1

American Nuclear Society (ANS) Risk Informed Standards Committee (RISC)

Meeting Minutes November 18, 2009

Nuclear Energy Institute Offices, Washington DC Members present: Allen Camp (RISC Chair), Sandia National Labs; Robert Budnitz (RISC Vice Chair), Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; Paul Amico*, SAIC; Robert Bari, Brookhaven National Lab; Richard Black, US DOE; Biff Bradley, NEI; Mary Drouin, US NRC; John Gaertner, EPRI; Dennis Henneke*, General Electric; Rick Hill, ERIN; Gene Hughes, ETRANCO; Stanley Levinson, AREVA NP; Patricia Schroeder, ANS; D. Bill Stillwell, STPNOC; Donald Wakefield, ABS Consulting; Jonathan Young, Pacific Northwest National Lab Alternates present: Ching Guey (for Kenneth Kiper) *(P/T), FPL; Rupert Weston (for David Finnicum), Westinghouse; Victoria Anderson (for Biff Bradley), NEI; Doug Hance, EPRI Observers, liaisons, and guests present: James August, CORE Inc.; Anders Gilbertson; US NRC; C. Rick Grantom, STPNOC; Kamiar Jamali, US DOE; N. Prasad Kadambi (Standards Board Chair) (P/T), Individual; David Miskiewicz (P/T), Progress Energy; Bijan Najafi (P/T), SAIC; Jeffrey Mitman, US NRC; Charles Moseley (NRMCC Co-chair), Individual; Leo Shanley, ERIN; Ian Wall, Individual; Keith Woodard, ABS Consulting; Kiang Zee (P/T), ERIN * = participated by phone (P/T) = attended part time

1. Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken and introductions were made. A quorum was established. 2. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 3. Meeting Key Issues and Objectives RISC Chair Allen Camp reviewed the agenda and summarized the intent of the meeting. 4. RISC Chair’s Report Summary of ANS Standards Board Meeting (See Attachment A) Allen Camp reported that the Standards Board held a meeting the previous day. RISC members were provided a copy of the RISC report provided to Standards Board members (Attachment A). Camp stated that he provided Standards Board members the tentative proposal for merging the RISC and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (CNRM) which would be reviewed in more detail later in the meeting. Some opposition was voiced by Standards Board members. Nuclear Risk Management Coordinating Committee (NRMCC) Activities It was noted that the next NRMCC meeting would be held the following day on Thursday, November 19, 2009, in Washington, DC.

2

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (CNRM) Activities

ANS Representatives to the CNRM, Robert Budnitz and Stanley Levinson, reported that established procedures for communication between the CNRM and RISC were working well. CNRM Chair Rick Grantom provided a report on CNRM activities. He stated that their last meeting was held in September of 2009. Grantom reported that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration gave a presentation and that they may become more involved in nuclear risk management. He noted that much of the September meeting focused on combining the two consensus bodies – ANS RISC and ASME CNRM. 5. Update on Joint Committee/Reorganization (See Attachment B) Allen Camp requested that Pat Schroeder distribute his Joint Committee/Reorganization Presentation to the committee and Rick Grantom for review. (Attachment B) Action Item 11/09-01: Pat Schroeder to distribute the Joint Committee/Reorganization Presentation to RISC with a copy to Rick Grantom for review. Camp reminded members that he previously received approval from the Standards Board to develop a proposal for a joint committee. He explained that the current proposal used an existing ASME/American Petroleum Institute joint committee as an example. The following summary of the proposal was provided.

The current proposal used one standards developing organization to take the lead and to develop each standard under their accredited procedures.

The joint consensus committee would achieve balance of interest and compliance under both societies’ procedures.

The joint committee would have one co-chair from each society which must be a member of their representative society.

The joint committee would look for members with expertise without accounting for societal membership.

Societal assignments of new standards would be determined on a case-by-case basis. All RISC and CNRM members would be offered a position on the joint committee.

Camp explained that duplicate representation from the same organization could result with offering all current RISC and CNRM members an invitation to the joint committee. Future rules could limit the number of votes from individuals of the same organization. Several RISC members expressed their opinion that members of the same organization should share one vote just as they currently do on the RISC. The following motion was made:

Motion: To endorse the concept of encouraging as many individuals as possible from the same organization but with only one organizational vote.

The motion was approved 11 to 1 with opposition from Stanley Levinson as he saw the possibility of benefit in multiple representation. Camp proceeded to explain that a key aspect of the joint committee was a Standards Planning Committee. A Standards Interface Subcommittee would be established to coordinate with probabilistic risk assessment standards developed outside of the joint committee. Camp explained that they hadn’t sorted out the role of the NRMCC after the formation of joint

