ML19346G714
| ML19346G714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1994 |
| From: | Imbro E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Zimmerman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9407080238 | |
| Download: ML19346G714 (28) | |
Text
f an
- 1 J.;
U
\\(MJ
.Y S
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
...../
v WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001 June 23, 1994 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Roy P. Zimmerman Associate Director for Projects, NRR FROM:
Eugene V. Imbro, Director RRG/CBLA Programs, NRR
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH NEI ON COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT On May 26, 1994, the NRC staff met with representatives from the Nuclear Energt i m uute (NEI) to discuss the NEI draft guidance document for licrasees to use for managing commitments made to the NRC. This was the fe rth public meeting between the staff and representatives of NEI to discuss a
tne issue of commitment management and the development of guidance for licensees to use for changing commitments made to the NRC. is the most recent, draft NEI guidance document, " Managing NRC Commitments". is a draft safety significance assessment flowchart describing decision step 2 in the process outlined in the NEI guidance document. is a list of case studies developed by NEI to illustrate how the process described in the guidance document would be used. is a list of the meeting attendees.
NEI described changes made to the draft guidance document in response to the exchange with the staff during the last public meeting.
There were several specific areas of the process described in the guidance document which received the most discussion between the staff and NEI.
A brief description of these items are as follows:
o Both the staff and NEI agreed that Enclosure 2, the safety significance assessment flowchart, required addit onal written detail to explain the process described in the flowchart.
o The staff indicated the importance that licensees be aware of the original basis and underlying safety issue for each commitment before a change to the commitment be considered. NEI agreed with the staff and indicated that this would be added to the guidance document.
o The staff suggested that NEI reverse step 3 and step 4 of the commitment management change process because commitments necessary to ensure compliance (step 4) are treated more conservatively than the commitments that would be captured in step 3 of the process.
NEI indicated that a revised draft of the guidance document would be available by mid-June. The staff stated it then plans to distribute the NEI draft guidance document to the regions and other NRC program offices for comment.
l 9407080238 940623 f
PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC b' /// '/
i PDR s
OC %
' llj //
c.,
NiiC Rd CENTER COPY Fg
.s m
i
. NEI agreed to explore developing a list of potential canoidates from each region to participate in a pilot program to test the guidance.
Both the staff and NEI agreed to hold additional internal meetings to discuss the guidance document and to schedule another NRC/NEI meeting in the near future to continue discussions on the process.
Subsequent to the meeting, after additional review, the staff informed NEI that in assessing the safety significance of a commitment (step #2 of the commitment management change process) it would seem appropriate to reference the maintenance rule guidance (NUMARC 93-01) and the guidance being developed in the graded QA area.
Originalsigned by Eugene V. Imbro, Director CBLA/RRG Progrr s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
NEI draft guidance document, " Managing NRC Commitments" 2.
Safety Significance Assessment Flowchart 3.
Case Study Examples 4.
Attendee List cc:
Stephen D. Floyd, NEI Distribution:
Central Files PDR W. Russell F. Miraglia R. Vollmer A. Thadani E. Imbro E. Jordan ACRS (10)
CBLA R/F R. Zimmerman M. Cutchin S. Newberry C. Grimes M. Virgilio J. Zwolinsksi B. Grimes M. Hodges R. Cooper, RI J. Wiggins, RI C. Hehl, RI E. Merschoff, RII A. Gibson, RII J. Stohr, RII E. Greenman, RIII G. Grant, RIII W. Axelson, RIII A. Beach, RIV S. Collins, RIV T. Gwynn, RIV C. Craig E. Leeds J. Beall C.E. Rossi S. Black Office CBLA/RRG CBLA/RRG N Name Eleeds EImbro Date 06/.2 3 /94 06/ff/94
- s
~
DRAFT e
i 51ANAGING NRC COhlh1ITh1ENTS In Support of Strategic Planfor Improved Economic Performance CURRENT SITUATION Licensees are required to comply with NRC rules, regulations and orders and their l
licenses, including their technical specifications and any general or specific license conditions. Those requirements are frequently referred to as " obligations" to differentiate them from matters within the licensee's control. The method of compliance with any of these requirements is frequently a subject of NRC guidance provided by a NUREG or a Regulatory Guide. However, the licensee generally has the authority to determine what method of compliance is appropriate for its plant (s) to meet these obligations (see 50.109(a)(7)).
