ML20154Q185

NRR Ofc Ltr 903 Re Meetings W/Applicants/Licensee, Intervenors,Vendors or Other Members of Public

ML20154Q185
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/24/1988
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NRRL-903, NUDOCS 8806060210
Download: ML20154Q185 (15)

Text

%

i f .

p#  %

UNITED STATES

?'

f ) I. j

'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

I WASWNGTON. D, C. 20555

\,

3,h,4// m z 4 1938

..... 1 I

MEf10RANDUM FOR: All NRR Employees FROM: Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

NRR OFFICE LETTER N0. 903 - MEETINGS WITH APPLICANTS / LICENSEES, INTERVENORS, VENDORS OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PURPOSE l

This Office Letter consists of procedures to be followed when meetings are held I between NRR representatives and applicants, licensees, intervenors, vendors, I or other members of the public. These procedures supersede t"e guidance stated in Sections 2.4.7, "Technical Meetings With the Applicant;" 2.4.8, "Meetin Other Groups;" and 2.4.9, ' Applicant Appeal Meetings" of the PM Hoiidbook NUREG/(gs With BR-0073), dated May 1985. (The PM Handbook is currently being revised to delete Sections 2.4.7, 2.4.8 and 2.4.9, and to reference this Office Letter.). Moreover, this Office Letter supplements the guidance stated in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1100, "Notification of Significant Meetings."

POLICY The NRC's policy statement on open meetings was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1978 (43 FR 28058). The policy statement was intended to articulate formally the existing practice of permitting parties, potential parties, and the general public to attend meetings between applicants / licensees and the NRC staff.  ;

The commitment to public meetings during the licensing process was reiterated in a policy statement on recommendations for improving nuclear power plant licensing that was published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1978 (43 FR 49082).

It is clear from this policy statement that the open meeting policy is applicable to the time period both before and after the docketing of an application.

All meetings conducted by the staff as part of the review of any proposed action will be open to attendance by the general public as observers, including parties to a hearing and petitioners for leave to intervene. However, in general, only staff, applicant, licensee, or vendor representatives will participate actively in these meetings.

CONTACT:

H. Smith, PMAS 49-21287 (1 iso 4o4on/o) ms.

. \o-vw o e gg

.All NRR Employees -

The policy provides that other people be permitted to attend only as observers.

However, as a practical matter, the meeting' chairperson may permit the observers at any meeting to participate by submitting auestions and making comments.

Similar ' ground rules apply to meetings between staff and other parties or petitioners. Procedural-type meetings, such as_those held specifically to discuss scheduling or review status _ usually are non-substantive with respect to members of the public. Nevertheless, NRR policy requires that such procedural meetings be announced in advance and open _to the public in the same manner as are technical meetings. This means that every reasonable effort will be made to schedule such meetings well in advance and to notify parties (Enclosure 1) involved and other menbers of the public.

Meetings at which classified,-safeguards, proprietary or.other sensitive informa-tion is to be discussed are exempt from this policy. The me' ting notice (Enclosure 2) should include a footnote identifying meetings (or portions thereof) that could be closed because of discussions pertaining to classified, safeguards, proprietary or sensitive information. Other exceptions to the-open meeting policy must be approved by the Director, NRR, on a case-by-case basis, in such cases, where interested persons ask but are not permitted to attend, the staff will prepare a written sunnary (Enclosure 3) of the unclassified or nonproprietary portions of the meeting and send it to.those persons. When proprietary information is received at meetings, the staff will issue a letter to the applicant, licensee, or vendor in accordance with.the appropriate sample letter attached to NRR Office Letter No. 602, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Withhold Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure."

This letter should be placed in the PDR. NRR Office letter No. 602 is currently in preparation and will supersede NRR Office Letter No. 42, as revised.

Commission policy pertaining to meetings involving industry groups, including the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, is covered in a separate office letter that is currently in preparation.

RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES Pro,icct flanagers The' Project flanager (Pti) chairs and coordinates all of the necessary arringements for meetings involving nuclear power plants to which he or she is assigned. The-PM ensures that the procedures stated in this Office Letter are observed, appropriate staff members are available, and that the agenda and meeting notice are issued, to the extent practicable, 7 to 10 work days before the meeting.

When the meeting notice is issued less than a week before the meeting, the PM ensures that the meeting notice is treated as a Daily Highlight. PTSB updates a weekly list of upcoming meetings. Also, a recording listing upcoming meetings is updated weekly so that members of the public can call to obtain information j i

l

All NRR Employees about scheduled meetings. When listings are not updated on time, NRC receives complaints from interested members of the public who perceive that NRR may be  ;

withholding meeting information from the public intentionally. Therefore, all 4 meeting notices must be hand delivered to PTSB by 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. See Enclosures 1 and 2 for sample formats.

