ML20216D502
| ML20216D502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1998 |
| From: | Pickett D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Myers L CENTERIOR ENERGY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803170087 | |
| Download: ML20216D502 (4) | |
Text
~
- t. 4 March 9, 1998 Mr. Lew W. Myers DISTRIBUTION:
Vice President - Nuclear, Perry PUBLIC PDill-3 R/F Centerior Service Company RSano EAdensam P.O. Box 97, A200 WReckley BBoger Perry, OH 44081 . Docket File
SUBJECT:
NRR AUDIT OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE NRC - PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO.1
Dear Mr. Myers:
I The NRC staff has initiated a variety of activities related to the management of licensing basis information as a result of problems encountered at the Millstone and Maine Yankee facilities.
As part of the staff's activities, audits of commitment management programs will be performed at eight representative reactor facilities. The audits will assess the licensees' implementation of commitments made to the NRC and will also assess the long-term control of commitments as a follow-up to the issuance of industry guidance for evaluating and reporting changes to commitments made to the NRC. In this regard, the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1 has been selected as one of eight facilities at which the staff wiP tudit commitment management programs. i l
The audits will be performed by the NRR project manager and will be performed using the l enclosed guidance document, " Guidance for NRR Audit of Licensing Programs Managing Commitments Made to the NRC." Audits will take place during the next 90 days and will require approximately one week onsite. Specific details regarding dates and information to be provided in advance will be coordinated with your staff. Fellowing the completion of the audits, the staff will report the findings to the Commission and, as necessary, make recommendations for changes to NRC policy or regulations regarding the handling of commitments made to the NRC that are not otherwise controlled by specific regulations.
Thank you for your cooperation in support of this effort. You, or your staff, may direct any questions regarding the audit to either myself (301-415-1364) or William Reckley at (301) 415-1314.
Sincere!y, Original signed by:
Douglas V. Pickett. Senior Project Manager Project Directorate lil-3 Division of Reactor Projects - Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g Docket No. 50-440
Attachment:
As stated U; I cc: See next page .
.: uq '
l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ PERRY \LIC COM.LTR Ta receive e copy of this document. Indicate in the bos: *c" = Copy without enclosures *E" = Copy with enclosures *N" = No copy OFFICE PM:PDill-3 o C LA:PDill-3 C- ;
NAME DPickettN ' EBarnhill VN j DATE 03/1/98 03/}/98 03/ /98 03/ /98 03/ /98 )
9803170087 980309 T FICIAL RECORD COPY PDR ADOCK 05000440 P PDR .
O ts49 k
. - UNITED STATES
- ,. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20eeH001
- March 9, 1998-Mr. Low W. Myers .
Vice President - Nuclear, Perry 1 Centerior Service Company '
P.O. Box g7, A200 Perry, OH 44081
SUBJECT:
NRR AUDIT OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE NRC - PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO.1
Dear Mr. Myers:
The NRC staff has initiated a variety of activities related to the management of licensing basis information as a result of problems encountered at the Millstone and Ninine Yankee facilities.
As part of the staff's activities, audits of commitment management programs will be performed at eight representative reactor facilities. The audits will assess the licensees' implementation of commitments made to the NRC and will rJso assess the long-term control of commitments as a follow-up to the issuance of industry guidance for evaluating and reporting changes to commitments made to the NRC. In this regard, the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1 has been selected as one of eight facilities at which the staff will audit commitment management programs.
i The audits will be performed by the NRR project manager and will be performed using the enclosed guidance document," Guidance for NRR Audit of Licensing Programs Managing Commitments Made to the NRC." Audits will take place during the next 90 days and will require approximately one week onsite. Specific details regarding dates and information to be provided in advance will be coordinated with your staff. Folluving the completion of the audits, the staff -
will report the findings to the Commission and, as necessary, make recommendations for changes to NRC policy or regulations regarding the handling of commitments mede to the NRC that are not otherwise controlled by specific regulations. ,
Thank you for your cooperation in support of this effort. You, or your staff, may direct any I questions regarding the audit to either myself (301-415-1364) or William Reckley at (301) 415-1314.