As part of their daily interface with the NRC staff, licensees typically agree to take l
actions covering a wide range of topics, some of high safety significance, but some of lesser or no safety significance, that either exceed regulatory requirements or state a specific method for meeting an obligation. The statements of action are referred te as
" regulatory commitments." Licensees, on occasion, have been " overly responsive' to questions or comments posed by the regulator - this situation has resulted in an merease of the number of commitments with little or no safety benefit. Implementatior of regulatory commitments with little or no safety benefit has been burdensome and costly, and diverts resources from issues of greater safety significance. Further, at a given point in time, a license typically has many open or continuing commitments on its docket. The collective administrative burden on licensees, industry organizations and the NRC staff of tracking, completing, and documenting the closure of such commitments is significant, and, in the case ofitems oflow safety significance, oflittle real value. Success in managing conunitments is often measured by strict compliance or the size of the backlog
' rather than by the level of performance achieved. Rather than spend resources to quantify
~
the safety. significance of each of these commitments, most licensees default to tracking sin,d completing all of them.
i The nuclear industry and the NRC have the same fundamental objective -- to identify and accomplish those actions that provide the level of nuclear plant performance
' r :essary to ensure adequate protection ofpublic health and safety. The lack of any
' distinction between commitments of high and low (or even no) safety significance, and theJack of a readily acceptable and practical method for eliminating or changing t.
1 J
FRONTOFF/GENERAIJCOMM DEF2 05/19/94 i..
DRAFT 4
resulting commitments when warranted, impedes the achievement of this objective.
Licensees treat commitments seriously and only make changes after due consideration of any safety impacts. At times, licensees hesitate to change commitments, even though justified from a safety standpoint, due to concerns that their management integrity may be questioned by the NRC or because the process for changing commitments is perceived as burdensome. A uniform practice regarding commitments and commitment change mechanisms within the industry would assist individual utilities in focusing resources on significant issues and in changing past commitments that no longer serve their intended purpose.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Manacine Commitments Any significant commitment of utility resources, whether to satisfy a concern of an NRC inspector, to respond to a NRC generic communication, or to detemiine the appropriate manner to implement a regulatory requirement, should be the result c'a reasoned management decision-making process. To ensure prop inanagement control of utility resources, an internal process to control cu.. nitments should be established. For example:
Commitments and their relative priority should be based upon an evaluation of the safety benefit that will be attained; the pertinent legal requirement, if any; the technical bases for the contemplated action or activity; and the resources available, in the context of other requirements and commitments. The cost (both initial costs and those that would be incurred over the life of the unit) and value added of an action being considered in response to an NRC request should be carefully evaluated, including consideration of any pertinent regulatory requirement (s).
Commitments should be made only by previously designated persons. Consistent with the utility's management approach, the number ofindividuals designated could be very few, or the responsibility could be delegated fairly broadly within each individual's area of responsibility.
The designated individuals (s) should be identified both intemally and extemally as the only licensee personnel with the authority to commit utility resources. Similarly, the utility sl ould encourage the 2
FRONTOFF/GENERAI/COMM DEF2 05/l9/94
DRAFT NRC to designate one or more points of contact to represent the NRC in resolving questions related to the prioritization ofissues and utility resource commitments.
The NRC should be advised that oral statements to take certain action represent an intent to make a cormnitment, but do not constitute a commitment until submitted in writing, on the docket by a designated utility representative. (This would not apply to
" discretionary enforcement" situations.)
Oral statements to take specific actions that require significant levels of resources should be generally avoided and only be made at meetings, in telephone conversations, in enforcement conferences, or in discussions with the NRC after obtaining the approval of the designated senior management person responsible. In general, oral staterrents to take certain actions invoking significant resource expenditures should not be made in response to observations made during either routine or special inspections until (1) after receipt of the written inspection repon that identifies the particular matter and describes the NRC concern as an agency regarding that matter and (2) after the utility has completed an evaluation to ensure that the root cause of the NRC's concern will be corrected by the proposed action. However, nothing in these guidelmes should be constmed to suggest that a licensee should not immediately correct a noncompliance with a rule or regulation that might be identified during an inspection or otherwise.
