.m.)
11 CHAIR BROWN: All right. I'm going to 12 restart everything. I'm going to presume -- it's 13 11:25. I'm going to presume that everybody's back.
14 Or maybe I'll do a roll call for the members here if 15 I can find my member sheet.
16 Okay, we're back in service again. I'm 17 going to do a roll call for the members. Dennis?
18 MEMBER BLEY: Here.
19 CHAIR BROWN: Matt?
20 MEMBER SUNSERI: Here.
21 CHAIR BROWN: Jose?
22 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Yes.
23 CHAIR BROWN: Vesna?
24 MEMBER DIMITRIJEVIC: Yes.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 CHAIR BROWN: Walt?
1 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Yes.
2 CHAIR BROWN: Joy?
3 MEMBER REMPE: Yes, I'm here.
4 CHAIR BROWN: Ron?
5 MEMBER BALLINGER: Yes.
6 CHAIR BROWN: Pete?
7 MEMBER RICCARDELLA: I'm here.
8 CHAIR BROWN: Dave?
9 MEMBER PETTI: Yes.
10 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. I presume Myron is 11 back, our consultant. He can sign back in when he 12 gets here.
13 Okay, we will resume. I'm going to turn 14 this over to Steve Vaughn. I presume ---
15 (Simultaneous speaking.)
16 MR. HECHT: Excuse me, Charlie, this is 17 Myron. I just wanted to let you know.
18 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. Steve, are you going 19 to do the introduction or is that going ---
20 MR. GEIER: This is Steve Geier from NEI.
21 CHAIR BROWN: Oh, where is Steve, I should 22 say. Okay.
23 MR. GEIER: It's the echo.
24 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, who's going to do the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 introduction for NEI?
1 MR. GEIER: Steve Geier.
2 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, Steve Geier.
3 MR. GEIER: Yes.
4 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. You can go ahead and 5
start. We've got everybody here.
6 MR. GEIER: Great, thank you. Good 7
morning. What I'd like to do is first just kind of go 8
through and introduce the NEI team that's part of 9
this. So the other Steve, Steve Vaughn, will be our 10 slidemaster. So he can put up the slides.
11 Kati Austgen, senior project manager from 12 NEI will be our lead presenter. We also have, as part 13 of our team, Neil Archambo from Duke Energy and Peter 14 LaBlond as the subject matter expert on 50.59. And, 15 you know, thank you for this opportunity to discuss 16 with the committee Appendix D.
17 Just very briefly, over the last several 18 months, our Appendix D team has worked very diligently 19 to address the staff's concerns. They've come up with 20 some alternatives. And our goal is to overall have a 21 clean endorsement of Appendix D and to eliminate the 22 condition that was in the previous revision.
23 Our goal has always been to have a clear 24 and concise guidance for practical use at the stations 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 to apply 50.59, just involving digital. And we want 1
to make sure that it complies with the 50.59 rule and 2
is also consistent with the 96-07 base guidance.
3 And the clear and consistent guidance also 4
extends to the Reg Guide. This all creates the body 5
of information that the actual practitioners at the 6
stations will be using to perform 50.59s and to ensure 7
that they comply with the rule.
8 And I'm going to turn it over to Kati to 9
go through our slides just a summary of changes that 10 we made and also talk a little bit about some comments 11 we had on the Reg Guide. So Katie?
12 MS. AUSTGEN: Thank you, Steve. So we're 13 on our second slide now, the Appendix D summary of 14 changes. We won't spend too much time on this. As 15 the staff presented based on feedback at the ACRS 16 meeting, and further discussion of the NRC staff, we 17 did revise Section 4.3.6 of Appendix D.
18 In particular, we included additional 19 guidance on what to do with those SSCs that are solely 20 required to comply with regulations and license 21 conditions, that they're not credited in any safety 22 analysis as defined in 3.12 of NEI 96-07 Rev 1. So 23 again, not just the accident analyses in the FSAR but 24 that broader scope of things that meet the definition 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 of safety analyses.
1 And then the other big change was, as the 2
staff has discussed, the clarifications that 3
activities could either invalidate basic assumptions, 4
such as single failure criterion, or that do not meet 5
acceptance criteria stated in the safety analyses, 6
would create a different malfunction result.
7 I do want to pause here just to a point 8
that the industry has always seen that this ability to 9
use the satisfaction of acceptance criteria has been 10 available for looking at Criterion 6. But it wasn't 11 explicitly sought out in NEI 96-07 Rev 1.
12 And it wasn't really needed for any 13 activities until you got to digital activity. So now 14 that it is crucial for digital activities to be able 15 to clearly walk through the 50.59 process, and in 16 particular Criterion 6, that's why this guidance is in 17 Appendix D and is intended for use with digital 18 activity.
19 So we'll go ahead and take our third 20 slide. So here again, as was mentioned, we updated 21 the examples accordingly when we updated the six-step 22 process in subsequent systems. We included the 23 example wording so that it's better connected to the 24 guidance, revised the examples to clearly state our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 objectives and the application of the guidance.
1 And we've better explained how to compare 2
the results of malfunctions to the associated safety 3
analysis acceptance criteria. Then that was for those 4
examples.
5 We'll take Slide 4. Okay, so our 6
perspective on the Reg Guide updates that were shared 7
for the ACRS meeting, first of all, we see that many 8
of the comments that we provided during the public 9
comment period on the draft revision to the Reg Guide 10 have been addressed. And we very much appreciate 11 that.