l Sincerely, '
77 (V M Douglas V. Pickett. Senior Project Manager Project Directorate ill-3 Division of Reactor Projects - lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Docket No. 50-440
Attachment:
As stated cc: See next page
L. Myers Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Centerior Service Company cc:
Jay E. Silberg, Esq. James R. Williams Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Chief of Staff 2300 N Street, NW. Ohio Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20037 2855 West Dublin Granville Road Columbus, OH 43235-2206 Mary E. O'Reilly Centerior Energy Corporation I,#ayor, Village of Perry 300 Madison Avenue 4203 Harper Street Toledo, OH 43652 Perry, OH 44081 Resident inspector's Office Roy P. Lessy, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Akin, Gump, S*,auss, Hauer P.O. Box 331 and Feld, L.L.P.
Perry, OH 44081-0331 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW.
Suite 400 Regional Administrator, Region lli Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Radiological Health Program Lisle, IL 60532-4531 Ohio Department of Health P.O. Box 118 Lake County Prosecutor Columbus, OH 43266-0118 Lake County Administration Bldg.
105 Main Street Ohio Environmental Protection Painesville, OH 44077 Agency DERR-Compliance Unit Sue Hiatt ATTN: Mr. Zack A. Clayton OCRE Interim Representative P.O. Box 104g 8275 Munson Columbus, OH 43266-0149 Mentor, OH 44060 Chairman Terry J. Lodge, Esq. Perry Township Board of Trustees 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 3750 Center Road, Box 65 Toledo, OH 43624 ' Perry, OH 44081 Ashtabula County Prosecutor State of Ohio
^
25 West Jefferson Street Public Utilities Commission Jefferson, OH 44047 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43266-0573 Henry L. Hegrat Regulatory Affairs Manager William R. Kanda, Jr., Plant Manager Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. Cleveland Electric illuminating Co.
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box g7, A210 P.O. Box 97, SB306 Perry, OH 44081 Perry, OH 44081
2-cc: (continued)
Donna Owens, Director Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Industrial Compliance Bureau of Operations & Maintenance ,
6606 Tussing Road !
P.O. Box 4009 Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-9009 Mayor, Village of North Perry North Perry Village Hall 4778 Lockwood Road -
North Perry Village, OH 44081 Attorney General Department of Attorney General 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43216 ,
1 l
)
1
-[
,g.
\
]
UNITED STATES
- NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY CUMMISSION i
CASHINETON, S.S. M0084001 i .- 1 e...* January 5,199.8 MEMORANDUM TO: Roy P. Zimerman Associate Director for Projects FROM: a rector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
SUBJECT:
NRR AUDIT OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING COP 9tITMENTS MAD j TO THE NRC The NRC staff 'luated problems encountered with licensing basis issues at
, Millstone an( ane Yankee and offered lessons learned from these experiences i in SECY-97-OL " Millstone Lessons Learned Report, Part 2: Polic Issues."
dated Februar, 12, 1997, and SECY-97-042, " Response to OIG Event nquiry 96-045 Regarding Maine Yankee," dated February 18, 1997. Both reports recomended that, as part of an overall revision of its oversight of licensing basis information, the staff proceed with its plans to evaluate the industry's implementation of comitment management s In related communications with the Commission, such as SECY-96-135.ystems. "Res Yankee Atomic Power Station (Case No.96-045),pise the NRCto Event staff aI so uirystated
- Maine that an assessment would be oerformed to verify that licensees had implemented commitments made to the' NRC in past licensing actions (amendments, exemptions, etc.) and licensing activities (bulletins, generic letters, etc.).
In SECY 95-300 " Nuclear Energy Institute's Guidance Document " Guideline for Managing NRC Comitments' " dated December 20, 1995, the staff informed the Commission that licensees' comitment change processes, either implementation of the NEI uideline or licensee-specific programs, would be monitored at all reactor fac lities to verify that commitments are being appropriately controlled. If the audit process shows that licensees have not implemented the NEI guidance, or have not adopted some equivalent level of control and i
documentation of changes to their comitments, the staff will reassess the need to promulgate staff guidance or initiate rulemaking. This reassessment will be initiated after the comitment control process at selected facilities has been audited using the attached guidance.