Confirmatory Action Letters, NRC Inspection Reports and NRC Safety Evaluation Repons should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any implicit or explicit re-statements of regulatory commitments are accurate and that the NRC has not misconstrued other verbal or written communications as commitments. Inaccurate statements should be promptly corrected by written notification to the NRC.
l Licensee correspondence that includes commitments should clearly distinguish regulatory commitments from voluntary enhancements and other descriptive information. For example, responses to Notices of Violation and Licensee Event Reports identify actions to minimize recurrence of the adverse condition. Historically, not all such actions were necessary to minimize recurrence -- some represented enhancements to ongoing practices not directly related to 3
FRoNTOFF/ GENERA 11COMM.DEF2 05/19/94
4 DRAFT the cause of the event. Future correspondence should not identify these actions as commitments.
Channinn Commitments Changes to conunitments should also be the result of a reasoned management decision-making process. To ensure continued management control of resources applied to commitments, the following commitment change practices are recommended:
Each licensee should periodically consider evaluating its outstanding commitments and the manner in which its commitments have been implemented, to the extent that the conduct of the evaluation itselfis cost-effective (e.g., focuses on those commitments that have a major impact on the utility's costs). The licensee should determine whether the current commitment represents the most cost-effective way of satisfying the safety issue that prompted the commitment and cheulo i
change those commitments as appropriate.
Each licensee should establish a practical commitment change process that distinguishes the relative safety significance and regulatory interest of commitments communicated to the NRC staff.
Attachment A to this guideline provides an example commitment change process.
Each licensee should consider including a " sunset clause" in commitments, where appropriate, to establish a period of time to evaluate the effectiveness of the commitment.
/
4 FRONTOFF/GENERAUCOMM.DEF2 05/19/94
4 DRAFT ATTACInfENT A COMMITMENT CHANGE PROCESS The purpose of this guidance document is to describe a baseline set of commitment change concepts that licensees can use to supplement plant-specific programs used to change both past and future commitments. The guideline is intended to be used to either change commitments on a case-by-case basis or through more comprehensive efforts to re-baseline the total population of docketed conunitments. The guidance applies to commitments conununicated to the NRC under the current regulatory structure. It is important to widerstand that the guidance does not imply that licensee managers act only i
in response to regulatory requirements or initiatives; indeed, licensees take many actions designed to maintain or improve safety without interacting with the NRC staff.
DEFINITIONS The following definitions and their bases are intended to facilitate a common understanding of the distinction between the safety importance and regulatory significance of different types oflicensee actions communicated to the NRC.
Oblication means any condition or action that is a legally binding requirement imposed on licensees through applicable rules, regulations, orders, and licenses (including technical specifications and license conditions).
The NRC has been given statutory authority under Atomic Energy Act Section 161.b to " establish by rule, regulation, or order, such standards and instructions...as the Commission deems necessary or desirable to promote the common defense and security or to protect health or to minimize danger to life or propeny." A condition of each operating license is full compliance with these regulatory directives, consistent with the provisions of Sections 103 and 104 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Reculatory Commitment means an explicit statement to take a specific action agreed to or volunteered by a licensee that has been submitted on the docket to the Commission, by designated licensee management, in writing.
Licensees frequently communicate their intent to take certain actions to restore compliance with Obligations, to define a certain method for meeting Obligations, to correct or preclude the recurrence of adverse conditions or to make 1
FRONTOFF/ GENERAL >COMM.DEFA 05/19/94
r DRAFT improvements to the plant or plant processes. A Regulatory Commitment is an intentional undertaking by a licensee to complete a specific action. In contrast, factual statements, descriptive information, and voluntary enhancements in submittals do not constitute commitments in the absence of such explicit statements. Because Regulatory Commitments are not legally binding requirements, licensee management has the latitude to decide the scope and details of the intended actions without significant interaction or guidance from NRC management.)
CHANGE PROCESS The following outlines a recommended change process intended to provide licensee management with the necessary flexibility to effectively manage the safe and efficient operation of their nuclear plants, while ensuring that changes that are significant to safety and/or of high regulatory interest are communicated to the NRC.
Oblications No changes from current requirements are needed. The available statutory-based mechanisms include petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, exemption requests under 10 CFR 50.12, license amendment requests under 10 CFR 50.90, changes to certain plans under 10 CFR 50.54 and requests to modify or rescind orders issued under 10 CFR 2.202.
Reculatory Commitments The attached flowcharts, Figures A-1 and A-2, outline a regulatory commitment management change process that (1) delineates commitments that have safety significance and/or regulatory interest; (2) establishes guidance for notifying the NRC of changes to commitments that have safety significance and/or regulatory i
interest; and, (3) establishes a rationale for eliminating past regulatory commitments that have negligible safety significance and/or regulatory interest.
Figure A-3 is a summary sheet that provides an adequate level of documentation for the decisions made in revising a commitment using this change process.