12 The new clarifications are certainly an 13 area of focus for us to make sure that they truly are 14 providing the clarity that's desired. We note that as 15 those clarifications were provided most recently, 16 they're maybe not as clear as what the staff intends.
17 So we appreciate the discussion today that has 18 acknowledged that the different criteria under 19 50.59(c)(2) do have their different roles.
20 The focus of Section 4.3.6 is Criterion 6.
21 And the examples in that section were developed to 22 cover the landscape of digital activities that we 23 anticipate licensees might encounter.
24 And none of those bring in Criterion 8 of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 50.59. None of those were meant to challenge anything 1
in the other criteria through illustration of that 2
example. The example was really focused on how do you 3
address malfunction in an SSC important to safety with 4
a different result.
5 So we think, you know, if the language in 6
Reg Guide 1.187 can be made to clearly look at just 7
Criterion 6, that will light up much better with the 8
intent of the guidance. And, in fact, even as NEI 9
96-07 Appendix D already states, there's no unique 10 guidance in several of the sections on other 11 evaluation criteria, in particular Criterion 8, so we 12 can stick with what's in 4.3.6 to address Criterion 6.
13 MEMBER BLEY: You left me a little 14 confused. This is Dennis Bley.
15 MS. AUSTGEN: Yes.
16 MEMBER BLEY: Is NEI still objecting to 17 the language in the guide, or are you good with it?
18 MS. AUSTGEN: So we recognize it's not 19 gone through the full NRC concurrence process yet. So 20 we understand that it is still open to some 21 adjustment. And so we'd say it's not perfect the way 22 it is today. But we can see a path to where it is 23 acceptable and it does appropriately clarify.
24 As Steve Geier mentioned, you know, in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 end we've just got to make sure that everything fits 1
together and doesn't leave people wondering where 2
they're at.
3 MEMBER BLEY: I'm trying to pin you down.
4 It sounds as though you still disagree with it, and 5
you figure it's going to get fixed somewhere along the 6
line. The line's pretty short.
7 MS. AUSTGEN: Ha, ha, ha. Yes, I agree, 8
the line is pretty short. So some of the language 9
that had been inserted into the clarifications with 10 Reg Guide 1.187 called out things like method of 11 evaluation. That is a very specific term in 50.59, 12 method of evaluation is something you'd look at in 13 Criterion 8.
14 It is not the subject of Criterion 6. So 15 to the extent that the staff currently has language 16 like that in their clarification on Criterion 6, we 17 don't think that clarifies anything at all. But we 18 believe that the staff understands that and is 19 prepared to adjust that so that it no longer has that 20 appearance of mixing guidance for the different 21 criteria.
22 MEMBER BLEY: Would someone from the staff 23 be willing to step forward and say they either agree 24 with what was just said or they don't?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 MR. MCKENNA: So between myself, Mike, and 1
Eric, who would like to answer that question?
2 MR. BENNER: This is Eric. I'll do an 3
answer. We are, like, listening to all this feedback 4
and will consider it as we're in the concurrence 5
process. So we acknowledge that, you know, we want 6
this guidance to be clear.
7 So, I mean, I'll just say we just need to 8
digest some of what we're hearing in the discussion 9
today and see whether we can put the additional 10 clarity into the guidance.
11 So there is an acknowledgment that some of 12 the language was inartful. I think I can easily agree 13 that we need to look at some of that language. We 14 talk about that, yes, there are probably better places 15 for different pieces to be evaluated. So it might be 16 better to just have pointers to other criteria for any 17 sensitivities about those guidance results.
18 So we on the staff just haven't completely 19 thought through what we're hearing now. I mean, we 20 saw the slides yesterday as they were provided. So 21 we're still digesting that information and looking to 22 see what changes we would think are appropriate.
23 MEMBER BLEY: Okay, thanks. It seems to 24 me we're really splitting hairs at this point. It 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 seems like there's been a great deal of progress. But 1
I certainly hope that when you come into full 2
committee you won't still have these objections.
3 MR. BENNER: I agree with you, Member 4
Bley. And we are working hard to do these last 5
refinements. Because I do believe we are truly at 6
this point in just a final clarification stage.
7 MEMBER BLEY: Thanks.
8 CHAIR BROWN: This is Charlie again. That 9
was Phil talking. Or that was Eric, or is that Phil?
10 MR. BENNER: This is Eric.
11 CHAIR BROWN: It was Eric, okay, excuse 12 me. And I'm talking to Kati as well here. I've 13 looked at Criterion 8. And it says methods of 14 evaluation, as you stated. And I was looking at the 15 new 4.3.6 changes and clarifications. I saw the words 16 existing methods of analysis. Is that the type of 17 terminology you're talking about, Kati?
18 MS. AUSTGEN: This is Kati. So I would 19 say that comes close but is not, I'll say, the most 20 offensive or the most egregious of ---
21 (Simultaneous speaking.)
22 MS. AUSTGEN: A paragraph or two later it 23 actually says method of evaluation.
24 CHAIR BROWN: Can you tell me where in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 Reg Guide it says that?
1 MS. AUSTGEN: Yes, one moment.
2 MR. GEIER: It's on Page 9, the third full 3
paragraph.
4 MEMBER BLEY: First sentence?
5 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, I see it now. Okay.
6 Actually, I didn't read it the way NEI did. I thought 7
it was straight forward. I didn't connect to eight.
8 Sorry about that.
9 MS. AUSTGEN: Well, like I said, it is a 10 term of art in 50.59. And so when those who are 11 trained to be 50.59, and who are reading the 50.59 12 guidance, we're going to look at that and say, oh, 13 method of evaluation, that's a defined term. That 14 means something.
