1. 1 Post FISA-2003 Workshop Cost Effective Modernisation of Systems Important to Safety CEMSIS (Luxembourg, 13 Nov. 2003) Regulatory Aspects F. Seidel (Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Salzgitter, Germany)

2. Implementation of Digital I&C in German NPPs (Examples) 2 EC WS CEMSIS, Nov. 2003

3. Research Projects concerning the Safety Case of the Digital I&C Implementation in German NPPs 3 EC WS CEMSIS, Nov. 2003

4. Related Experiences in Germany (Recent Examples) 4 EC WS CEMSIS, Nov. 2003

5. Safety justification: Claims-Arguments-Evidence (CAE) approach 5 EC WS CEMSIS, Nov. 2003 CAE method and complexity: Although the method is systematically structured it’s applicability might be dependent on the I&C system’s and component’s (SW) complexity. Are there examples of the application on distributed I&C systems? Final loop over all justification results: It might be useful to ensure that the safety demonstration was performed - correctly - completely (all claims and sub-claims) and - non-ambiguously Thought as a kind of validation loop. Because of it’s systematic structure, it might be inherently supported by CAE approach.

6. Safety justification: Claims-Arguments-Evidence (CAE) approach 6 EC WS CEMSIS, Nov. 2003 Different model levels - multiple leg approach (plant system/ I&C system/ HW, SW modules/ operation): - Different models require multidisciplinary expert groups to apply the method comprehensively. - Experts of different disciplines (system engineers, I&C engineers, HW/SW- experts, operating personnel) might be responsible for the justification results of distinct model levels. - The responsibilities should be non-ambiguously attached to the experts and their management. Question: To which extent can the justification results for different levels mutually complement one another? Particularly, in the frame of the CAE approach: - Is the evidence on system and equipment qualification (level 2 and 3) complemented by operational experience (level 4) - What kind of arguments are to be used in this case?

7. Safety justification: Claims-Arguments-Evidence (CAE) approach 7 EC WS CEMSIS, Nov. 2003 Reference to the IEC 62340 project “Requirements to cope with common cause failure (CCF)” Selected aspects to be considered within the CAE approach: - Diversity is considered as an important but not the only one aspect to cope with CCF - Other aspects are raised systematically, e.g.: defence-in-depth (regarding functional as well as non-functional I&C system properties) robustness against latent faults avoidance of failure propagation requirements on maintenance activities

8. Suggestion for future CEMSIS research activities 8 Topic: Safety requirements on digital I&C maintenance under special consideration of related operating experiences Reasons: - Some recent operating experiences show links to digital I&C maintenance errors/mistakes - To derive evidence for the correct digital I&C development from operating experience, it is substantial to distinguish between specification faults and errors/mistakes due to maintenance - Safety requirements on maintenance should also be analysed from the security point of view and should be complemented if necessary EC WS CEMSIS, Nov. 2003