The flowchart has five major decision steps described below:
2 FRONTOFF/GENERAIJCOMM.DEFA 05/19/94
~
DRAFT STEP 1: IS THERE A CODIFIED CHANGE PROCESS FOR THE COMMITMENT?
Commitments that are en: bodied in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report as descriptions of the facility or procedures are changed by applying the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if an unreviewed safety question (USQ) exists. Many licensees apply NSAC-125 in implementing 10 CFR 50.59. NSAC-125 provides l
screening criteria to identify items that clearly do not constitute an USQ to eliminate the need for performing a complete 10 CFR 50.59 analysis. Regulatory commitments screened from' complete application of the 10 CFR 50.59 criteria should proceed to Step 2 because the codified process is not followed.
If a complete 10 CFR 50.59 review determines that an USQ does not exist, licensees may make the change and provide a description of the change to the NRC annually or coincident with filing FSAR updates. Otherwise, prior NRC review and approval of the change is required.
Commitments that are contained in certain programs and plans required by 10 CFR 50.54 are changed by applying the provisions of the applicable section of 10 CFR 50.54 (50.54(a) for Quality Assurance Plan,50.54(p) for Safeguards Contingency Plan or 50.54(q) for Emergency Plan). Changes that do not reduce commitments in the Quality Assurance Plan or that do not " reduce the efTectiveness" of the Safeguards Contingency Plan or Emergency Plan may be j
made without prior NRC review and approval with notification of the change as specified in the applicable 50.54 section. Otherwise, prior NRC review and approval of the change is required.
[ NOTE: Efforts are in progress or scheduled within the industry and NRC to provide guidance on the types of changes that do not " reduce the effectiveness" of the Safeguards Contingency Plan or Emergency Plan. Similar efforts are planned to provide guidance to distinguish QA Plan commitment changes that would require NRC approval from minor changes in QA Plan features that are below the level of regulatory interest.]
STEP 2: IS THE CHANGE SIGNIFICANT TO SAFETY?
Commitment changes that are not captured by Step 1 above need to be evaluated in terms of their safety significance.
There are a number of techniques available to perform this evaluation. Certainly a 10 CFR 50.59 like evaluation may be used. However, the degree of rigor and documentation usually associated with 10 CFR 50.59 is not always necessary, and 3
FRONTOFF/ GENERA 11COMM.DEFA 05/19/94
DRAFT sometimes the questions in 50.59 do not readily apply to the commitment (e.g.,
commitments to perform a review or establish additional oversight mechanisms).
Efforts are underway to develop evaluation approaches that may pre-derme the safety significance ofindividual conunitments. A Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) Applications Guide is under development. Pilot efforts are underway to use this information in " grading" implementation of Appendix B " Quality Assurance."
Results of these efforts could, in essence, bin conunitments as being potentially safety significant or safety-insignificant. This approach would provide for regulatory coherence and further progress efforts to focus attention to safety significant items and de-emphasize other issues. THIS APPROACH NEEDS TO BE FURTHER DEFINED IN A FUTURE REVISION TO THIS CHANGE PROCESS.
Changes to conunitments that are evaluated as being significant to safety would either not be implemented or would require discussion with the NRC and resiew and approval, as appropriate, or written notification. Changes evaluated as not significant to safety would proceed to Step 3 to assess the degree of past regulatory interest.
STEP 3: DID THE NRC RELY UPON THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT BEING CONSIDERED FOR CHANGE 7 Some commitments are made in response to a subject of regulatory interest where the NRC either reviewed and approved the action volunteered or agreed to by the licensee or relied upon the commitment in lieu of taking other action, such as issuing orders. Items in this category include: (1) specific statements in NRC Safety Evaluation Reports crediting specific licensee commitments as being the basis for an NRC staff safety conclusion; (2) commitments made in response to NRC Bulletins and Generic Letters; and, (3) commitments identified in Confirmatory Action Letters. Changes to regulatory commitments not captured in categories (1) through (3) would proceed to Step 4. Regulatory commitments may involve both new actions as well as existing actions credited by licensee _s in responding to NRC requests. For example, responses to an item in an NRC Bulletin crediting an existing program, practice or plant feature as meeting the intent of the requested action is a regulatory commitment.
If the commitment has yet to be implemented, the licensee can proceed with the change, but the NRC should be notified of the change as soon as practicable after the change is approved by licensee management, but before any committed completion date. Notification should be accomplished by supplementing the docketed correspondence containing the original commitment.