In order to address the follow-uh items related to assessing licensees' commitment management systems, t1e divisions of reactor projects should perform audits of eight licensee ograms for managing comitments in accordance with the attached. "Gu ance for NRR Audit of Licensee Programs for Managing Commitments Made to the NRC." These audits are currently addressed in the Consolidated Operating Plan for Reactor Licensing. The audit should include licensees from each NRC region, licensees different from those CONTACT: William Reckley 415-1314 yt600WJ, gqg .
R. 21 merman -
l
- included in previous comitment management audits, and licensees representin a variety of plant designs, plant ages, and performance assessment ratings. g The selection of plants for the audit should also consider the availability of thoseprojectmanagerswiththedesiredlevelofexperiencetomost l effectively perform the audit.
I recognize that an audit of commitment management programs at a selected sample of reactor facilities is less of a follow-u SECY-95-300 (i.e. inspection of all facilities). p than was described resource in i
Although i considerations and the need to complete other priority tasks preclude the more )
inclusive evaluations at this time, the audits may be sufficient to support a j general assessment of comitment management programs implemented by licensees i for operating reactors and support a decision regarding the possible need for !
additional actions by the NRC staff. The results from the audits and. if l
necessary. subsequent audits and inspections will also be incorporated into other staff activities pertaining to the appropriate controls for and i maintenance of licensing basis information. i l
In order for the audits to help determine if additional regulatory actions are i needed in the area of comitment management, please have your staff, working with the regional offices, select an appropriate sample of operating reactors for auditing of the licensees' programs for managing commitments aade to the NRC. The lead project manager and the project managers for the selected facilities should incorporate the performance of the audits into their activity planning so that the pilot audits may be completed by May 1998 and the results evaluated and documented by June 1998.
I
Attachment:
As stated i
l l
I i
i
GUIDANCE FOR NRR AUDIT OF LICENSEE PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE NRC 1.0 OBJECTIVES The audits will assess the adequacy of licensees' implementation of a sample of commitments made to the NRC in past licensing actions (amendments, exemptions, etc.) and licensing activities (;)ulletins, generic letters, etc.). The NRC staff informed the Comission that such assessments would be conducted as a follow-up to the licensing basis issues identified at facilities such as Maine Yankee and Millstone. The audits will also determine if licensees have implemented a >propriate controls for managing current and future commitments made to the NRC tlat are not controlled by a codified regulatory process such as 10 CFR 50.59 or 50.54, including notification of the NRC when changes to commitments are determined to have safety or regulatory significance. The combined results of these audits and other NRC activities will help to determine if additional ,
regulatory actions are needed in the area of comitment management. 1
2.0 BACKGROUND
in the original Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR Part 54 " Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." dated December 13.1991 (56 FR 64943), the Commission explained in some detail the basis for its belief that the current regulatory process provides an acceptable level of safety.
Among other things, the Comission described a process whereby licensee-initiated
. changes to any particular plant's licensing basis are subject to the Commission's formal regulatory controls. This process ensures that a documented basis for licensee-initiated changes in the licensing basis exists and that NRC staff review and approval is obtained before implementation if the changes to the licensing basis raise an'unreviewed safety question or involve changes to the technical specifications.
In SECY-92-314. " Current Licensing Basis for Operating Plants." dated September 10, 1992, the staff responded to the Comission's request to provide information and recomendations concerning compilation of the current licensing basis for operating reactors and current industry practices for updating the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). In conducting the activities necessary tc respond to the Comission, the staff noted that some licensee comitments are not contained in the plant's FSAR and, therefore, are not controlled by a defined regulatory process such as 10 CFR 50.59. As a result of the findings described in SECY 314 the staff proposed a series of actions to further examine the issues. The l staff sumarized these actions in SECY-94-066. " Evaluation of Issues Discussed in SECY-92-314. " Current Licensing Basis for Operating Plants *."
l Revision: 11/10/97 Audit Guide
' On January 4.1993. the ED0 established the Regulatory Review Group (RRG) to
~
identify those areas in which increased flexibility in the regulatory process could be made available to licensees without adversely affecting the level of safety at operating plants. In SECY-94-003. " Plan for Implementing Regulatory l
Review Group Recomendations." the staff informed the Commission of its slan to implement recommendations made b the RRG. One of the areas identified in SECY-94-003 that would substantial reduce unnecessary regulatory burden was the-development of guidance for use by icensees to control docketed commitments that L are not contained in the FSAR. Two options were discussed in SECY-94-003 to complete this RRG item: (1) to develop and promulgate staff guidance on what constitutes a " commitment" and the types of controls to be placed on changing comitments: or (2) to endorse a guideline develo As
' described below, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) ped by the industry. volu guideline for managin comitments.
l In SECY-94-066. the staff submitted to the Commission the results of its further evaluation of the issues identified in SECY-92-314. To address the issues pertaining to comitments made to the NRC but not controlled by processes defined in regulations. the staff performed audits of licensee programs at Hope Creek.