3

committee and if the recently formed Nuclear Energy Standards Coordination Collaborative would take on some of the responsibilities of the NRMCC. Most members agreed that individuals on the main committee should participate on one of the lower subcommittees or working groups. A draft scope for each committee and subcommittee had been prepared. Camp expected a joint meeting to be planned for February or March of 2010. He anticipated having a proposal for the Standards Board at the June 2010 meeting. 6. Report from ad hoc committee on training per June Action Item (See Attachment C) Rick Hill reminded the committee that an action item was assigned at the last RISC meeting. The issues were 1) should a standard or guidance be developed regarding ANS-developed PRA standards, including those already incorporated into ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009; and 2) should ANS develop classroom training materials for ANS-developed PRA standards? The ad hoc committee was chaired by Hill and included Mary Drouin, David Finnicum, and Stanley Levinson. Hill provided the committee a summary of the ad hoc committee’s purpose and their discussion (Attachment C). Pros and cons were developed. The ad hoc committee concluded that training may not be feasible because it was resource intensive and required an expert with training ability and a source of funding. Drouin explained that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approached the ASME Standards Technology (ST)-LLC to cooperate on providing training on the PRA standards. She was aware that the training materials were certified, but not aware of the certification process for continuing education credits. Drouin suggested that one guidance document be developed on the Level 1, 2, and 3 standards. The following motion was made:

Motion:

To endorse the ad hoc committee’s recommendations that 1. Guidance on specified technical topics should be developed for ANS-developed PRA

standards. 2. The guidance should not be incorporated into a new PRA standard. 3. If ASME ST, LLC is developing training materials for those ANS-provided portions of the

ASME/ANS PRA standard, then the training documents from those portions need to be reviewed by ANS.

After a brief discussion, the motion was approved 11 to 1 with opposition from Mary Drouin. Drouin felt that it was not necessary for ANS to be consulted in the development of training materials on ANS-provided portions. Allen Camp accepted an action item to move forward on guidance documents. Action Item 11/09-02: Allen Camp/Bob Budnitz to determine the next step for preparing a guidance document on ANS PRA standards.

7. Status of Standards Writing Group Activities Update on Seismic PRA Pilot (See Attachment D) John Gaertner provided the committee an update on the external events pilot (Attachment D). He stated that the Seismic PRA Lessons Learned Report should be available in draft form in mid

4

January 2010. Potential review panel participants included authors of the standard for review. A panel meeting was anticipated mid February with the final report due in March of 2010. Application of the PRA standards for new plants was discussed. Gaertner stated that there would be some recommendations for changes to the external events standard. ANS-58.24, Level 2 Standards Project Allen Camp stated that the ANS-58.24 Working Group was putting forth much effort to complete the Level 2 draft. As the ANS-58.24 Working Group was meeting concurrently at a different location, ANS-58.24 Working Group Chair Mark Leonard called in to provide an update. Leonard explained that the draft needed to be a little less specific on some things at this time. They would prepare supporting requirements as best possible. Woodard expressed concern with mentioning design features. They needed to add a column to the table for advanced light water reactors. Ian Wall expressed his concern with experimental data not being available. He mentioned that the Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) had funded a report that was in the public domain. A copy of the report would be provided to Leonard for his reference.

ANS-58.25, Level 3 Standards Project (See Attachment E) ANS-58.25 Working Group Chair Keith Woodard provided the committee an update of working group progress. He reported that the Level 3 draft had been completed. A very production, five-day meeting was held at ANS headquarters the previous month. Woodard reviewed the organization and key elements of the L3 draft. He requested RISC support for examples of risk integration and curves. Camp reminded members of previous discussions on referencing or copying relevant sections of the Combined Level 1 standard into the Level 2 and 3 standards. Camp noted that the RISC working groups were directed to reference Addenda A of the Combined Standard. Wall stated that he felt that the L3 draft did a good job of incorporating Part 1 of the Level 1 Combined Standard. Plan for Level 2 Review Meetings The committee discussed review schedules for the LPSD and L3 drafts. Members were concerned with the workload associated with concurrent reviews of multiple drafts. After some discussion, Camp asked for comments back to L3 Working Group by the end of the year with a conference call to be scheduled in the beginning of January of 2010. Depending on comment resolutions, Camp optimistically anticipated that a ballot could be issued in February 2010. 8. Treatment of Boiling in the Low Power and Shutdown (LPSD) Standard Gene Hughes explained that he had difficulty explaining his recommendations for the LPSD standard and thought that changes he made to the draft would clarify. He did not feel that his changes moved the standard in a different direction and felt that they were simple and straight forward. Hughes asked for the working group to review the changes he proposed and make a decision to accept each one. A few of the changes were discussed and received a mixed response. The following motion was made:

Motion: To direct the LPSD Working Group to address Gene Hughes’ comments one by one on screening and to add words to meet the supporting requirements and take advantage of screening if justified.

5

The motion carried with 10 approved and one abstained vote from Stanley Levinson. Hughes offered to support the LPSD Working Group where they saw benefit. Biff Bradley stated that they were finding out that the Fire PRA standard would have benefited from a pilot and would suggest a pilot for the LPSD standard. 9. LPSD PRA Discussion of comment resolution and remaining issues (See Attachment F) ANS-58.22 Working Group Chair Don Wakefield provided a report to the committee (Attachment E). Wakefield reported that comment responses were completed and distributed to members for review. He explained that some working group members were burnt out and did not provide much support in the revised draft. Wakefield stated that the draft provided a better focused introduction and was restructured to have a similar outline to Addenda A of the Combined Standard. New definitions had been incorporated into Section 1.2. External events requirements had been reformatted to fit hazards in Addenda A. Plant operational state requirements and appendices were rewritten, and high level requirements (HLRs)/supporting requirements (SRs) were added for human-induced initiators. SR to evaluate future low power and shutdown evolutions were now limited to those planned. Three ratings were incorporated for Qualitative Risk Assessment (QRLA). Wakefield saw the following points of discussion:

1) per reactor year vs. per calendar year (per Addenda A section 1.2.2) Members were acceptable to write the standard to per calendar year. 2) need for CCII SR to assess dependence between pre-, at- and post-initiator human factor

events (Addenda A (HR-G7)) Members agreed that it should be moved to Category 3 or removed entirely if not feasible to do.