4 FRONTOFF/GENERAUCOMM.DL/A 05/19/94
DRAFT If the commitment has been implemented, or is of a recurring nature, the licensee can make the change and provide annual or refueling outage interval notification to the NRC.
STEP 4: WAS THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH AN OIRIGATION?
Non-compliance with obligations are identified to licensees through notices of violation (NOVs). Responses to NOVs and some LERs include the immediate corrective actions taken to restore compliance with the obligation. Additionally, licensees may have made specific commitments related to the method of complying with obligations. Changes to these commitments need to be evaluated to detennine if the change would still preserve compliance with the obligation.
If the change to the commitment would not preserve compliance, licensees would have the option of(1) not proceeding with the change, or (2) applying for the appropriate form of regulatory relief (i.e., exemption or order revision).
If the change to the commitment preserves compliance but the original commitment has yet to be implemented, the licensee can proceed with the change, but the NRC should be notified of the change as soon as practicable after the change is approved by licensee management, but before any committed completion date. Notification should be accomplished by supplementing the docketed conespondence containing the original commitment.
If the change to the commitment preserves compliance and the original commitment has been hnplemented, or is of a recuning nature, the licensee can make the change and provide annual or refueling outage interval notification to the NRC.
/
STEP 5: WAS THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT MADE TO MINIMIZE RECURRENCE OF AN ADVERSE CONDITION 7 Commitments to take long-term corrective actions in NOV responses and Licensee Event Reports (LERs) are made to minimize recurrence of adverse conditions. A good measure of the effectiveness of these commitments is the success in avoiding recurrent adverse conditions. The NRC, under its enforcement policy, uses a two-year time period from the date of the last inspection or the period within the last two inspections, whichever is later, as an indication that the adverse condition related to a particular area has been corrected.
5 Fh0NTOFF/GENERAUCOMM.DEFA 05/19/94
DRAFT Licensees may find it useful to periodically review the necessity of commitments related to minimizing recurrence of adverse conditions. Licensees need the flexibility to change or eliminate commitments they detennine are no longer necessary based on:
The committed corrective action may not have been successful in minimizing recurrence. of the condition; or, i
There may be a more effective way to minimize recurrence of the condition other than the method selected; or, The conunitment may no longer be necessary due to changing conditions at the plant; or, In hindsight and based on experience, the commitment may never have been necessary to minimize the potential for future non-compliance.
The conunitment may have subsequently been captured as part of an on-going program or other administrative control that is subject to a revision review process (e.g., procedure changes governed by administrative i
tecimical specifications).
If the changed commitment is necessary to minimize recurrence of an adverse condition, the NRC should be notified of the change on an annual or refueling outage interval basis.
If the commitment is no longer considered necessary, the licensee may change the commitment without notifying the NRC.
l CAUTION: Due to the gensitivity of some issues, licensees may choose to notify the NRC prior to making changes to Regulatory Commitments even though the above change process would not require such action.
i REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION Reportine The above process identifies various commitments that can be changed with notification to the NRC made in an annual / refueling outage interval report. The intent of 6
FRONTOFF/GENERAt/COhMDEFA 05/19/94
DRAFT this report is to provide a brief summary of commitments changed since the last report in lieu of filing individual notifications as commitments are revised. A brief statement of the basis for the change should be included. However, items with similar bases for change can be grouped by bases. For example, ai; LER commitment changes related to procedures that were detennined to be no longer necessary to minimize recurrence of an adverse condition could be provided as a listing in the report under a general basis description.
Documentation Figure A-3, " Revised Commitment Evaluation Summary," should be retained by the licensee as documentation of the decisions made in applying the above change process. The fonn would serve as proof that an evaluation was performed for i
conunitment changes not yet ubmitted in the annual / refueling outage interval report or for commitment changes that do not require notification. Where the fonn calls for a brief description of the rationale for a decision, the int:nt is that one or two sentences would i
nonnally be sufficient. It is not the intent to generate lengthy descriptions supported by detailed analyses, but rather to capture the essence of the basis for changing the commitment.