15 CHAIR BROWN: Yes, I understand your 16 point.
17 MEMBER KIRCHNER: And Kati, this is Walt 18 Kirchner. In your mind, this means an acceptable 19 method that's been approved by the NRC?
20 MS. AUSTGEN: So let's --
21 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Say, through a topical 22 report or some other means?
23 MS. AUSTGEN: Yes. So at its most basic 24 level, a method of evaluation is a calculational 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 framework. It is defined specifically in NEI 96-07, 1
Rev 1. Section 3 is where you'll find the definition.
2 And 3.10 is methods of evaluation.
3 MEMBER KIRCHNER: So my question is that 4
implies that it's a method that's been accepted by the 5
NRC for purposes of the safety analysis submittal?
6 MS. AUSTGEN: Yes, for an intended purpose 7
and that the NRC has found it to be acceptable. Yes.
8 MEMBER KIRCHNER: Thank you.
9 MR. GEIER: This is Steve Geier. If I can 10 just articulate our position on this clarification.
11 We understand the staff is trying to clarify the basic 12 assumption and how that is used with the acceptance 13 criteria. So we're fine with that. You know, we 14 understand some of the need there.
15 But we just want to make sure that we 16 compartmentalize Criterion 6 to the terminology and 17 the process that's in six, but we don't bring in any 18 others.
19 I just wanted to, you know, mention that 20 when an engineer at a station is performing a 50.59, 21 they do look at each of the criteria, you know, by 22 themselves. And so it's really important to keep it 23 compartmentalized.
24 We don't overlap, because it's not a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 sequential process that you go from two, to three, to 1
four. It's each one of them is looked at 2
independently. And in any mod, whether it's digital 3
or otherwise, there's usually a one, or two, or three 4
that are brought in by that particular mod, naturally 5
to focus your efforts. And likewise with digital, 6
Criterion 6 will likely be, you know, one of those 7
that will be focused on for a more intensive 8
evaluation.
9 So by being very clear, precise in 10 keeping, you know, what's in the Reg Guide aligned 11 with what's in Appendix D is really important to 12 provide that clear and concise value for somebody 13 actually using it as practical guidance.
14 CHAIR BROWN: Okay, thank you, Steve. Are 15 there any other questions, any more amplification, any 16 more clarification?
17 I take it, Eric, and Phil, and Mike, that 18 they've kind of put this on the plate that you're all 19 dealing with in the next few weeks?
20 MR. BENNER: Yes. I mean, we see these 21
- slides, and particularly
- with, you
- know, the 22 clarification just given, I think there was, I think 23 just as we went through our work, we were just looking 24 at these steps as sequential with some of what we're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 hearing as to how this guidance is used.
1 We do want to go back and take a fresh 2
look to, you know, acknowledging that the way it may 3
be used, if not sequentially, to go through the 4
criteria, that is something I think we want to take a 5
fresh look at to make sure, okay, we are not creating 6
linkages that maybe don't need to exist.
7 And that could be as simple as, even if 8
there's a sensitivity we want to point out, we could 9
point to where, you know, which criteria that 10 sensitivity would be addressed under.
11 So like I said, we're just digesting this 12 now and, you know, putting our folks together to 13 figure out, given the sort of change in understanding 14 of how the document is used, does it change how we 15 would verbalize any of our clarification.
16 CHAIR BROWN: So you put this on the table 17 to address at the full committee meeting?
18 MR. BENNER: Yes. Oh, yes. I mean, what 19 we'll, you know, anything we've heard. Because we see 20 this meeting, like, we're in the concurrence process.
21 We're having this meeting. We're hearing things today 22 as a result of this meeting that we're all going to 23 digest and determine whether we think there are 24 appropriate changes to make as part of the concurrence 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 process.
1 MEMBER BLEY: Charlie?
2 CHAIR BROWN: Yes?
3 MEMBER BLEY: This is Dennis. I'd like to 4
ask Kati a related question. I just went back like 5
you did and looked at Criterion 8 which talks about is 6
there a departure from the method of evaluation. And 7
in the first guidance they're saying you're looking at 8
basic assumptions, or he refers to the assumption 9
delineating the scope of the method of evaluation.
10 It seems like eight's looking for changes 11 in method where the staff's words are pointing to 12 assumptions that come out of those very same methods 13 of evaluations. And I'm confused as to why NEI sees 14 a problem with that. That is where the assumptions 15 are laid out, are they not, Kati?
16 MS. AUSTGEN: This is Kati. Yes, so 17 certainly assumptions are laid out in those methods of 18 evaluation. Or if we want to not specifically be 19 talking about the calculational framework, and 20 implying that that itself should be changed, we would 21 just say the safety analyses, you know, input 22 parameters go into safety analyses. And then there 23 would be actual structure of the calculation.
24 So we think we see what the NRC is trying 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 to get at with this clarification. We just don't 1
think that the way it's worded right now is quite 2
right.
3 And we also acknowledge that, again, the 4
professional staff who work for licensees, who do 5
safety analyses every day, are well familiar with the 6
processes, and the controls that are in place, how to 7
remain within the confines of a particular safety 8
analysis, so we question how much clarity the 9
clarification is actually adding for those who do this 10 work.
11 MEMBER BLEY: Well, I'll tell you what, 12 this is still Dennis. If all the staff has to go on 13 are your slides, and this little side discussion we've 14 had, I don't know quite how they deal with you. I 15 think you guys ought to send them a note today, or 16 very soon, and lay out what you, the real details of 17 what you're objecting to and what they might change.