Crystal River. Fort Calhoun. Braidwood. Davis-Besse. Beaver Valley, and McGuire.
On the basis of the audit findings, the staff concluded that. in general.
licensees had developed their own programs and processes that effectively managed commitr ants made to the NRC and controlled changes to these commitments. In its evaluation, the staff found that many licensees and NRC staff members did not have a clear understanding of when commitments can be changed without NRC l
interaction. This circumstance led most licensees to att conservatively.
interacting with NRC staff, and reporting changes to commitments regardless of safety significance. This type of action resulted in an inefficient expenditure of both licensee and NRC resources. Therefore, in SECY-94-066, the staff referred to the recomendation of the RRG in SECY-94-003 to develop guidance.
.. either by the staff or by the nuclear industry, on what constitutes a commitment
, and the types of controls to be placed on comitments.
The guidance developed by NEI on managing commitments provides a structured process, found acceptable to the staff in late 1995, that licensees can use on a voluntary basis. The NRC accepted version of the NEI document. " Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments." Revision 2. dated December 19. 1995, is provided as an attachment to this audit guidance. The NEI guidance describes a process that can be used by licensees to modify or delete commitments and defines the i
circumstances in which interaction with the staff is appropriate.
The NEI guidance document provides the following definitions to help clarify the regulatory significance of, and distinction between, al obligation and a regulatory comitment:
Qts.Lation 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).
l l
Audit Guide Revision: 11/10/97
\
Reaulatory Comitment means an explicit statement to take a specific action 1
- agreed to or volunteered by a licensee that has been submitted in writing on i the docket to the Comission.
In SECY-95-300. " Nuclear Ene y Institute's Guidance Document. ' Guideline for Managing NRC Comitments'." 7ated December 20. 1995, the staff informed the Comission that the licensees
- comitment change processes, either implementation of the NEI guideline or licensee-specific programs, would be monitored to verify that commitments are being appropriately controlled. If the audit process shows that licensees have not imp emented the NEI guidance, or have not adopted some equivalent level of control and documentation of changes to their commitments, the staff will reassess the need to promulgate staff guidance or initiate rulemaking. This reassessment will be initiated after the commitment control process at selected facilities has been audited using this guidance.
The NRC staff evaluated problems encountered with licensing basis issues at Millstone and Maine Yankee and offered lessons learned from these experiences in SECY-97-036. " Millstone Lessons Learned P,eport. Part 2: Policy Issues." dated February 12. 1997, and SECY-97-042. "Rasponse to OIG Event Inquiry 96-04S Regarding Maine Yankee." dated February 18,1997. Both reports recommended that, as part of an overall revision of its oversight of licensing basis information, the staff proceed with its plans to perform this audit to evaluate the industry's implementation of commitment management systems. As a result of the lessons learned from these efforts. it was deemed prudent to have the staff define a sample of previous commitments made to the NRC in licensing actions and licensing activities and to verify the licensees
- implementation of those commitments.
This and other staff efforts related to managing licensee commitments made to the NRC are integral to improving the staff's performance in (1) identifying important licensee commitments or other supporting design features or operating
. practices used by the licensee to justi a proposed change or address design or operational problems. (2) determining what means -im>ortant commitments or other supporting information should verified, anc. (3) determining the appropriate placement of. the information within the various licensing basis .
documents associated with the affected facility (i.e., the license or technical l specifications, the FSAR. progra'n description documents. or docketed I correspondence without formal regulatory controls). NRR process changes are '
being made to address these concerns for future activities. The part of this audit that looks at licensee impler.entation of past commitments will be included. !
along with reviews of past audit and inspection findings. in an assessment of the need for adoitional staff actions. This assessment will include. to the extend .
practical, a review of the findings from those inspections performed in i accordance with temporary instructions associated with licensing activities such as bulletins and generic letters. Additional staff actions following the assessment may include additional NRC inspections requests for information from licensees or proposing changes to NRC regulations.
