ML19232A227

08/21/2019 Public Meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute to Discuss the Use of New Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods Following the Issuance of an Amendment to Utilize a Risk-Informed Process - Slides - Peer Review

ML19232A227
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/20/2019
From:	Stephen Dinsmore, Reisi-Fard M NRC/NRR/DRA
To:	Ed Miller Special Projects and Process Branch
References
Download: ML19232A227 (10)

Text

Stephen DinsmoreSenior Reliability and Risk AnalystPRA Licensing Branch A 12 1 6NDM Peer Reviews (1/2)New Method High level requirements and supporting requirements are stabilizing and being finalizedExpertise to address some SR may require subject matter experts(NM-B1) "technical bases .. are founded on ... established - engineering principals"F&O closure (Appendix X ?) completed before method reported and usedModifications to "traditional" HLR and SR dispositions both in the self-assessment and the peer review (next

slide) 6NDM Key Assumptions (2/2)Modifications to "traditional" HLR and SR dispositions both in the self-assessment and the peer reviewExpectation that the basis for a "met" requirement is fully summarized in the basisThe self-assessment should provide the method developers justification of why the SR is met and reference to supporting information in the reportThe peer review basis should provide the peer reviewers justification of why the SR is metF&O identifying weakness and proposed solutions may be the same as the current F&Os Review of NEI 17-07 Mehdi Reisi-FardActing Branch Chief PRA Licensing Branch B August 21, 2019 Timeline of NEI 17-07 Review Dec. 2017 NEI 17-07 Rev. A was issued(ML17341A548)

Dec. 2018 Two public meetings were held(ML17341A548)

NRC provided comments(ML18313B246)

Dec. 2018NEI issued Rev. A(ML18352B305)

Dec. 2018May-Jun. 2019Three pilot peer-reviews of NDMs NRC provided comments(ML19206A092)Jul. 2019 Aug. 2019NEI 17-07 Rev. 2 was issued(ML19228A242)

Comments on NEI 17-07, Rev. 2NEI 17-07, Rev. 2 allows use of NDMs with open finding level F&Os" - if a newly developed method is deemed not technically acceptable in the report, a utility may not use it in a PRA supporting risk-informed licensing applications. If the method is deemed technically acceptable, but if one or more finding level F&Os are issued in the report, the utility will need to justify the use of the method with these open findingsin any risk-informed licensing applications."

[emphasis added

]

Importance of Closing NDM Open Findings Peer-reviews determine whether requirements of the Standard are met; framework for NDM to be "deemed acceptable" is unclear"The standard requires a peer review process that identifies and assesses where the technical requirements of the standard are not met." [RG 1.200]Unclear how licensees/peer-review of implementation can justify use of NDM with findings (considering lack of expertise, detailed knowledge of NDM, etc.)Review of findings by staff may expand the scope of review to other aspects of methodology NDM documentation issues may be important as those issues potentially impact implementation of NDM Other Comments on NEI 17-07Page 17: limitedself-assessment of the IEPRA for Internal Flood, Fire, and external hazard PRAsPage 23: "beyond a sampling process" was removedPage 28: Assigning UAM fore use of NDMs with findings was removedPage 34: " - the peer review report should be provided to the NRC by the method developer, with licensee-specific information removed as necessary"Methods submitted will be made publicly available with appropriate redaction of proprietary informationMethod developer has no regulatory requirements to provide the reportsConfusion on the use of "External" and "Other" hazards