18 Because I don't think -- that's the statement in a 19 nutshell ---
20 (Simultaneous speaking.)
21 MS. AUSTGEN: Certainly.
22 MR. GEIER: Yes, this is Steve Geier.
23 Yes, we actually have a mark-up we've been working on.
24 And we will give them, you know, this whole timeframe 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 was pretty condensed leading up to this meeting. And 1
so, you know, and unfortunately we weren't able to 2
share the details.
3 But we do plan to give them a markup with 4
our specific comments on this and put it on the 5
docket, you know, for public view following this 6
meeting. So, yes, we will do that, give them the 7
specifics rather than a generic, you know, kind of a 8
high-level bullet. Absolutely.
9 CHAIR BROWN: Yes. This is Charlie this 10 time. While Dennis was commenting there, I went off 11 an key worded method of evaluation in the Reg Guide.
12 And other than in a very median part, which doesn't 13 apply to this, it's the last clarification that you're 14 dealing with in 4.3.6, the one that takes about a page 15 to go through.
16 And it generally says scope of 17 evaluations, or beyond the scope, or use of the method 18 outside the range of applicability. So it doesn't say 19 change the method or anything like that. But if 20 you're -- I'm trying to see how that would impact your 21 thought processes. So I do understand the terminology 22 issue. It's the terms of art, as you say, means 23 something, yes. So ---
24 MEMBER BLEY: Go ahead, Charlie.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 CHAIR BROWN: You made that comment in 1
your first comment, Dennis, about how it read with the 2
scope and didn't really, if I read your bullet, it 3
needs some amplification for the staff to know what 4
you may desire. That's all.
5 And I think it's key for you to, it would 6
be difficult for me to figure that out if I looked at 7
the existing words in there. Because we're not 8
changing the methods, whereas it's not a departure 9
from the methods. If you're outside the scope, okay.
10 Criteria 8 is a departure from the method. It 11 doesn't, being outside the scope is not a departure.
12 Essentially, you just can't --
13 MS. AUSTGEN: This is Kati. If I can 14 interrupt just for a minute.
15 CHAIR BROWN: Oh, go ahead.
16 MS. AUSTGEN: I would say that utilizing 17 the method in a way that it was not intended to be 18 used would be considered a departure.
19 So again, this is why we say if we, you 20 know, think about our 50.59 guidance, you can't get 21 cute and start using methods of evaluation in ways 22 they were not intended to be used. And you certainly 23 can't do that as part of Criterion 6. You're going to 24 get yourself in trouble under Criterion 8.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 CHAIR BROWN: You got that. Okay. That's 1
all I had. I'm just amplifying Dennis' comment. I 2
think it needs some interactive discussion. Go ahead, 3
Kati.
4 MS. AUSTGEN: Okay. So then our other 5
bullets here on this slide, we recognize, again as was 6
noted by the staff, the pace really accelerated over 7
the last month and a half for two months. And so, you 8
know, not exactly sure what the staff had in hand when 9
they provided this update to Reg Guide 1.187. But in 10 a few areas it seems to not acknowledge some of the 11 language that finally made it into Appendix D, Section 12 4.3.6.
13 And so, again, we'll provide the staff 14 with some specific feedback on, say, because we added 15 this into Appendix D to reiterate information from 16 96-07 Rev 1, this particular clarification may no 17 longer be necessary.
18 And then finally, the staff mentioned 19 their clarification under 2(c) on the RIS 2002-22 20 supplement.
21 And while we agree that that supplement 22 currently provides the only guidance the NRC has 23 reviewed and endorsed for an acceptable technical 24 basis to determine the likelihood if software CCF is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 sufficiently low, the current phraseology is saying 1
that it should be used makes it sound like it must be 2
used, and not only that it must be used, but that 3
would then imply that it must be used for a broader 4
population of activities than what Supplement 1 itself 5
says it is intended for.
6 MEMBER BLEY: Kati, Dennis Bley again.
7 MS. AUSTGEN: Yes.
8 MEMBER BLEY: A question about this, 9
because I had raised a similar issue to myself, but 10 eventually, listening to the staff, I decided not to 11 talk about it when the staff was up. But would it 12 deal with what you're suggesting if it said it should 13 be used in conjunction with Appendix D, Rev 1, for 14 qualitative screening of common cause? Does that take 15 care of your concern?
16 I'm not trying to write it for them, but 17 I thought they kind of covered it when I read the rest 18 of the sentence. But it did sound like you had to use 19 it all the time. You're going to send them a detailed 20 suggestion, so you don't have to respond anyway.
21 MS. AUSTGEN: Okay. I will say that I 22 think there are a couple of different ways they could 23 handle it. And really, the point is, just to be 24 clear, that it doesn't have to be used for every 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 single activity and that it is one option that can be 1
used, you know, because it's what the staff has 2
reviewed today. But just like any Reg Guide, there 3
may be other acceptable ways to do something.
4 CHAIR BROWN: Any other comments on this 5
slide?
6 There's an echo on this. I hope that's 7
not bothering anybody.
8 MS. AUSTGEN: I do not hear the echo.
9 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
10 MS. AUSTGEN: Okay. If there are no other 11 questions on this slide, I think we can go to the last 12 slide, Slide 5.
13 So in conclusion, the feedback, both from 14 the ACRS last year and the ongoing interactions with 15 the NRC staff, has improved the guidance. I do 16 believe that a common understanding of the guidance in 17 Appendix D will provide much-needed confidence when 18 implementing digitalized remodifications under 50.59.