3) SR to quantitatively benchmark QRLA end states (absolute vs. relative risk rankings) Decision made that benchmarking was not required, but the working group should check with Ken Kiper and bring back to RISC if necessary.

10. RISC discussion of unresolved issues prior to balloting LPSD Standard Allen Camp asked members to let Don Wakefield know if they found any items that would cause them to vote negative on the next ballot and to provide the working group clear guidance. Each member was given an opportunity to comment. Allen Camp: very impressed that all comments were addressed and only a few not accepted. Expected more comments but not a negative vote. Gene Hughes: enthusiastic about getting the standard out the door. John Gaertner: believed that most of the standard was very good; although he felt that the idea of average risk doesn’t have much value, was okay with inclusion; would recommend pilot of all levels.

6

Jon Young: still had serious reservations of qualitative portions being included in the standard; four of his comments were not addressed. Doug Hance: explained a polite disagreement with Wakefield; concerning demand-based (draindown) initiators. The draft standard treats these in a way that is inconsistent with the at-power approach described in Support System Initiating Events: Identification and Quantification Guideline. EPRI, Palo Alto,CA, and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.: 2008. 1016741. Biff Bradley: expressed concern about piloting before releasing; would need a pilot before approving. Stanley Levinson: confirmed that most of his comments were addressed in an agreeable fashion but did not verify incorporation into the revised draft. Had problem with QLRA “ratings”; was not sure if issues were big enough to substantiate a negative vote; agreed with need for a pilot. Camp requested that Levinson notify Wakefield immediately if further review found cause for a negative vote. Rick Hill: agreed with the need for a pilot; felt that the qualitative section was good. Noted that he submitted comments from Doug True as well. Hill thought that True’s comments had not been addressed adequately and a not approved vote would be appropriate. Mary Drouin: reiterated that the NRC was all for qualitative assessment in its own standard; they had not addressed the issue of configuration control; could potentially review and endorse if separate. Stated that users would not be able to state that they have meet an NRC endorsed standard. This did not necessary mean that she would submit a negative vote on the LPSD reballot. Ching Guey: concerned that committee was still struggling after numerous years; would like a practical guidance. Robert Budnitz: agreed as a matter of policy to issue standard first and then pilot. Paul Amico: the only real showstopper for him would be if the qualitative section was removed. Camp recognized that many members felt a pilot of the LPSD standard should be initiated. He directed the working group to proceed while plans were made for a pilot. Camp stated that pilot participants would need to be identified. Drouin offered to go back to the NRC to see if they would be willing to do a pilot on the quantitative portion. Rick Grantom believed that the South Texas Nuclear Operating Plant would be interested in piloting the quantitative portion too. In consideration of members’ recommendation for pilots, Camp accepted an action item to work out a pilot strategy. Action Item 11/09-03: Allen Camp to develop a strategy on piloting the LPSD standard. Camp asked that members consider supporting him on developing a strategy on piloting. Action Item 11/09-04: RISC members consider supporting Allen Camp to develop a strategy on piloting Biff Bradley was asked to see if the Nuclear Energy Institute would support a qualitative portion of the LPSD standard.

7

Action Item 11/09-05: Biff Bradley to see if NEI would support a pilot on the qualitative portion of the LPSD standard. Camp reviewed three possible steps forward for the LPSD standard as 1) ballot it for trial use, 2) ballot it for issuance, or 3) pilot, revise appropriately, and then ballot for issuance. Camp asked members to complete their review of comment responses and the revised LPSD draft and provide any comments to Don Wakefield by mid-December. Action Item 11/09-06: RISC members to complete their review of the LPSD comment responses and revised draft and submit comments to Don Wakefield by mid-December. 11. Update on new reactor PRA standards Status of ASME Standard for Non-Light Water Reactors PRAs Bob Budnitz provided an update on the ASME standard in development for non-LWRs. Budnitz noted that the project was chaired by Karl Fleming. The draft was released in February 2009 and received about 600 comments that were currently being resolving. Budnitz felt that 20-30 of the most important comments had been resolved. He predicted that a revised draft would be released in about three to five months. Bill Stillwell explained that he was one of the members of the ASME working group for the proposed new ASME PRA standard for advanced LWRs. He stated that the project was chaired by Jim Chapman. Stillwell felt that additional issues continued to be found preventing the completion of a draft. An estimate on completing the draft depended on the method selected. Modular Helium-Cooled Reactor Standard (ANS-53.1) Although not a RISC member, ANS-53.1 Working Group Chair Jim August was in attendance and provided a report on the progress of the modular helium-cooled reactor standard being developed under the ANS Nuclear Facilities Standards Committee. August confirmed that the project included participation of a couple RISC members. He felt that they were plowing new ground using the best available guidance. The working group was resolving significant comments and anticipated a revised draft to be issued for a reballot. 12. Training developed under ASME LLC (See Attachment G) Mary Drouin provided an update for training on Parts 1-3 of ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009. The training program was being developed as part of the ASME LLC activities by NRC and included the PWR Owners’ Group. The objective/purpose of the training was to explain the intent of the requirements. Drouin explained that training would be provided in two modules and was developed to complement EPRI training program for PRA professionals and NRC training on Regulatory Guide 1.200. Module 1 should be available for training by end of calendar year. Module 2 textbook would be issued for review and comment to both CNRM and RISC and finalized by the end of the year. Training was anticipated to be available in 2010. 13. Status on action verbs (Also Attachment G) Mary Drouin explained that as a result of developing materials for the training courses, discrepancies were identified in the use of action verbs in the PRA standards. A small task group was put together to review the problem and make recommendations back to the CNRM. The task group included Drouin, Ian Wall, and Bob Budnitz. Budnitz offered to review the LPSD standard for proper use of action verbs.