/
7 FRONTOFF/ GENERA 11COMM DEFA 05/19/94
DRAFT FIGURE A-1 COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT CHANGE PROCESS PROPOSED CHANGE TO A COMMITWENT Y
ES OMNCE APPLY 10 CFR NOTTY NRC DEQSGJ PROCESS C00FIED r
50.54 0R 50 59 r
PER REGULATION STEP 1 ASAPPROPRMTE NO NRC NO y
00TAIN PRIOR NRC APPROVAL Ak SIGNIFCANT TO YES ]
DECSION SAFETY STEP 2 (SEE FGJRE A-No 00 NOT PROCEED OR g
gg g g
NRC.OBTA!N APPROVAL AS NECESSARY I
l y
YES ORGNAL TIMELY NO L
COMMITWENT L
NOTIFCATION OF EN E N TO NRC 5
T ENT L
r i
I YES f
1 ORONAL OMNGED COMMITMENT COMM'TWENT NO 00NOT MAKE s
DECISION NECESSARY FOR r
PRESERdS
/
r DMNGEOR APPLY j
STEP 4 COMPLRNCE COMPL%NCE FOR REUEF NO I
C Y
WINIM SE RRING L
L DECISION r
NEEDED TO MINIM 2E r
NOTIFCATION OF TQ STEP 5 RECURRENCE CHANGE TO NRC U
NO V
LEENSEE QMNGES j
COMMITWENT.NO NRC NOTIFICATION REQUIRED FRONTOFF/ GENERAL /COMMFLOW. DOC 05/19/94
DRAFT FIGURE A-2 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT (DECISION STEP 2)
FROM DECISION STEP 1 COMM T ENT B NO EVALUATED BY Y PROCFED TO DEC610N SleP 3 THE PSA P
YESV IS NO NO FURTHER ANALYSIS OR SUBJECT O ARISK ATION REOUIRED SIGN!FICANT SSC PER PSAGUIDE YES l
COULD CHANGEIMPAC, "U
ABIUTY OF SSC TO 4
DOCUME'"
Wi4 ALE PERFORM SAFETY FUNCTION YES Y
PERFORM ASSESSMENT SIMILM1TO 10 CFR 50.59 i
W s
DOES f
W l
COMMITMENT CHANGEIS NOT SAFETY SIGNIFICANT I CFR i
V PROCEED TO DEC'SION STEP 3 Y
CHANGE IS DEFINED AS SIGNIFICANT TO SAFETY i
CONTINUE VATH DECISIGr4 STEP 2 FRONTOFT/ GENERA 1/S AFEFLOW. DOC 05/19/94
4 DRAFT FIGURE A-3 REVISED COMMITMENT EVALUATION
SUMMARY
Original Commitment
Description:
Source Document:_
Tracking Number Revised Commitment
Description:
1.
Is a codified commitment revision process appicable and completed (i.e.,10 CFR 50.59, or 10 CFR 50.54)?
No. Continue with STEP 2.
Yes. EXIT PROCESS *. Use codified process.
2.
Can the sWect of the commitment be evaluated by the PSA?
No. Continue with STEP 3.
Yes. Is the commitment the subject of a risk significant SSC as identified in the PSA application guide?
No. Continue with STEP 3. (No additional documentation necessary in this step)
Yes. Would revised commitment negatively affect the functionality of a risk significant SSC7 No. Briefly state reason ** and continue with STEP 3.
i Yes. Perform a safety evalNtion equivalent to 10 CFR 50.59 and attach a copy. Did evaluation determine an unreviewed safety question exists?
I Yes. EXIT PROCESS *. Do not proceed with revision, OR discuss change with NRC and obtain any necessary approvals.
No. Continue with STEP 3.
3.
Was the original commitment explicitly credited as either (1) the basis for a std'ety decision in an NRC SER, (2) made in respc.se to an NRC Bulletin or Generic Letter, or (3) explicitly listed in an NRC Confirmatory Action Letter?
No. Continue with STEP 4.
I FRONTOFF/ GENERAL >COMMDEFB. DOC 05/19/94
'A DRAFT Yes. Has the commitment been implemented?
No. EXIT PROCESS *. Provide timely notification of revised commitment to NRC.
j Yes. EXIT PROCESS *. Notify NRC of revised commitment m next annual /RFO interval summary report.
4.
Was original commitment necessary for compliance with an Obligation (i.e., rule, regulation, order or license condition)?
No. Continue with STEP 5.
Yes. Does the revised commitment preserve compliance?
No. EXIT PROCESS *. Do not make change, OR apply for appropriate regulatory relief.
Yes. Briefly describe rationale * *:
Has the original conunitment been implemented?
No. EXIT PROCESS *. Provide timely notificaticn of revised commitment to NRC.