19 And again, I'll reemphasize that that 20 common understanding is key, not only in what does 21 Appendix D itself say, but what does the Reg Guide 22 endorsing it say so that we don't accidentally undo 23 any understanding.
24 We do believe that Appendix D, along with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 the RIS 2002-22 Supplement 1 provides solid regulatory 1
guidance for licensees implementing digital I&C 2
activities under 50.59.
3 And once all the documents are squared 4
away and we've got our endorsement with Reg Guide 5
1.187 being final, the industry will turn our efforts 6
to training to ensure consistent and effective 7
application of Appendix D to those digital activities.
8 MEMBER BLEY:
- Kati, one minor 9
clarification again for me. Because as somebody else 10 said the main body of 96-07 is still Rev 1. That's 11 correct, isn't it?
12 MS. AUSTGEN: Yes, that is correct.
13 MEMBER BLEY: Thanks.
14 CHAIR BROWN: Any more comments on the 15 last slide?
16 Okay, thank you, NEI. You don't have to 17 eliminate your thing there. I now have two things to 18 go to. I can't remember whether I do public comments 19 first. I guess I roundtable the members first. So 20 we'll do that first here before I go to public 21 comment.
22 Do I have to go through you name by name, 23 or do people want to speak out? I can go through one 24 at a time, or give me a choice here. I can't remember 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 what we just ---
1 MEMBER REMPE: Charles, just so we're on 2
the same track, I thought the purpose of this meeting 3
was to not only hear about their progress but also to 4
decide, or to make suggestions or recommendations, 5
each member that's participating, on whether a letter 6
should be provided at the full committee meeting so 7
you understood whether you should work to come up with 8
a draft, right?
9 CHAIR BROWN: Based on your comments in the last 10 meeting, at that last discussion we had, I thought we 11 had kind of, we already scheduled a full committee 12 meeting. And I was going to prepare a straw man, and 13 then we could decide what we wanted to do once we were 14 in full committee meeting and could get everybody on 15 board or, you know, whatever they wanted to do.
16 That's how ---
17 MEMBER REMPE: So you're planning to go 18 ahead and prepare a draft letter without any sort of 19 input from us.
20 CHAIR BROWN: Yes.
21 MEMBER REMPE: Okay. I had not heard 22 that.
23 CHAIR BROWN: Well, I kind of came to that 24 conclusion based on reviewing all the documents over 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 the last week.
1 MEMBER REMPE: Well, if you're going 2
around the table and asked for input, I would say yes, 3
I think it would be good to have a letter. I think it 4
could be short, since it's on this one issue. It 5
doesn't have to repeat what was in the other letter.
6 But yes, I think it would be good.
7 CHAIR BROWN: It would give us something 8
to focus on as opposed to generic, just throwing stuff 9
out. So I was going to go ahead and prepare a draft 10 letter. It will be simple, I hope, short. By the 11 time the committee finishes with it, I'm not so sure 12 what it will look like. But that's the committee's 13 choice.
14 And I'll present that, and we will have a 15 presentation at the full committee meeting. Since 16 everybody's
- here, it should be fairly crisp 17 presentation. And then we can decide what we want to 18 do with the letter I provide. Is that acceptable to 19 the committee?
20 MEMBER BLEY: Yes.
21 CHAIR BROWN: Okay.
22 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Charlie, I would like 23 to propose for what you submit, that we follow what 24 we've been doing lately for full committee.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 If all the members were in this 1
subcommittee and this was a public meeting to start 2
with, I would make a short presentation by the staff 3
summarizing the major changes. And then we want to 4
put it in writing instead of having another two-hour 5
presentation.
6 CHAIR BROWN: I intend to, I've forgotten 7
how much time. Christina, are you there?
8 MS. ANTONESCU: Yes, I'm here, Charlie, 9
for an hour and a half.
10 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. It's going to be an 11 short presentation.
12 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: Right. So the idea 13 is that the public deserves a summary of what the 14 changes are.
15 CHAIR BROWN: Yes.
16 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: And short, concise, 17 and to the point. We don't have to see all the slides 18 again. We're all here.
19 CHAIR BROWN: I think they can --
20 MEMBER MARCH-LEUBA: -- for the public.
21 CHAIR BROWN: I think they can compress 22 this a bit. Hopefully, NEI will be, we will have 23 resolved those issues by the time we get there. So if 24 that's a consensus, that would go on there. Does 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 anybody, any of the members have any other comments 1
before I move on to public comment?
2 Okay, hearing none, Christina, is the 3
public line open?
4 MS. ANTONESCU: Yes, it is.
5 CHAIR BROWN: Okay. If there's anybody on 6
the public line who would like to make a comment, 7
could somebody at least say something that we know the 8
line is open and somebody is there? Is somebody going 9
to say anything? I don't hear anything.
10 PARTICIPANT: Hello.
11 CHAIR BROWN: So you're there. Does 12 anybody on the line have any comments that they would 13 like to provide?
14 Hearing none, we will pass on through 15 public comments. You can close the line now.
16 I don't have any additional comments other 17 than what we've gone through. We will have a full 18 committee meeting. I would encourage the staff to 19 make it, it was a pretty crisp presentation.
20 We probably should, since everybody's 21 here, I don't anticipate a lot of add-ons. But it 22 would really be trying to address the points that came 23 up as well as the NEI staff interaction on their issue 24 to Criteria 8. I think that looked like the primary 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98
--- how you deal with their perspective and the new 1
clarification issues they had. Is that acceptable to 2
the staff?