8

Action Item 11/09-07: Bob Budnitz to review the LPSD draft standard for proper use of action verbs. Wall offered to help review the LPSD, Level 2 and Level 3 drafts for consistency in verb usage. 14. NRC activities (Also Attachment G) Mary Drouin provided an update on NRC activities. SECY-04-0118 was developed and provided a plan on a phased approached to PRA quality. The plan defined the needed PRA quality for risk-informed decisions. The plan identified the needed PRA standards and risk related guidance. The final task would be to develop a “Phase 3 guidance document." 15. Next RISC Meeting Camp stated he was coordinating a RISC meeting to be held with the CNRM the week of February 22, 2010. The location of Texas was mentioned as a possibility. Pat Schroeder was asked to poll the committee for their availability. Action Item 11/09-8: Pat Schroeder to poll for committee member’s availability for week of February 22 for a joint meeting with the CNRM. 16. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. (EASTERN).

RISC Progress Report November 2009

Action Completed The RISC was provided an opportunity to comment on NFSC draft standard ANS-2.17-20xx, “Evaluation of Subsurface Radionuclide Transport at Commercial Nuclear Power Production Facilities.” Grant Awarded for RISC PRA Standards An NRC grant to support the RISC PRA standards was awarded effective 7/30/09 for the next three years. In RISC Ballot/Vote (or resolving comments) ANS-58.22-20xx, “Low Power Shutdown PRA Methodology”

Writing group led by Don Wakefield Reballot issued due to substantive changes Reballot closed October 2008 with 674 committee comments and 116 public

comments Revised draft to be issued for a third ballot before the end of 2009

Standards in Progress ANS-58.24-20xx, “Severe Accident Progression and Radiological Release (Level 2) PRA Methodology to Support Nuclear Installation Applications”

Writing group led by Mark Leonard, underway since 2005 Preliminary draft for RISC review in 2010 Ballot date to be determined

ANS-58.25-20xx, “Standard for Radiological Accident Offsite Consequence Analysis (Level 3 PRA) to Support Nuclear Installation Applications”

Writing group led by Keith Woodard, underway since 2005 Preliminary draft for RISC end 2009 Ballot date to be determined

Other Issues

Coordination with NRMCC and ASME-CNRM Combining ANS RISC with ASME CNRM

1

ASME CNRM & ANS RISC Integration Proposal

November 18, 2009

With Proposed High Level Permanent Organization Structure

Summary• SB authorized continued exploration of a joint committee in

June 2009• Several telecoms and meetings have been held – All day

November 16• Developed a set of principles, a basic structure and draft rules• Key items of relevance to the Board

– Both Boards to Approve Standards– All current RISC members to be offered the opportunity to

participate in the joint committee– Society interests protected at the Officer Level, i.e., one co-chair

and at least one vice-chair from each society• Much work left to do, including work with ANS HQ• We will attempt to hold an “informal” joint meeting in a few

months• We may be ready to bring a proposal to the SB at the June

meeting

2

Draft PrinciplesThe officers of the Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management

will be guided by the following principles:

• We will be guided by what is best for nuclear safety, risk management, and effective standards implementation, and not by the business interest of either society.

• As new initiatives are developed, each society’s roles and responsibilities will be explicitly determined, with each society having an equal voice in those decisions.

• All current CNRM and RISC members will be offered membership in the joint committee.

• Each society will keep the other informed of risk-related standards activities through a defined process.

• We will strive for the simplest practical organizational structure and will minimize the workload on volunteer members.

High Level PRA Standard Organization Chart

Joint Committeeon Nuclear Risk Management

[JCNRM]

Current SDO ScopeANS ASME ASME Cont’d- Level 2 PRA - Level 1 PRA Advanced LWR PWR- Level 3 PRA - Fire PRA- LPSD PRA - External Events

JCNRM S/C Standards Planning- Identifies new or modified PRA Standards Needs- Defines which Standards Development

Organization’s Rules will apply, i.e., ANS or ASME

ANSStandards

Board

ASMEBNCS

Balance of JCNRM

Subcommittees

NRMCCSDO

CoordinatingBody

JCNRMExecutiveCommittee

3

Detailed Proposed Joint CNRM/RISC ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE:November 16, 2009

Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management [JCNRM]

(Consensus Group)

Standard Development Organization coordination by “Nuclear Risk Management Coordinating Committee”

Standards Interface Subcommittee

Standards Planning Subcommittee

Standards Development Subcommittee

JCNRMExecutive Committee

ANS - (Current RISC scope)

ASME – (Current CNRM scope)

The box color indicates the SDO whose processeswill govern the balloting process.