)

If the responsible PM or staff representative believes that there is not '

enough time to provide sufficient notice to intervenors, the OGC attorncy should be requested to contact the intervenors by telephone.

The PM, in conjunction with the assigned OGC attorney, determines when site area neetings with public participation should be held and recomends such meetings for management approval. When appropriate, t.se PM apprises the OGC attorney of the plans and keeps the attorney informed throughout the planning period.

As stated in NRR's proposed Of# ice Letter No.1200, the PM should coordinate all NRR-sponsored meetings held in the Regions.

Review Staff The review staff chairs and coordinates meetings involving vendors and owners groups. Such M aff is to follow the procedures discussed above pertaining to PMs.

The responsi' e reviewer should send copies of the meeting notices and sumaries tr ems who are assigned to plants associated with the vendor or owners grotr.

Directors of Project Directorates and Branch Chiefs All Directors of Project Directorates and all Branch Chiefs are to ensure that the procedures stated in this Office Letter are followed. Special attention is required with respect to the timeliness of meeting notices so that information can be put on the recording that announces NRR ireetings.

Emergency Preparedness Branch The Emergency Preparedness Branch (EPB) is responsible for all coordinations involving the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). EPB is responsible for informing the PM of all site-specific meetings with FEMA. The PM should be aware of such meetings, help to set them up if requested, and attend as necessary.

Policy Development and Technical Support Branch The Policy Development and Technical Support Branch (PTSB) will prepare sumary listings of all meetings for the following two-week period. The sumary listings are updated each Friday morning. To ensure that meeting information is made

l l

All NRR Employees h'Rf 2 < -

available to interested members of the public in a timely manner, all meeting notices must be hand delivered to PTSB by 1:00 p.m. on Thursday.

~

Planning, Program, and Management Support Branch The Planning, Program, and Management Support Branch (NRR Mail Room) updates a recording from the sumary listir.g described above so.that members of the public can receive telephone information about meetings in a timely manner.

Assistant Directors, Division Di-ectors, Associate Directors, and Director, NRR The Assistant Directors, Division Directors, Associate Directors, and the Director, NRR, will participate in meetings when appropriate.

BASIC REQUIREMENTS

1. Technical Meetings With Applicants, Licensees or Vendors General Information During the course of the review of a construction permit or operating license application, a number of meetings are held with the applicant / licensee to discuss technical issues. Either the staff or the applicant / licensee may initiate these meetings. At least one of these meetings is held near the site when a new application is involved. Meetings should be chaired by the PM and usually consist of detailed discussions of specific aspects of the facility design, operations, and environmental characteristics.

The need for and date of a meeting, the issues to be discussed, and the participants are generally determined by mutual agreement between the PM, the assigned reviewers, and the applicant / licensee. NRC policy is tc restrict staff attendance at meetings and site visits to a practical minimum.

The PM is responsible for organizing most meetings and site visits and should ensure that 'his policy is properly implemented by discouraging unnecessary s' ff attendanw . Proposed Office Letter No. 1200 contains specific i cedures to be followed when visiting sites.

The PM contacts the applicant / licensee to agree on the time and place for the meeting and the subjects to be discussed. Meetings scheduled between the staff and the utility should be announced by a meeting notice approximately 7 to 10 days before the meeting (if possible). The meeting is open to the public to observe, but not participate. When a meeting notice cannot be issued at least 7 days in advance of the meeting, the notice should be issued as a Daily Highlight and hand carried to PTSB. In addit'an, the assigned 0GC attorney should be requested to call the intervenors. A meeting notice issued as a Daily Highlight should also be transmitted to the appropriate region by the 5520 system. The meeting notice is sent to the people on the service list, the PDR, and the Local PDR. Personnel in the responsible NRC regional office or the Resident Inspector should be

1 l

All NRR Employees M2 4 1999 contacted by telephone if the meeting is being held near the site or if their attendance is necessary. When possible, the meeting notice should include an agenda that clearly lists the subjects to be discussed. If the issue to be discussed is unique, or if the position to be taken is different from that adopted with other appli: ants / licensees in the past, prior discussions with staff management may be necessary to ensure that consistency with current staff policy and positions is maintained.