3 MR. BENNER: Yes, Member Brown. Like I 4
was saying, you know, we take this whole discussion 5
today as an input into our concurrence process. We've 6
definitely heard some things today that we wish to 7
evaluate. And certainly, for the full committee 8
meeting, we will have an articulation of how we ended 9
up on the Reg Guide regarding any of the things we 10 heard here today.
11 CHAIR BROWN: Okay All right, thank you.
12 My closing comments other than that --
13 MS. ANTONESCU: Charlie, I'm sorry, I need 14 to interrupt. Also NEI was going to be part of the 15 briefing at the full committee meeting.
16 CHAIR BROWN: Oh, okay. Sorry, I forgot 17 about that. Not a problem. They were crisp, they had 18 their points well pointed out.
19 I would like to thank the staff for their 20 presentations. They addressed exactly, I think, what 21 we needed to hear and focused on the main issue, same 22 with NEI. I thought you did a good job of presenting 23 your stuff crisply. And we will be able to address 24 those when we go to the full committee meeting.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 If there's no, one more time, if there's 1
any other comment that anybody wants to make, I'll 2
wait five seconds.
3 MR. BENNER: Member Brown, this is Eric 4
Benner. I just again wanted to thank you for, you 5
know, your willingness to work with us on schedule.
6 And clearly the committees have clearly read 7
everything we've provided even though it was in a 8
compressed timeframe.
9 So we tried to be crisp, but we really 10 feel like you gave us good feedback. It's 11 interesting, because given the last point that NEI 12 made about how we referenced the RIS, I go back to 13 actually I think you gave the best characterization of 14 where the RIS fits in all of this. So I actually was 15 taking notes when you were saying that for our 16 consideration in our concurrence.
17 So I think we've heard some good things 18 here today. I want to thank the committee. I really 19 want to thank all of the staff, including all the 20 different views that have been raised. Because I 21 think it has resulted in a product that, you know, 22 we're just about ready to provide, which should 23 provide the clarity needed to better allow licensees 24 to make these upgrades under 50.59. So I think it's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 a good accomplishment.
1 CHAIR BROWN: Well, thank you, Eric. I 2
would make one observation with NEI's input. When I 3
went back and put 4.3.6 side by side with the one we 4
reviewed back in April of, in the subcommittee meeting 5
in April, as well as in the full committee meeting, I 6
thought that the additions and the adjustments they 7
made, particularly when they got into the Step 2, 8
1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), and the 3, really helped 9
provide amplification. And then the subsequent 10 discussion became much more clear.
11 So I
thought there's been a
good 12 accommodation back and forth and some good language 13 proposed. So I think it came out, this is a difficult 14 subject, needless to say, we'd really like to try to 15 provide some more flexibility. And this is a good 16 attempt. So I wanted to thank both the staff and NEI 17 for their cooperation. With that, I will adjourn the 18 meeting and we will see you at the full committee 19 meeting. Thank you.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 12:08 p.m.)
22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
NEI 96-07 Appendix D and RG 1.187 Revision 2 Eric Benner, NRR/DEX Director Michael Waters, NRR/DEX/EICB Philip McKenna, NRR/DIRS/IRGB Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Digital I&C Subcommittee Meeting May 20, 2020
Purpose
- The Final Versions of NEI 96-07 Appendix D and RG 1.187 Revision 2 (Recommendation 4)
- How the exception in the draft RG on section 4.3.6 in NEI 96-07 Appendix D was resolved (Recommendation 3)
- Recommendations are from ACRS letter dated June 20, 2019, Review of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, Appendix D, Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications, dated November 2018, and the NRCs Associated Draft Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.187, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 Changes, Tests and Experiments (ML19171A323) 2
NEI 96-07 Appendix D and RG 1.187 Revision 2 NEI 96-07 Appendix D, Rev. 1 Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications 3
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Timeline Through ACRS Full Committee Meeting:
In July 2018, NEI provided an update to NEI 96-07, Appendix D In August 2018, the NRC staff provided a set of comprehensive comments (85 total) to NEI, and began a disciplined process for cataloging and tracking comments for resolution Public meetings were held with industry on 8/30/18, 9/11/18, 10/11/18, and 11/14/18 to resolve these comments. Over 90% of the comments were resolved using this process NEI submitted its final revision of NEI 96-07, Appendix D to the NRC on 11/30/18. Letter requesting endorsement submitted 1/08/19 ACRS Digital I&C Subcommittee meeting on 4/16/19 Draft RG 1.187 Rev. 2 was issued for public comment on 5/30/19 ACRS Full committee meeting on 6/5/19 4
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Timeline After ACRS Full Committee Meeting:
06/25/19: Public meeting to conduct table-top exercises of digital I&C upgrades on applying Appendix D, Section 4.3.6 guidance (45-day RG 1.187 Public Comment period still open) 09/18/19: Public meeting on the comments received on RG 1.187, Revision 2. In addition, NRC offered draft wording to resolve the section 4.3.6 exception On 10/15/19 NEI provided revised section 4.3.6 wording From November 2019 to April 2020: Staff discussion on section 4.3.6 wording.