SDO = Standard Development Organization

ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards

ANS Standards Board

Advanced Non-LWR

Writing Group

Advanced LWR

Writing Group

Level 2 Writing Group

Level 3 Writing Group

LPSD Writing Group

Standards Maintenance

Subcommittee

“Future”Working Group

Combined Standard Working Group

Fire PRA Working Group

External Events

Working Group

Interpretations & Inquiries Process

Working Group

“Future”Writing Group

Risk Management Implementation Subcommittee

Terminology

•Individual working groups or task teams who are charged with maintaining existing Risk Management Standards. These groups/teams report to the JCNRM S/C Standards Maintenance.

SDO Maintenance Groups or Teams

•Individual writing/working groups or task teams who are charged with developing new or modifying existing Standards. The writing teams report to a JCNRM S/C Standards Development.

SDO Writing Groups or Teams

•Non-consensus bodies which report to the Joint Consensus Committee. These are “functional subcommittees” that have responsibility for interfacing, planning, developing and maintaining the Risk Management standards and other SDO products for both ASME and ANS.

Joint SDO Subcommittees

•A single committee comprised of the officers of the JCNRM and selected members from both ASME and ANS. This committee will consider the needs of the Joint Consensus Committee and make recommendations to the Joint Consensus Committee (JCNRM).

Joint SDO Consensus Executive Committee

•A joint committee that subsumes and supersedes the ASME CNRM & ANS RISC consensus committees, initially comprised of members from both ASME CNRM and ANS RISC. The Joint Committee will ballot and govern the process via the ASME or ANS rules that have been defined for a specific Standard action.

Joint SDO Consensus Committee(JCNRM)

•ASME Board on Nuclear Codes & Standards (BNCS) and ANS Standards Board; these are the governance boards over the JCNRM; each board will govern the process for that standard where the SDO (Standards Development Organization) has the lead, i.e., development and maintenance of the standard.

SDO Boards

•Coordinating committee among SDO’s and other stakeholders (ASME, ANS, IEEE, NRC, DOE, NEI). This Committee does not develop or ballot Standards. This committee includes senior level representation from various SDO’s and industry groups and provides an industry forum to coordinate industry efforts to develop risk management standards for the nuclear industry.

Nuclear Risk Management

Coordinating Committee (NRMCC)

4

Standards Interface Subcommittee

Charter/Purpose:

This S/C will provide an active interface with other standards developing committees and groups reporting to the ASME Board on Nuclear Codes & Standards or to the ANS Standards Board, IEEE, IAEA and other SDOsthat are developing or implementing risk-informed standards or guidance documents using risk information or risk methods.

Supporting Information:

A point-of-contact or representative designated by each interfacing Standards committee or group will be a member or a participant with this S/C. The intent is that formal communications (i.e., representation) are established with other BNCS committees (ASME XI, ASME III, O&M, NQA, etc. and similar committees in ANS).

This committee will work with the JCNRM and S/C Standards Planning in providing status of activities from other committees developing or maintaining standards using risk methods and information for input/update of the JCNRM strategic plan, the BNCS Task Group on Risk Management (TGRM) Strategic Plan, Nuclear Risk Management Coordinating Committee (NRMCC) Strategic Plan, and corresponding ANS strategic plans or other appropriate ANS actions plans.

This S/C will work with other JCNRM S/Cs to identify appropriate JCNRM points-of-contact to support the risk informed activities of other ASME and ANS committees, subcommittees, working groups, etc.

Standards Planning Subcommittee

Charter/Purpose:

To identify, consider and make recommendations to the JCNRM regarding the need for new risk management standards or other SDO product, the need for modifications to existing standards or other SDO product, and to develop, manage, and communicate the JCNRM Strategic Plan. This Subcommittee will have responsibility to define which SDO (ASME or ANS) rules apply to a specific standard activity.

The Standards Planning subcommittee is also responsible for identifying new technology to be incorporated into risk standards (co-responsibility with Standards Development S/C).

Supporting Information:

The Chairmen of the other CNRM S/C’s will be members of this S/C along with other members whose expertise is required to support the Standards Planning S/C charter.

This committee will include both ASME CNRM and ANS RISC members.

5

Standards Development

Subcommittee

Advanced Non-LWR Writing

Group

Advanced LWR Writing

Group

Level 2 PRA Writing Group

Level 3 PRA Writing Group

LPSD Writing Group

Charter/Purpose:

This S/C is responsible for developing new Risk Management Standards that are deemed necessary to support nuclear industry needs as recommended by S/C Standards Planning and approved by the JCNRM.

The Standards Development subcommittee is also responsible for identifying new technology to be incorporated into risk standards (co-responsibility with Standards Planning S/C).

Supporting Information:

Standards “Writing Groups” will be added to this S/C as required to provide the technical expertise required to develop new Standards. Once revision 0 of a Standard has been issued, the Writing Group will move to the Maintenance S/C and become a Working Group.

This subcommittee will include both ASME CNRM and ANS RISC members.