Yes. EXIT PROCESS *. Notify NRC of revised commitment in next annual /RFO interval summary report. Notify NRC of resised I
commitment in next annual /RFO interval summary report.
5.
Was original commitment made to minimize recurrence of an adverse condition (i.e., a long-term corrective action stated in a violation response or LER)?
No. Change commitment. No NRC notification required.
Yes. Is the revised commitment necessary to minimize recurrence of the adverse condition?
No. Briefly describe rationale **:
Change commitment. No NRC notification required.
Yes. Notify NRC of revised commitment in next annual /RFO interval summary repo:t.
- EXIT PROCESS means the balance of this summary is not to be completed.
- Attach additional sheets providing rationale, if necessary.
2 FRONTOFF/ GENERA 1/CG2MDEFB. DOC 05/19/94 DRAFT FROM DECISION STEP 1 IS "I
^Y COMM T ENT BE YES' NO EVALUATED BY vtGN!FICANT SSC h ' /
THE PSA PSA GUIDE "O
YES Y
Y l t?' tUATHIR ANALYSIS OR
"^
O'/C EN ATION REQUIRED EO PSA TS f
COULD gg PACT POSSIBLY O
NO MPACT OF CHANGE ABILITY OF SSC TO RISK SIGNIFICANT PER N
PERFORM SAFETY PSA GUIDE FUNCTION YES Y
PERFORM ASSESSMENT SIMILAR TO 10 CFR 50.59 f
DOES Y
CHANGE RESULT YES CHANGE IS N USQ AS DEFINED IN r
SIGNIFICN(T TO S'FETY 10 CFR 50.59 Y
NO CONTINUE WITH DECISION STEP 2 1P
~+
DOCUMENT RATIONALE r
NOT SAFETY SIGN!FICANT Y
PROCEED TO DECISION STEP 3 FRONTOE /GENERAIJSAFEFLOW.DC; 05/26/94
l 1
.o COMMITMENT CIIANGE CASE STUDY 1 In response to Generic Letter 89-16, a BWR Qenste agreed to install a hardened wetwell vent that met the criteria developed by the BWROG. The vent was installed in December 1992. A description of the vent feature and design criteria was incorporated in their UFSAR submitted in June 1993.
In reviewing the results of their IPE, the BWR licensee determined that the hardened wetwell vent only improved the core damage frequency by less than 1% with an absolute improvement ofless than E-7 over the current soft vent capability Fmther, an evaluation performed by the licensee determined that, in the event of a severe core melt, having a hardened vent path actually increased fatalities due to early release scenarios because a larger fraction of the total fission products would now be discharged directly to the atmosphere because they would not have the opportunity to plate out on the reactor building walls and components as would happen when the soft vent ruptured.
Based on the above assessment, the licensee desires to deactivate the hardened wetwell vent to avoid future maintenance and testing expenses.
w
COMMITMENT CHANGE CASE STUDY 2 '
In response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4 (IPEEE) a plant in the Eastern U.S. committed to perform a " focused scope" seismic margin program based on the LLNL probability of exceeding the SSE as discussed in NUREG/CR-5250. The seismic margin program is underway but not scheduled to be completed until early 1996.
Draft NUREG-1488 identifies that the probability of exceeding the SSE for the plant is significantly reduced based on an update of the LLNL seismic hazard data. In fact, the data shows that the seismic hazard for the plant is now comparable to the hazard associated with the " reduced scope" plants. On the basis of this new information, the plant is changing its commitment to perform a." focused scope" seismic margin program to a commitment to perfonn a " reduced scope" program.
4 COMMITMENT CIIANGE CASE STUDY 3 The Fitness For Duty rule,10 CFR 26, required each licensee to certify to the NRC that a fitness-for-duty program had been implemented that met the regulations.
Licensees were also to describe any cut-o.frlevels more stringent than those imposed by the rule.
In response to the rule, a licensee described its program and identified that it intended to sample for two additional substances not required to be analyzed per Appendix A to Part 26. In the SER, the NRC listed the substances to be sampled by the licensee, including the two not required, and concluded that the scope of the licensees testing program was acceptable in meeting the rule.
After five years experience with the FFD program, the licensee has determined that testing for the two non-required substances is not beneficial in that no one has tested positive for the substances. The licensee has decided to modify its program to delete testing for the two additional substances.
.,-..,7
_=
COMMITMENT CHANGE CASE STUDY 4 The Fitness For Duty rule,10 CFR 26, required each licensee to certify to the NRC that a fitness-for-duty program had been implemented that met the regulations.