Meetings should be conducted purposefully on a well-organized, business-like basis; the PM normally chairs the meeting- Technical meetings are held to exchange information and views. The PH should channel the discussions toward developing a comprehensive understanding of the utility-supplied information, exploring the alternatives considered by the utility, determining the basis for the utility's conclusions and decisions, and clarifying the staff's considerations and positions to the utility. These types of discussions are fostered by providing the utility and reviewers with a list of the items to be discussed before the meeting (preferably by an agenda attached to the meeting notice if time permits, otherwise by telephone) and by ensuring that the reviewers have prepared draft questions or Safety Evaluation Report (SER) positions in advance of the meeting. The PM and reviewers must factor the information obtained from the utility into the formulation of the staff position on each issue. The staff position almost always will coincide with previous conclusions, as expressed in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) and in other docketed items. The PM and reviewers should present the staff position firmly and fairly. It is an important responsibility of the PM to know before the meeting where the staff stands on an itsue and the position it intends to pursue.

It is advantageous to meet with utilities before formal requests for additional information are issued. A reviewer or technical branch chief who identifies a need to hold such a meeting to discuss areas of review and other questions will so inform the PM, and should provide draft questions or positions to the PM, whenever possible, at least 2 weeks before the meeting.

Draf t positions may be included with draf t questions or submitted alone as a basis for discussion. The PM normally will send the draf t questions or positions to the applicant in the form of a meeting agenda. They may be transmitted by telephone, but this should be followed with written corre-spondence as a means of making the questions publicly available. As with all meeting notices and sumaries, a copy of the meeting agenda should be mailed to the utility and to the people on the service list. Meeting notices, summaries, and trip reports should also be placed in the PDR and Local PDR.

During the course of the review, the applicant will request meetings with the staff to discuss a subject that requires resolution. The PM should accomodate these requests on a timely basis. In meetings, applicants often present new approaches to resolution of issues and request staff concurrence with the new approach. In such instances, the PM should request that the applicant submit the new information formally and make it clear that staff positions must be based on docketed material and that formal l

l

All NRR Employees MAY ! 4 tgga staff approval will not be given on the basis of material presented solely at meetings.

The PM should limit.the discussion to the agenda to avoid excursions into irrelevant areas.. The utility however, must be afforded an adequate opportunity for technical dialogue and debate over safety and environmental issues and positions. When the objectives of the meeting have been attained or it appears fruitless to continue the discussion, the PM should adjourn the meeting. The PM must be efficient in utilizing the time of key staff personnel. To this end, the meeting agenda should include a schedule for discussing the various subjects, thereby traximizing productive use of time.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the PM should verbally sumarize all significant items of discussion to ensure that all participants understand the information discussed and agree on the outcome of the meeting.

Af ter the meeting, the PM, with the assistance of participating staff members if necessary, should topics discussed, (2) prepare afurnished the information written and meeting summary requested, and (3)that the outlines (1) important positions taken or decisions made. Meeting sumaries should be written, within approximately 3 weeks, for all NRC. meetings with utilities regardless of whether the NRC or utility' initiated the meeting. Comitments made a', the meeting and areas of agreement and disagreement should be docu-mented. In preparing the meeting sumary, .it should be remembered that the sumary serves as a formal record of the events that took place at the meet-ing for subsequent use by staff and applicant personnel. The meeting sumary should be limited to a description of what took place at the meeting. It should be comprehensive enough so that individuals who did not attend the neeting can appreciate the meeting discussions. It may be necessary for appropriate staff members to concur in the contents of the meeting sumary.

Staff conclusions reached or ouestions raised after the meeting should be transmitted to the applicant in a separate let+er. A copy of the meeting sumary is sent to the applicant / licensee, the people on the service list, and is placed in the NRC and Local Public Document Rooms (PDR).

ACRS Meetings Specific to the Pre-Operation Licensing Phase Sometime during the review process, the ACRS sut::omittee assigned to the project will request a meeting with the staff and applicant, generally at the site, for the purpose of visiting the site and conducting preliminary discussions on safety issues that the subcomittee members consider important.

All ACRS meetings are documented in detail by the ACRS staff in official  ;

meeting minutes, in addition, a transcript of the meeting is published.

However, PMs are to issue a meeting sumary within 5 to 15 working days .

following the ACRS subcomittee meeting. This sumary should briefly state the ACRS action items that require appropriate followup by the staff. l The meeting handouts should be enclosed with the sumary. Copies of this summary should be sent to the applicant, the service list and placed in the l NRC and Local PDRs. More detailed information on meetings involving ACRS will be provided in a separate office letter.

All NRR Employees MAY 2 41988

2. Meetings With Other Groups During the review process, the PM may conduct or attend meetings with a number of other groups of people. Among these are State officials, county officials, local town or village officials, the public, and intervenors.