“Future”Writing Group

Charter/Purpose:

This S/C has responsibility for maintaining (i.e., issuing new editions) existing published standards, e.g., the initial “Combined” PRA Standard, and making recommendations to the Main Committee on needed changes, new editions.

This S/C also has responsibility for processing and communicating user inquiries or other needed interpretations.

Supporting Information:

The standards maintenance Working Groups will report to this S/C. Additional Working Groups will be added as new Standards are developed in the future.

This subcommittee will include both ASME CNRM and ANS RISC members.

Standards Maintenance

Subcommittee

“Future”Standards

Working Group

Combined Standard

Working Group

Fire PRA Working Group

External Events Working Group

Interpretations & Inquiries Process Working Group

6

Risk Management Implementation Subcommittee

Charter/Purpose:

To monitor and facilitate the implementation of standards products to the user community. To assure the proper use and implementation of JCNRM standards and other products by end users. Some examples are those associated with peer reviews, user feedback, and supporting the development and submittal of user inquiries and interpretations.

Also, to identify, consider, and make recommendations to the JCNRM and JCNRM Subcommittees (e.g., S/C Standards Planning) regarding the need for new risk management standards or guidance documents or modifications to existing standards.

This Subcommittee will monitor how standards are applied in owner and regulatory risk informed applications and activities and will work toward establishing a formal accreditation process for users of JCNRM standards.

Supporting Information:

This committee will include both ASME CNRM and ANS RISC members.

Proposed Milestones

• November 2009 - Obtain NRMCC endorsement of concept of proposed ASME/ANS Joint CNRM/RISC organizational structure to be discussed with respective ASME BNCS, ANS Standards Board, and affected Standards committees

• November 2009 - February 2010 - Discuss and seek comments from ANS RISC and ASME CNRM and ANS Standards Board and ASME BNCS

• March 2010 - May 2010 - Address comments and outline procedures and steps for implementation of proposed joint organizational structure

• June 2010 - Obtain approval of ASME BNCS and ANS Standards Board to move to new ANS/ASME Joint CNRM Committee structure

ANS RISC Action Item

Issues: Should a Standard or guidance be developed regarding ANS-developed

PRA Standards, including those already incorporated into ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009?

Should ANS develop classroom training materials for ANS-developed PRA Standards?

Background: These issues were raised at the June 2009 RISC meeting. The Fire PRA and External Events PRA Standards have been incorporated into the ASME/ANS PRA Standard, ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009. The Low Power/Shutdown (LP/SD) PRA Standard is under development and not yet incorporated into the ASME/ANS PRA Standard. Other PRA Standards under develop by ANS include Level 2 PRA and Level 3 PRA Standards. Action Item 6/09-01 assigned Rick Hill to lead a group with Mary Drouin, David Finnicum, and Stanley Levinson to address the issue prior to the November 2009 RISC meeting. Discussion: Conference calls were held with the Chairmen of the LP/SD and Level 3 Working Groups, and the designated Working Group for this Action Item. The following conclusions were agreed to: 1. The June 2009 meeting minutes’ Action Item issues (see above) were

similar and therefore the two requested white papers were combined into a single white paper.

2. Development of classroom training materials such as being done by ASME, LLC is not recommended by ANS with its current structure.

3. Development of a guidance document to address specific technical areas identified in all the ANS-developed PRA Standards would be helpful to the industry (current and future user community).

The pros for guidance:

There is substantial value in being able to provide guidance to the “next generation” of PRA practitioners since they are likely to be doing maintenance rather than original analyses.

Guidance is beneficial as the Standards get applied to new plants. Guidance is beneficial for the less mature areas of PRA technology, e.g.,

fires, seismic, LP/SD. Guidance is beneficial for creating a uniform understanding that will

help to promote additional consistency in PRA peer reviews. The cons for guidance:

Although the development of Standards has been accomplished on a volunteer basis, there are insufficient industry resources to expect that

the development of guidance can be accomplished on the same basis. Thus, funding will be required to develop the guidance.

Organizational boundaries and technical issues may be a problem between ASME and ANS, as ASME, LLC develops training materials for the ASME/ANS PRA Standard with the expertise for guidance residing in ANS.

Once completed, there is likely going to be more follow-on activities and modifications of guidance because of the degree of maturity of these PRA areas.

Specific issues for which guidance would be beneficial included, but were not limited to:

LP/SD o Definition of plant operating states o Qualitative section (what is required now that was not required in

the past) o Distinguish time-averaged models from configuration-specific

models. o What is different from at-power?

Level 2 o Computer code selection to meet the needs of the analysis o Consensus models and phenomenology modeling o Confusion between the ASME/ANS PRA Standard LERF section and

Level 2 supporting requirements o Level 2/3 interface

Level 3 o MAACS2 code training is needed. No need to know international

commission on health and statistics of health. Clean-up cost will be the driver in the future.

o Level 2/3 interface o Element/isotope correction o Risk presentation

Recommendation: 1. Guidance on specified technical topics should be developed for ANS-

developed PRA Standards. 2. The guidance should not be incorporated into a new PRA Standard. 3. If ASME, LLC is developing training materials for those ANS-provided

portions of the ASME/ANS PRA Standard, then the training documents from those portions need to be reviewed by ANS.