Licensees were also to describe any cut-offlevels more stringent than those imposed by the rule.
In response to the rule, a licen'see described its program and identified that it intended to sample for two additional substances not required to be analyzed per Appendix A to Part 26. In the SER, the NRC stated that it had reviewed the licensees program and determined that it met the requirements of the rule. The SER made no mention of fact that the licensee was sampling for substances not required by the rule.
The Fitness For Duty rule,10 CFR 26, required each licensee to certify to the NRC that a fitness-for-duty program had been implemented that met the regulations.
Licensees were also to describe any cut-offlevels more stringent than those imposed by the rule.
In response to the rule, a licensee described its program and identified that it intended to sample for two additional substances not required to be analyzed per Appendix A to Part 26.
4 COMMITMENT CHANGE CASE STUDY 5 A plant was issued a notice of violation when an operator. contrary to procedures, attempted to start a standby RHR pump with the suction valve closed. No damage occurred as the interlock between the suction valve and the pump breaker functioned as designed to preclude pump start. The operator was shifting from the operating pump to the standby pump without using the procedure. The procedure for shifting frora the operating to the standby pump was contained in a 125 page procedure covering a'l aspects of startup, testing and operation of the RHR system. The length of the procedure and the difficulty in fmding the short paragraph applicable to shifting pumps was identified as a contributing cause of the violation.
A long-term corrective action committed to in the NOV response was to prepare a short procedure to be used whenever shifting the operating and standby pumps so the operators would not be reluctant to open a 125 page procedure whenever they performed this frequent evolution. In hindsight, the utility has determined that shifting operating and standby pumps in a loop is a simple evolution that should be able to be performed by all qualified operators without using a procedure. In fact, operators successfully perform this type of evolution routinely during training on the simulator and during actual plant operations. The utility proposes reclassifying shifting RHR pumps as a simple evolution not requiring a procedure, removing the pump shift procedure steps from the 125 page RHR procedure, and to cancel the commitment to develop a separate pump shift procedure.
1 l
COMMITMENT CIIANGE CASE STUDY 6 In response to Bulletin 79-02, a licensee specified the use of a specific computer model to analyze pipe stresses in confirming pipe adequacy. The NRC explicitly credits use of the specific computer modelin the SER as pan of their acceptance of the licensees response to the Bulletin Since that time, new computer models have been developed that are equivalent to the committed model for verifying pipe adequacy and can be nm by personal computer at considerable cost savings. The new computer model has been accepted by the NRC as an equivalent method for detennining pipe stresses.
/
CO515flTMENT CHANGE CASE STUDY 7 1
A licensee who has committed to install recording instnimentation in response to Reg. Guide 1.97 subsequently determines that recording a cenain parameter is not necessary since the needed accident management infonnation is provided by other variables. The NRC had endorsed the licensee's commitment by a Confinnatory Action Letter and issued a SER identifying the specific parameter. The modification to install the recorder has not yet been implemented.
i l
l I
l 9
1
{
.i
4 COMMITMENT CIIANGE CASE STUDY 8 In response to a generic letter, a licensee conunitted to perform periodic AFW pump inspections during refueling outages, which required pump disassembly. The NRC concurred with the licensee's actions as documented in an SER. Subsequent pump by-pass flow modifications have been successful in eliminating any further degradation or unusual wear. The licensee intends to delete the previous commitment to perform periodic pump inspections each refueling outage.
J l
l l
l
=. -
i COMMITMENT CHANGE CASE STUDY 9 In response to a notice of violation, a licensee committed to periodic inspection of the mechanical integrity of a certain breaker component in an effort to detect an impending failure as part of the actions to avoid recurrence of the violation. After several cycles of inspection, the licensee has concluded that the inspections are of marginal benefit in that i
they will not predict the failure resulting in the violation. The licensee intends to delete the commitment.
P b
P 9
A f
i 9
w,
-r-
.r-_-.
MEETING WITH NEI - COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT May 26, 1994 Attendees NAME ORGANIZATION Eric Leeds NRR Mack Cutchin NRC/0GC Scott Flanders NRR J. E. Beall NRC/0E Kathleen Hart McGraw-Hill Theresa Sutter Bechtel Claudia Craig NRR Roy Zimmerman NRR Chris Grimes NRR Greg Gurican GPUN & RCTG Bob Bishop NEl Stephen D. Floyd NEI Pam Green TVA John Flude NUS I
1
,