Care should be exercised to keep the meeting from becoming a press conference rather than a meeting to discuss the plant and its safety or its environ-mental impact on the area.

A number of State and local agencies may be involved in the review of environmental impacts and in the development and review of emergency plans.

The PM should check with the appropriate review branch to ascertain whether a meeting with State representatives is necessary. Each State has a State Liaison Officer who serves as the principal technical-level contact with NRC on questions of mutual interest. PMs should work with these officers to the maximum extent appropriate in their interactions with State officials.

A list of these officials can be obtained from the PD's Licensing Assistant or from the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs (GPA). Any meetings with State representatives should be coordinated with GPA and the Region.

Follow the instructions stated in Office Letter 1200 when the regions are involved.

State officials, local officials and FEMA representatives participate at the operating license (0L) review stage in the development and review of energency plans for the facility. The impetus for meeting with these officials will come from the Emergency Preparedness Branch. The PM should be aware of such meetings, help to set them up if requested, and attend as necessa ry.

On any site visit for which the utility provides special transportation or "other special conveyances," such as helicopters, it is NRC policy to pay a fair share of such transportation. It is the PM's responsibility to determine the need for such special conveyances by checking with the appropriate technical review branches and to arrange for this.

3. Appeal Meetings An applicant, licensee, or vendor who disagrees with an NRC staff position has the option of appealing to management. Although a utility is not l prohibited from contacting any level of NRC management, the PM should request that all such contacts be initiated through the PM. The reviewer should contact management when a vendor or owners group requests an appeal meeting.

For a pending appeal, the PM should discuss in detail with the applicant or licensee and the appropriate reviewers the positions taken by the staff and the applicant / licensee. Before the meeting, the PM should ensure that NRR management up through the Division Director level is aware of the background of the issue, the utility's position, and the staff's position.

A meeting notice should also be issued for all appeal meetings. The reviewer should issue the notice when a vendor or owner group is involved.

The PM is required to issue the notice when the meeting pertains to an applicant or licensee.

All NRR Employees MtX 2 4 1Siq Appeal meetings are held first with the Assistant Director and then, if neces-sary, with the Division Director, Associate Director and the Director of NRR.

A selected staff representative chairs the meeting and directs the discussion toward an acceptable solution. At the end of the meeting, the staff person who chairs the meeting should verbally summarize any agreements reached. Af ter the appeal meeting, as with all meetings, the PM or staff person who chairs the ir.eeting writes a sunmary that is placed in the PDR and sent to the utility and to the service list.

Request for appeal meetings pertaining to backfits will be addre: sed in a separate office letter on management of plant-specific backfits.

EFFECTIVE DATE This Office Letter is effective inmediately.

Thomas E. Murley Direc Office of Nuclea ctor egulation

Enclosures:

1. Sample Meeting Notice * - Open lieeting

2. Sample Meeting Notice - Closed Meeting

3. Sample Meeting Summary cc: See next page

• When handled as a Daily Highlight, use the same format, print on green paper, hand deliver to PTSB, and transmit to the Region by 5520.

All NRR Employees cc: *V. Stello, ED0 MNBB-6209 J. Taylor, EDO MNBB-6209 S. Ebneter, OSP 7-D-4

8. Hayes, 01 3-E-4 J. Lieberman, OE, 7-H-5 W. Mcdonald, ARM MNBB-6201 P. Bird, OP W-407 H. Thompson, NMSS 6-A-4 E. Beckjord, RES NL-007 H. Denton, GPA 17-F-2 S. Connelly, OIA EWS-461 W. Russell R-I J. Grace R-II A. Davis R-III R. Martin R-IV J. Martin R-V J. Fitzergald, 0GC 15-B-18 SECY H-1149 OGC 15-B-18 NRC PDR i

l 1

l

• :orrection of version dated April 22, 1988 and_ distributed on April 26, 1988.

i

SAMPLE MEETING NOTICE ENCLOSURE 1 (OPENMEETING)

Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 MEMORANDUM FOR: D. J. Youngblood, Director Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-1/II FROM: Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II

SUBJECT:

FORTHCOMING fiEETING* TO AUDIT Tl1E V0GTLE PLANT SAFETY MONITORING SYSTEliS VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION PROGRAM OATE & TIME: June 29, 1987 10:30 am - 5:0i pm June 30, 1987 .:00 am - 5:00 pm 8

July 1, 1987 8:00 am - 4:00 pm LOCATION: Westinghouse Offices ITTC Building Rt. 286. P.O. Box 598 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 PURPOSE: To audit the plant safety monitoring system verification andvalidationprogram(agendaattached) l'ARTICIPANTS: NRC SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES 3 ~Mauck J. Bailey SOHAR, Inc. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY J. Frawley J. Aufdenkampe I WESTINGHOUSE R. Morrison 1 I

G. Lang W. Ciaramitaro )

A. Blanchard J. Waclo D. Theriault Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division Reactor Projects-I/II

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page

• Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants for licenses are open for interested. members of the public, petitioners, intervenors, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to "Open Meeting Statement of NRC Staff Policy", 43 Federal Register 28058,6/28/78.