1

Pilot Application of the ANS Pilot Application of the ANS Standard on Seismic PRAStandard on Seismic PRA

John Gaertner

ANS RISC Committee

November 2009

2© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pilot Application of SPRA StandardPilot Application of SPRA Standard

• SPRA Lessons Learned Report - mid Jan 2010

• NRC courtesy review of EPRI report - mid Jan

– Contacted Jon Ake, Martin Stutzke, and Christina Liu

– They have agreed to participate in report review and to provide comments

2

3© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Review PanelReview Panel

• Review report on lessons learned (mid Jan – mid Feb)

• Meet, discuss, and assemble comments (mid - Feb)

• Potential participants

– Bob Budnitz

– Ravi Ravindra

– Nilesh Chokshi

– Ken Kiper

– Members of project team

4© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

ScheduleSchedule

• Issue draft report Mid - January

• NRC courtesy review Jan – mid Feb

• Panel review Jan – mid Feb

• Panel meeting Mid – Feb

• Final report March

1

The Level 3 Draft Is Complete!!

• Draft was submitted to RISC at the End of October for review

• It is Essentially Done Except for Risk Integration Section

• Sorry but it is 81 Pages• Intended to Follow Format of Combined

Standard

History of the Level 3 Standard Development

• Started in February 2004 (5 Years Ago)• Held 8 Meetings and one Conference Call• Effort Involved about 100 Person-Days in

Meetings and Perhaps Another 50 Person-Days in Writing and Review

• Spending 5-Days Locked up at ANS Headquarters Near Chicago Enabled Completion of this Draft

2

Organization and Key Elements• Section 1 Introduction• Section 2 Acronyms and Definitions• Section 3 Risk Assessment Application Process• Section 4 HLRs and Supporting Requirements (SRs):

--Level ½ Interface

--Protective Action Parameters & Other Site Data

--Meteorological Data

--Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion

--Dosimetry

--Health Effects

--Economic Factors

--Quantification and Reporting• Section 5 Risk Integration• Section 6 Configuration Control• Section 7 Peer Review• Section 8 References• Section 9 Computer Codes

Key Contributors to the Draft

• Overview---(Woodard, Mitchell)• Level 1/2 Interface--- (Paul, Chisholm)• Site/Plant Input Data---(Teagarden)• Meteorology---(Woodard, Mazzola)• Atmospheric Dispersion---(Woodard, Mazzola)• Dosimetry---(O’Kula, Bixler)• Health Effects---(Mubayi, Mitchell)• Economic Factors---(Mubayi, Mitchell)• Quantification and Results Reporting---(Teagarden)• Risk Integration---(Johnson)• Computer Codes, Example I/O---(Bixler, Chisholm)

3

Expense Compensation Issues

• NRC has now Provided Expense Reimbursement that was Instrumental in Facilitating the 5-Day Meeting in Chicago

• We are Way Under Budget at the Present Time

1

LPSD PRA Standard Status Report SLIDE 1DJW 11/18/2009

Low Power & Shutdown PRA Methodology Standard

Writing Group ANS-58.22

STATUS REPORTRISC Meeting – Washington, D. C.

November 18, 2009

LPSD PRA Standard Status Report SLIDE 2DJW 11/18/2009

STATUS

Responses to Comments on Balloted version #8C Completed

Revised Version Transmitted to ANS, November 2, 2009

Sampling of responses to 45 Significant Comments

2

LPSD PRA Standard Status Report SLIDE 3DJW 11/18/2009

Past RISC Directives

Develop Stand Alone LPSD Standard

QLRA&QRA to be Combined in One Standard

Full Hazard Groups, except Internal Fires

SR’s to Reference ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009

Outage specific Requirements to be included

Metrics Other than CDF/LERF Should be Permitted for Both QRA/QLRA but User Must Formulate Applicable Requirements

LPSD PRA Standard Status Report SLIDE 4DJW 11/18/2009

Sampling Of WG Responses to Past Significant Comments

Better focused introduction section, outline similar to addendum A

New definitions now all in section 1.2

Adherence to Addendum A - CC’s/wording/ numbering

External events requirements reformatted

Rewrote POS Requirements/ Appendices:

– recognizing differences between time-averaged and CRM Needs.

– Summing contributions over evolutions and POSs

– Discusses line between at-power and LPSD

– Allow screening and grouping of POSs and Evolutions (POS-A7/A8)

HLRs/SRs added for Human-Induced Initiators

SRs to evaluate future LPSD evolutions now limited to those planned

3 Ratings used for QLRA

3

LPSD PRA Standard Status Report SLIDE 5DJW 11/18/2009

Points of Discussion

Per reactor year vs per calendar year (Section 1.2.2)

Need for CCII SR to assess dependence between pre-, at-, and post-initiator HFEs (HR-G7)

SR to quantitatively benchmark QLRA end states (absolute vs relative risk rankings)

1

1

NRC, CNRM and NRC, CNRM and ASME ActivitiesASME ActivitiesPresentation to RISCPresentation to RISC

Presented ByPresented ByMary DrouinMary Drouin

November 18, 2009November 18, 2009

2

Topics DiscussedTopics Discussed

NRC Activities

Review of Action Verbs as part of CNRM activity

Development of training on standard as part of ASME LLC activity

2

3

Topics DiscussedTopics Discussed

NRC Activities SECY-04-0118 provided plan on Phased Approach to

PRA Quality Plan defined the needed PRA quality for risk-informed

decisions Major task of plan was to identify the needed PRA

standards and risk related guidance (e.g., seismic, uncertainties)

Final task of plan is to develop a “Phase 3 guidance document”

Review of Action Verbs as part of CNRM activity Development of training on standard as part of

ASME LLC activity

4

PRA Phase 3PRA Phase 3

Perform “gap analysis” for the risk-informed activities

For each risk-informed activity identified, Identify the needed PRA scope and specific

technical issues The necessary guidance documents

The missing guidance documents are then identified

Development of needed guidance may be staff effort, industry effort, collaborative effort, etc.