On 4/22/20 NEI submitted final version of section 4.3.6 wording On 4/27/20 there was a public meeting to discuss NRC comments and suggestions on section 4.3.6 examples On 5/13/20 NEI submitted by letter the final version of Appendix D and requesting endorsement 5
50.59 Evaluation Criteria Result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR (50.59(c)(2)(i))
Result in more than a minimal increase the likelihood of occurrence of malfunction of a structure, system, and component (SSC) important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR (50.59(c)(2)(ii))
Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR (50.59(c)(2)(iii))
Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety accident previously evaluated in the FSAR (50.59(c)(2)(iv))
Create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any previously evaluated in the FSAR (50.59(c)(2)(v))
- Create the possibility for a malfunction of an SSC with a different result than any previously evaluated in the FSAR (50.59(c)(2)(vi))
Result in a design basis limit for a fission product barrier as described in the FSAR being exceeded or altered (50.59(c)(2)(vii))
Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR used in evaluating the design basis or in the safety analysis (50.59(c)(2)(viii))
6
NEI 96-07, Appendix D (Rev. 0) Draft RG Exception 7
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Path to Resolution Public Meeting Conducted on 6/25/19:
Purpose was to conduct a table-top exercises of digital I&C upgrades in which applying NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Criterion 6 guidance was met.
Public Meeting Conducted on 9/18/19:
Purpose was to discuss the public comments received on the Draft RG 8
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Section 4.3.6 (Rev 1)
- Six Step Process in Section 4.3.6 Revised Wording 1.
Identify the functions directly or indirectly related to the proposed modification 2.
Identify which of the functions from Step 1 are Design Functions and/or Design Basis Functions 3.
Determine if a new Failure Modes and Analysis (FMEA) needs to be generated 4.
Determine if each design bases function continues to be performed/satisfied 5.
Identify all safety analyses involved malfunctions of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR 6.
For each safety analyses involved malfunction of an SSC important to safety, compare the projected/postulated results with the previously evaluated results 9
NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Section 4.3.6 (Rev 1)
Acceptance Criteria Language in Step 6 Changed:
For those design functions placed into any other category or combination of categories, if any of the previous evaluations of involved malfunctions of an SSC important to safety have become invalid due to their basic assumptions no longer being valid (e.g., single failure assumption is not maintained), or if any existing safety analysis is no longer bounding (e.g., the revised safety analysis no longer satisfies the acceptance criteria identified in the associated safety analysis), then the proposed activity creates the possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important to safety with a different result. If the acceptance criteria are still satisfied and the basic assumptions remain valid, there is no different result even if the malfunction of an SSC important to safety would otherwise cause changes to input parameters described in the USFAR.
10
RG 1.187 Revision 2 RG 1.187 Revision 2, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Test and Experiments 11
Clarifications RG 1.187 Rev. 2 endorses NEI 96-07 Appendix D with clarifications Relationship to NEI 01-01: the NRC continues to find NEI 01-01 acceptable for use by NRC licensees. Licensees have the option to use the 10 CFR 50.59 guidance provided in either NEI 01-01 or in NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1. However, NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1 does not describe, and this revision to RG 1.187 (Revision 2) does not endorse, applying select portions from both NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1 and 10 CFR 50.59 guidance of NEI 01-01. In addition, NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1 is applicable to digital modifications only and is not generically applicable to the 10 CFR 50.59 process. (Reworded slightly from the draft RG) 12
Clarifications Human-System Interface:
- In NEI 96-07, Revision 1 changes to HSI automatically screened in.
- NRC has endorsed contradicting guidance in NEI 01-01, which states, not all changes to the human-system interface fundamentally alter the means of performing or controlling design functions, and therefore NEI 01-01 advises that not all changes to HSI should automatically screen in.
- NEI included similar guidance on screening for HSI in Appendix D.
- The NRC staff acknowledges that Appendix D is thus not a change from existing guidance on digital interfaces, but notes that it is a change from the guidance in NEI 96-07, Revision 1. The NRC staff agrees that changes to HSI may be screened as described in NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1. (Reworded from the draft RG) 13
Clarifications Software Failure
- RIS 2002-22 Supplement 1, should be used in conjunction with NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Revision 1 to provide an acceptable technical basis to determine that the likelihood of software CCF is sufficiently low for the purpose of 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations.
(Reworded from the Draft RG) 14
Clarifications Use of Acceptance Criteria as Evaluation Results:
NEI 96-07, Rev. 1, Section 4.3.6, in contrast to Appendix D, does not refer to acceptance criteria NEI 96-07, Rev. 1, provided that licensees should consider changes to SSCs at the same level at which malfunctions of the affected SSCs were previously evaluated in the FSAR (i.e., component-or system-level).
The NRC has now determined that, in addition to consideration of component-and system-level effects, licensees may consider whether satisfaction of all applicable acceptance criteria are maintained after a proposed change to demonstrate that no possibility for a malfunction with a different result has been created. (New Clarification) 15
Clarifications Step 6: Basic Assumptions and Acceptance Criteria For those design functions placed into [categories 1.b, 2.b, or 3 in Step 2], if any of the previous evaluations of involved malfunctions of an SSC important to safety have become invalid due to their basic assumptions no longer being valid (e.g., single failure assumption is not maintained), or if any existing safety analysis is no longer bounding (e.g., the revised safety analysis no longer satisfies the acceptance criteria identified in the associated safety analysis), then the proposed activity creates the possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important to safety with a different result.
[Emphasis added.]
(New Clarification) 16
Next Steps 17
- RG 1.187 Rev. 2 is currently in the NRC concurrence process
- RG 1.187 Rev. 2 will be ready for issuance in June 2020
18 Questions ?
Back-Up Slides 19
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Path to Resolution Example of Acceptance Criteria: (Example 4-18)
Previously, only one of four feedwater flow control valves was assumed to fail open as part of the initiation of the Excess Feedwater event. Now, as a result of this change, all four feedwater flow control valves could simultaneously fail open following a software CCF.
Step 6: The severity of the initiating failure has increased due to four valves supplying flow as compared to one valve prior to the change.