Enclosure Proposed Agenda for Audit of Vogtle Plant Safety Monitoring System (PSMS) Verification and Validation (V&V) Program

1. Introduction 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />

- Purpose

- Schedule

- Organizational Structure l

- Proprietary Material I I:. PSMS Technical Presentation 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />

- System Overview '

I

• Testing

- Software Overview )

• Testing III. PSMS Design, Verification and Validation Plan 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />

- Verification Philosophy l

- Verification Techniques

• Reviews ]

• Software l

• Testing

• Errors

- Verification level

• Safety Classification  ;

• Justification of Verification Level l

• Application of Level

- Validation Philosophy

- Validation Techniques

• Description

• Testing

• Errors

- V&V Team Organization

• Development Team

• Verification Team

• Validation Team

. 2 IV. Review of PSMS Design Documentation 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />

- Design Flow Path

tif hl/II mac PD RP-I/II BJYopppblood

. - . - . . - . a

MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC Participants NRC PDR J. Mauck LPDR -

NSIC PDill-3 Rdg M. Duncan H. Miller W. Troskoski D. Morley, PTSB F. Miraglia J. Lyons G. Lainas E. Rossi .

S. Varga ACRS(10)

OGC Receptionist (Building where mtg is being held) bec: Licenste/ Applicant & Service List 8

Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Georgia Power Company Yogtle Electric Generating Plant cc:

Mr. L. T. Gucwa Resident Inspector Chief Nuclear Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Comission Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 572 P.O. Box 4545 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Depoish Kirkland. III, Counsel Vice President - Licensing Office of the Consumers' Utility Vogtle Project Council Georgia Power Company / Suite 225 Southern Ccepany Services, Inc. 32 Peachtree Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 2625 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Bimingham, Alabama 35202 James E. Joiner Mr. Paul D. Rice Troutman, Sanders, Lockeman, Vice President & Project General Manager .& Ashmore Georgia Power Company Candler Building Post Office Box 299A, Route 2 127 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Danny Feig Mr. J. A. Bailey 1130 Alta Avenue Project Licensing Manager Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Southern Company Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 2625 Carol Stan ler Bimingham, Alabama 35202 Georgians ainst Nuclear Energy 425 Euclid errace Ernest L. Bla~e. Jr. Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. 7 .

Washington, D. C. 20037 Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.

Vogtle Plant Manager Georgia Power Company Route 2. Box 299-A Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. R. E. Conway Senior Vice President and Project Director Georgia Power Company Rt. 2, P. O. Box 299A Waynesboro, Georgia 30830

i Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station

{

cc:

Mr. A.V. Carr, Esq. Dr. John M. Barry Duke Power Company Department of Environmental Health P. O. Box 33189 Mecklenburg County 422 South Church Street 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Camlina 28203 County Manager of Mecklenburg County 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Chairman, North Carolina Utilities Comission Mr. Robert Gill Dobbs Building Duke Power Company 430 North Salisbury Street Nuclear Production Department Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq. Division of Facility Services Bishoo, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Department of Human Resources l and Reynolds 701 Barbour Drive 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008 Washington, D. C. 20036 Senior Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Route 4, Box 529 Hunterville, North Carolina 28078 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 L. L. Williams Area Manager, Mid-South Area ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corporation MNC West Tower - Bay 239 P'. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230

1 l

MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION Docket File ' NRC Participants NRC PDR L. Beltracchi LPDR PD#11-3 Rdg Projectflanager M. Miller M. Duncan W. Troskoski OGC ACRS(10) l OTHERS )

l l

bec: Licensee & Service List l

l l

l 4

r  !

l l

l l

l y- , ,,, __-..._,m-- ,,--r-,, .. , ,,.-- _ _ , _ - - , . , _ . _ , , - , _ , . _ . ,,,..,__.,.,yvy, _-.,-,-.y,- , , _. ...~, . . _ -m-,-, ,y,-

\

Enclosure 1 l

l l

Pa rticipants '