3

5

StatusStatus

Effort has just been initiated

Scope of effort has not finalized

Firm schedule has not been established

Mechanism for informing stakeholders has not been established

6

Topics DiscussedTopics Discussed

NRC Activities Review of Action Verbs as part of CNRM activity

In developing the material for the training course, discrepancies were identified among the action verbs used in the standard Same verb used in different SRs, but with different meanings Same type of action in different SRs, but using different action

verbs Action verbs used in various SRs whose dictionary definition is

not consistent with the intent of the SR Small task group put together to review the problem and

make recommendations back to CNRM SC-T Ian Wall (Chair), Mary Drouin, Bob Budnitz

Development of training on standard as part of ASME LLC activity

4

7

Preliminary FindingsPreliminary Findings

Majority of the SRs use the appropriate action verb and for these SRs no change is recommended

There are SRs with recommended changes to the action verbs: Example of SRs of similar action, but using different action

verbs: Combine vs Group Gather vs Collect

Example of SRs using inappropriate action verb: Capture: Dictionary definition is “to take by force, to seize”

Recommend changing action verb in SRs to “include”

Example of SRs using an idiom for action verb: Credit: Dictionary definition is in the context of bookkeeping and

its use in the standard is idiomatic Recommend changing action verb in SRs to “include”

8

Preliminary Findings (contPreliminary Findings (cont’’d)d)

There are SRs with action verbs that appear to be synonyms, but are not; they have subtle differences in their meanings that may not be consistent with the intent of the SR: Check vs confirm vs ensure; for example

Check to determine if the door is locked – checking does not include testing the lock to confirm it is locked, nor does it include locking the door (if not locked) to ensure the door is locked

Assess vs examine vs analyze vs evaluate; for example Assess the housing situation in the U.S. – the assessment

identifies there is a housing shortage, it does not include examining the details to determine the type of shortage (e.g., small family homes), nor does it include analyzing to identify the cause of the shortage, nor does it involve evaluating to determine the significance of the shortage

5

9

Status and Future PlansStatus and Future Plans

Status: Parts 1, 2, and 3

Have listed all the action verbs Finalizing the definitions based on (unabridged) English dictionaries (about 90%

complete) Have reviewed about 95% of the SRs regarding how the action verbs are used in

the SRs for consistency, appropriateness, etc. Goal is to have the review with recommendations complete by January 2010

Parts 4-10 Have listed all the action verbs No schedule established at this time

Future Plans (Direction from CNRM) Review actions verbs for the entire standard Avoid the use of synonyms in the standard Avoid the use of idioms, and be consistent with the definition in an English

dictionary Establish an “official glossary” as part of a “writing guide” for internal use

10

Topics DiscussedTopics Discussed

NRC Activities Review of Action Verbs as part of CNRM activity Development of training on standard as part

of ASME LLC activity ASME LLC with NRC and PWR Owner’s group

developing training on the ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009 PRA standard Parts 1-3

Objective/purpose of the training is to explain the intent of the requirements

Training involves two “modules” Will interface and complement EPRI training program

for PRA Professionals and NRC training on RG 1.200 Training satisfies INPO requirements

6

11

Module 1Module 1

Web-based and designed for managers and PRA practitioners Serves as a “pre-requisite” for Module 2 Provides information regarding

Contents of the standard and risk assessment application process Technical requirements: objectives and high level requirements Supporting requirements PRA configuration control and peer review requirements

Course addresses seven questions Why a PRA standard? What are risk-informed decisions? When should the standard be applied? What are the benefits of standard compliance? What is the objective of the standard? What is the scope of the standard? What does it mean to meet the standard?

12

Module 2Module 2

Developed primarily for PRA practitioners to provide them with an understanding of the Implications of compliance with the Standard Requirements in the Standard

High level requirements Supporting requirements

Textbook addresses each HLR and each SR and provides a brief explanation of the intent of each SR For many SRs, it is believed that the intent of the SR is already clear

(i.e., the documentation SRs) For each SR, the NRC position is also provided

Textbook being developed by various PRA practitioners from NRC, EPRI, contractors, utilities, consultants

Textbook to be provided to both CNRM and RISC for review and comment

7

13

ScheduleSchedule

Module 1 available for training by end of calendar year Accessible via ASME website

Module 2 textbook to be issued for review and comment to both CNRM and RISC Review and comment period of 30 days

Textbook to be finalized by end of calendar year

Training to be available in 2010

S1

Slide 13

S1 I believe first course was offerred in ASME training brochureSchneiRE, 9/8/2009