The minimum acceptable departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR), i.e., the acceptance criteria identified in the associated safety analysis, is 1.30. The current safety analysis documents a minimum DNBR value equal to 1.42. After using the increased value for the new feedwater flow (to represent the increase in feedwater flow caused by the opening of the four feedwater flow control valves) in a revision to the Excess Feedwater accident analysis, the new safety analysis documents a minimum DNBR value equal to 1.33.
==
Conclusion:==
Although the software CCF likelihood was determined to be not sufficiently low and the severity of the initiating failure has increased, a comparison of the minimum DNBR values shows that the safety analysis remains bounded by the associated acceptance criteria. Therefore, the proposed activity does NOT create the possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important to safety with a different result.
20
NEI 96-07, Appendix D
- RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1 gives guidance on the technical aspect of digital I&C modifications, not the 50.59 process
- Appendix D gives digital I&C modification screening and evaluation guidance
- The format of Appendix D is aligned with NEI 96-07, Rev. 1 text for ease of use
- Some of the guidance in Appendix D is not digital specific
- NEI 96-07, Appendix D does incorporate some RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1 guidance on qualitative assessments 21
RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1
- NRC issues RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1 in May 2018 to clarify RIS 2002-22
- NRC continues to endorse NEI 01-01
- RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1, clarifies guidance for preparing and documenting Qualitative Assessments
- Not for Replacement of:
- Reactor Protection System (wholesale)
- Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (wholesale)
- Modification/Replacement of the Internal Logic Portions of These Systems
- Licensees can currently performed digital modifications using RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1 guidance (without an NRC endorsed NEI 96-07, Appendix D) 22
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Screening Section
- Scope of digital modifications:
- Software-related activities
- Hardware-related activities
- Human-System Interface-related activities
- To reach screen conclusion of non-adverse:
- Physical characteristics of the digital modification
- Change has limited scope
- Relatively simple digital architecture
- Limited functionality
- Can be comprehensively tested
- Engineering Evaluation Assessments
- Quality of the design process
- Single failures encompassed by existing failures of the analog device
- Has extensive operating history 23
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Screening Section
- Combination of Components/Systems and/or Functions
- Mere act of combining does not make the screen adverse
- If it causes an adverse act on the design function, then adverse
- Reductions in the redundancy, diversity, separation, or independence of a UFSAR design function screen adverse
- Human Factors Engineering Evaluation
- NEI worked closely with NRC human factors personnel on this section
- Two steps:
- Identify generic primary tasks involved
- For all primary tasks, assess if the mod negatively impacts the primary task 24
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Evaluation Section
- Guidance in sections 4.3 aligns with main body of NEI 96-07 and there is a caution that Appendix D is intended to supplement guidance in main body of NEI 96-07
- Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.5, and 4.3.6 (which align with the Criterion in the evaluation paragraph of 10 CFR 50.59)
(50.59(c)(2)) discuss the use of the qualitative assessment outcome (sufficiently low or not sufficiently low) to answer the evaluation questions
- Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 state that they provide no new guidance for digital modifications
- More than a minimal increase in the consequences of an accident
- More than a minimal increase in the consequences of a malfunction 25
NEI 96-07, Appendix D Evaluation Section
- Guidance in section 4.3.6 (Does the Activity Create a Possibility for a Malfunction of an SSC Important to Safety with a Different Result):
- Discussion on design basis functions
- Connection between design basis functions and safety analysis result 26
©2020 Nuclear Energy Institute ACRS DI&C Subcommittee Meeting NEI Perspective:
Revisions to NEI 96-07, Appendix D and RG 1.187 May 20th, 2020
©2020 Nuclear Energy Institute 2 Based on feedback provided at the ACRS meetings in 2019 and from NRC Staff, NEI revised Section 4.3.6 of draft NEI 96-07, Appendix D:
Included additional guidance on identification of malfunction results applicable to SSCs solely required to comply with regulations and license conditions (i.e., not credited in any safety analyses)
Clarified that activities which either invalidate basic assumptions in the safety analyses (e.g., single failure criterion) or do not meet acceptance criteria stated in the safety analyses create a different malfunction result.
NEI 96-07, App. D Summary of Changes
©2020 Nuclear Energy Institute 3 Based on the changes to Section 4.3.6, NEI made corresponding changes to the examples in the draft NEI 96-07, Appendix D:
Improved example wording to map better with associated Appendix D guidance
Revised examples to clearly state objectives and application of guidance
Clearly explained how to compare results of malfunctions to the associated safety analysis acceptance criteria Summary of Changes to Examples
©2020 Nuclear Energy Institute 4 Many of NEIs comments on the last draft have been addressed New clarifications added following the effort to align on Section 4.3.6
Appears to unnecessarily insert the purpose of Criterion 8 in the consideration of Criterion 6.
May not fully account for revised Section 4.3.6 guidance
May imply that RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1 must be used in a broader population of DI&C activities than intended Perspective on RG 1.187, Rev. 2 Update
©2020 Nuclear Energy Institute 5 The detailed feedback provided by the ACRS and NRC staff has improved the guidance in NEI 96-07, Appendix D A common understanding of the guidance in Appendix D will provide much needed confidence when implementing DI&C modifications under 10 CFR 50.59 Appendix D, along with RIS 2002-22 Supplement 1, provide solid regulatory guidance for licensees implementing DI&C activities under 10 CFR 50.59 Once endorsed by RG 1.187, NEI will focus efforts on industry training to ensure consistent and effective application of Appendix D Closing Remarks