NRC Southern Company L. Beltracchi J. Bailey SOHAR, Inc. Westinghouse J. Frawley A. Blanchard W. Ciaramitaro Georiga Power Company F. Bednar D. Morrison l J. Aufdenkampe* G. Lang T. Hantz D. Therault J. Rindfuss A. Negus W. C. Gangloff l T. G. Weiss C. Benton i C. Vernon

• Attended June 30,1987 only l

l l

, _ _ __ - - . , , _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ ___,..._..,_,......___...,__.__..,_.____,,________,.__..__.,I

ENCLOSUR52 I. INTRODUCTION 1 HOUR

1. PURPOSE -

2. SCHEDULE

3. PROPRIETARY MATERIAL / AUDIT REPORT

4. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE (DESIGN AND V&V)

11. PSMS DESIGN DIFFERENCES 1 HOUR

1. HARDWARE DIFFERENCES

2. SOFTWARE DIFFERENCES

3. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES

." III. VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION PHILOSOPHY 2 HOURS

1. OVERVIEW

2. DETERMINATION OF SOFTWARE DIFFERENCES

3. VALIDATION TESTING PHILOSOPHY

~

IV. SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION . 1 HOUR -

~

V. REVIEW 0FPhMSDOCUMENTATION -

8 HOURS

1. REVIEW OF V&V CLARIFICATION AND TROUBLE REPORTS

2. SELECTION OF THREAD PATHS

' VARIABLES (TCOLD, AFW)

' ABNORMAL TESTING (SUBC00 LING)

'PRUDENCY (RPU/DPU/SPDS DATALINK)

A. DE' SIGN DOCUMENTATION B .- VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION

"' c . VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION -

0

e 6 e

ENCLOSURE 2 VI. PSMS SECURITY

1. PSMS ACCESSABILITY

2. PROM PHYSICAL SECURITY

3. MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES

4. SITE TEST PROGRAM VII. AUDIT

SUMMARY

AND EXIT 1 HOUR I

i 1

i

' ' ~ ~ ~ '

{ ,, ~' -Nr['sY E7:35 wc-b~ 85I

1 ENCLOSURE 3 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

~

AUGUST 1982 GPC PURCHASES PSMS DECEMBER 1984 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT V&V BEGINS NOVEMBER 1986 PLANT V0GTLE V&V BEGINS J DECEMBER 1986 RESPONSE TO NRC V&V CONCERNS JANUARY 1987 FEBRUARY 1987 V0GTLE SER WITH INTERIM PROCEDURE REQUIREMENT MARCH 1987 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT V&V FINAL -

. REPORT .

JUNE 1987 V0GTLE PSMS VtV FINAL REPORT

, JUNE 29-30 1987 PSMS V&V NRC AUDIT

• S e

. b 747AN!97/ARI /4R7 *

. 61

• DESIGN ORGANIZATION W. Canglof f, Mgr.

Electrical and Control Systepts I

l__

I i l

i I  ;

i A.E. Blanchard, Mgr. D.P. Adomaitis p E.T. Murphy, Mgr. Inst. & Control o IEC Development Control Systems g

,m. Enqineering Application Enqineering

'- Analysis & Support .

I m

I l a

l I I I 1 -! W. Clarasitaro, Mgr.

I W.W. Wassel,Isfr.

N.P. MQeller, Mgr.

4 J.P. Carrera, Mgr.

control Systems Sensors & Inst., Instrumentation l

Man-Machine Developgellt Systems Application Functional Desian Deslan & Analysis T. Hantz B. Byrnes A. Negus S. Abedin

, J. Forker j J. Swarc R. Samardzich i

I Gm .cc.la Vogtle ProiccA YERIFICAT_LQFL/LND VAT,T.DaTJ_or!

W. Gangloff, Mgr.

Electricial and Contro_1 Systems i

I

! I D. Therlault Chief Verifier. V&V Team l

I I I

I I I I I Software Functional Validation Code PROM Verification Decomp _osition Ieam I,ibrary nurninq l

m

• D. Dehaven

• G. Lang

• F. Dednar

• D. Dehaven II . Durst $

r-1 % O l o N. Durst

• C. Vernon

• T. Weldon

• K. Pysnit E l R. Paul *J. Lipchak J. Rindfuus A l

D. Polinski C. tiasrullah D. Polinsl:i .

• K. Pysnik

• L.' Barnes J. Rindfuss A. George l

• On South Texas V&V Team i

1

l . .

ENCLOSURE 5 HARDWARE DIFFFRENCES 0 ONE DIFFERENT 1/0 BOARD 0 PLANT SPECIFIC KEYBOARD LAYOUT l 0 ONE PLASMA DISPLAY PER TRAIN 1 I

O HALF BAY RPU AND DPU CABINETS 0 RPU AND DPU DATA LINK BOARD i

e

1. -* - ~~ -e . .---r--..---..__,9 __ , , , _ _, _, _ . _ _

ENCLOSURE 5 f

(

SOFTWARE DIFFERENCES 0 CORE EXIT THERMOCOUPLES -

p ., ~ d ' '

SHARED THERMOCOUPLES BETWEEN QUADRANTS CORE MAXIMUM THERMOCOUPLE COMPUTED TEMPERATURE INSTEAD OF FIFTH HOTTEST o RVLIS (WESTINGHOUSE VS, CE)

UPPER RANGE FULL RANGE g3c DYNAMIC HEAD 0 DISPLAY FORMATS SPECIFIC TO PLANT V0GTLE f

0 PAMS VARIABLES SPECIFIC TO PLANT V0GTLE o ENGINEERING UNIT CONVERSION p/tEj F '

VALVE STATUS ALGORITHM ' ;

l 0 ALARM / CAUTION INDICATION ANNUNCIATOR WINDOW

' gIj .

THERMOCOUPLE RELATED INDICATIONS

ENCLOSURE 5 i

i PtANT.SPFCIFIC DOCUMFNTATION j i

o POST ACCIDENT MONITORING SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL *P.' I REQUIREMENTS 'bE# , Y*W s )

, a ,' .,. +

0 REACTOR VESSEL LEVEL INDICATION SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 0 MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE DESIGN BASIS AND FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS l

, I l

1 j

l l

6. , - *rc .

y- - -

ENCLOSURE 6 l l

l I

VAllDATION EFFOR'T FOR VOGTLE PSMS JUNE 26,1987 Westinghouse Nuclear Technology Systems Division

ENCLOSURE 6 VAllDATION EFFORT o DECOMPOSE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS o GENERATE TEST PROCEDURES o TEST AND ANALYZE RESULTS o GENERATE TROUBLE REPORTS o DOCUMENT RESULTS IN A DATA BASE o RETEST TO CONFIRM PROBLEM AREAS 1

ENCLOSURE 6 VAllDATION PHILOSOPHY '

l 1

I o FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT

• DISPLAY INTEGRITY STEADY STATE CHARACTERISTICS TRANSIENT CHARACTERISTICS o ABNORMAL CONDITION OUT OF RANGE INPUTS (OFFSCALES) 1 OVERLOAD AND RECOVERY o PRUDENCY NOT ADDRESSED IN THE DECOMPOSITION VERIFY "SOUND" DESIGN PRACTICE 4

ENCLOSURE 6 -

I l

VAllDATION PHILOSOPHY o CONCENTRAT.E ON DIFFERENCES o PROVE THAT INPUTS ARE MAPPED PROPERLY TO EACH DISPLAY o PROVE Tg7 ALL ALGORITHMS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED PROPERLYr o DOCUMENT RESULTS. ON FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT DATA BASE

~ . . :. , o l

l l

l l

. ENCLOSURE 6 VAllDATION TECHNIOUE o VERIFY FIRMWARE CONGRUENCE

• HARDWARE ONE 100 OHM RTD INPUT SOFTWARE IDENTIFY ALG'ORITHMS COMMON TO SOUTH TEXAS SAMPl.E TO VERIFY CODE IMPLEMENTED IN CORE ALGORITHMS IS THE SAME PROVE' INPUT TO OUTPUT INTEGRITY 4

ENCLOSURE 6 l

COMMON ALGOQlTHMS o REDUNDANT SENSOR ALGORITHM o RCS SUBCOOLING o CORE EXIT THERMOCOUPLE / REFERENCE JUNCTION BOX o HEATUP/COOLDOWN RATE o DPU MISM.ATCH o RPU/DPU STATUS INDICATION

ENCLOSURE 6 I

1 VAllDATION TECHNIOUES o STATIC DISPLAY TEST - DPSP.0387.0 ACRONYMS SPECIAL DISPLAY REQUIREMENTS DISPLAY PAGE FORMAT: DISPLAY HEADER, ACTIVE AREA, MESSAGE AREA o DYNAMIC DISPLAY TEST - DSPD.0487.0 CREr. TION TIME UPDATE RATE l TIME RESPONSE OVERLOAD AND RECOVERY l

1 ,

- - . ._ - - - - , - - . - - - - - - - - - . - _ . _ - - , - , - , _ , , , _ , _ , , - , . , . _ - - - , , , , - , - , , - - . , _ . -,.,..p.,,,

ENCLOSUM 6 ,

RVLIS TESTS - VRVLIS.0487.0 .

o RVLIS REQUIREMENTS l

• RVLIS: SECTION 21 RVLIS REQUIREMENTS PT6: PAGE 6 PRIMARY TRENDS RV LVL DISPLAY  ;

• RVLD: REACTOR VESSEL LEVEL DISPLAY l

o SENSORS RELATED TO'RVLIS l

• P. VAR 007: REACTOR VESSEL WATER LEVEL RSA f P. VAR.021: RCP STATUS .

• P.V AR.022: CAPILLARY LINE TEMPERATURE j SENSORS - i

.. . l

• P. VAR.023: HYDRAULIC ISOLATION STATUS

• P. VAR.024: UNCOMPENSATED dp TRANSMITTERS

ENCLOSURE 6 DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS o CORE MAX THERMOCOUPLE o RVLIS ALGORITHMS

ENCLOSURE 6 P_SMS FUNCTIONAL TEST (Performed Following V&V PROM Changeout) e Testing duplication of preoperational test effort e Test method:

- Verification of displays

- Diagnostic status block verification

- Digital signal verification

- Analog signal verification

- Trend verification

- Suspect and mismatch check e Schedule

ENCLOSURE 7 Verificatlon Error Type Summary trrer 7tpe 43 (t.M)

Errer Type 41 (17.M) gProeType6(fl.M) t tr m fppe 34 (4.5)

~

' trr F ft M 3 (1.

Type (3. ) I ftpe 3()

ire.P 1,,e ,o n,..>

te m i m 40 (it.m) trw Tm M (s.n) l l

64 Trouble Reports 80 Total Error Types Figure 3 i

1 l

ENCL'05URE 7 ,

t Yelldellon Emr Type Summary tirer T m le (10.n) f E'N TFro te (6.M) p

/

/~ i

/ I

^

l i trrveTypeti(10.ct)

/

I l

EPP*r Type 40 (M.5) l t

r -

l 1  !

tr= tm u (s.n>

\x  :

i

\ i A

N j{

- r n n .m l

\

tr w i m n (s.m )

l i

14 Trouble Reports i 30 Total Error Types l l

Figure 4 1

4

ENCLOSURE 7 Yondollon Resolution Summary era neras 0.n) _

as Pr 6tes teentif w (u.n)

-, (u.m 1

Fwwtlemi newnu muss (ac.n) e 14 Trouble Reports e 30 Total Error Types Figure 5

)

I

ENCLOSURE 8 PSMS PHYSICAL SECURITY  !

e ' RPUs and DPUs Located in vital area PROM removal results in data errors on display

- Cabinets lockable e Plasma Display Located in Control Room (vital area) l Directly observable by operator Cabinets lockable e Spare PROMS Stored in warehouse:

l a) Warehouse in protected area b) Access limited to warehous( personnel (all others require escort) l c) Maintained Class B storage Reinoval requires MER (MER generally requires MWO for I parts issue) l 9

4

- . , , - - ,----n-~,w--.,,--,,,-,--,,._-,-...-e -. ,, nr _ . - , - - - , , . m. , a.w----,www.-.,,__.,w,-a-,,n , - - - , . , - . , - - - - , _ ,

ENCLOSURE 8  ;

1 l

l l PSMS MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION l .

e Maintenance

- All maintenance reautres MWO

- MWO reviewed by:

a) operations b) maintenance engineering c) quality control d) health physics and chemistry (if applicable)

- Retest required after maintenance a) Level of retest deoends on maintenance e Modifications

- All modifications handled as desten channes

- Design changes subject to original design requirements

- All verifications performed originally required on design modification

- Retesting subject to original requirements 8.2

Enclosure Proposed Agenda for Audit of Vogtle Plant Safety i

MonitoringSystem(PSMS)VerificationandValidation(V8V) Program I. Introduction 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />

- Purpose

- Schedule

- Organizational Structure

- Proprietary Material I:. PSMS Technical Presentation 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> .

l

- System Overview

• Testing

- Software Overview

• Testing III. PSMS Design, Verification and Validation Plan 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />

- Verification Philosophy

- Verification Techniques

• Reviews

• Software

• Testing

• Errors .

- Verification Level

• Safety Classification

• Justification of Verification level

• Application of Level

- Validation Philosophy

- Validation Techniques

• Description

• Testing

• Errors

- V&V Team Organization

• Development Team

• Verification Team

• Validation Team