Revision: 11/10/97 Audit Guide
r--~ '
- I*
l'.'- -
3.0 AUDIT GUIDELINES 3.1 VERIFICATION OF LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION OF PAST COMMITMENTS l The primary focus of this part of the audit is to confirm that licensees have implemented those comitments made to the NRC as part of past licensing actions and resolution of past licensing activities. The audit sh>uld ensure that the- -
l sample of past commitments were implemented in a manner that satisfied both the .
action committed to and the overall intent of the comitment. The auditor should select a sample of approximately 15 individual and unrelated commitments that were included in licensee correspondence in order to justify a licensing action (amendment, exemption, etc.) or resolve a licensing activity (bulletin, generic letter, etc.). The sample should be selected following informal discussions with appropriate regional staff, review of licensee tracking data, review of any reports submitted by the licensee, and consideration of other information or concerns of individual auditors.
3.2 LICENSEE PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE NRC l
The primary focus of this part of the audit is the licensee's performance related I to implementing controls for modifying or deleting commitments made to the NRC. 1 The audit should ensure that changes to commitments (modifications or deletions) j are evaluated in accordance with the licensee *s programs and procedures. the licensee's technical evaluations adequately justify the change, and that the NRC l l
' 1s informed of commitment changes that have safety or regulatory significance. l The auditor should, as a minimum, determine whether the licensee, using the NEI 1 guidelines or alternative process, resolved safety issues pertinent to the !
associated commitment and has or will inform the NRC of the change if the applicable notification threshold is exceeded.
3.2.1 Procedures and Controls
- a. Verify that the licensee has established administrative controls for modifying or deleting commitments made to the NRC. The controls for changing commitments made to the NRC may be included in a stand-alone commitment management system or may be incorporated into other licensee administrative programs.
- b. Verify that the programs provide guidance regarding the evaluation of proposed changes to commitments in terms of safety and regulatory significance. The licensee's guidance should likewise include criteria for determining when it would be ap)ropriate to notify the NRC of a commitment change. The NEI guidance cocument is an acceptable guide for licensees to follow for managing and changing their commitments' to the NRC. For those licensees that have not adopted the NEI methodology.
document a comparison of the licensee's process. including criteria for evaluation of changes and NRC notification, to that recommended in the NEI guideline. l l
Audit Guide Revision: 11/10/97 l
l l
r
,a- .
3.2.2 Imolementation
~
~
- a. Comitment Chanoes Recor<:ed to NRC. Select an appropriate sample of comitment changes (modifications or deletions) that were reported or will be reported to the NRC. Ten or more examples should ae used if the i
licensee has' performed many evaluations since the last major revision of i its comitment change process; otherwise, include as many examples as L practical to assess the licensee's program for controlling comitment chanjes. Each commitment will be reviewed to determine the adequacy of
} the 'icensee's technical justification for the change in comitment. The sample should be selected following informal discussions with appropriate L
regional staff, review of licensee tracking data, review of any reports submitted by the licensee, and consideration of other information or i
s concerns of individual auditors. Try to select commitment changes from i as many of the following categories as practical:
- 1. Generic Letter Responses:
l
- 2. Bulletin Responses:
- 3. Licensing Actions (amendments, reliefs, or exemptions): or
- 4. Responses to Notices of Violation (NOVs):
- 5. Licensee Event Reports (LERs):
- 6. Inspection Reports:
-7. Other docketed correspondence.
. b. Commitment Chanoes Not Reoorted to NRC. Select examples of commitment changes (modifications or deletions) that the licensee has not and does not )lan to report tc the~ NRC. Approximately 10 commitment changes shou'd be selected using the various categories and considerations discussed above. ' Each selected'comitment change will be reviewed to determine the adequacy of the licensee's technical justification for the change as well as the determination that notification of the NRC was not warranted. The sample should be selected following informal. discussions with appropriate regional staff review of licensee tracking data, and consideration of other information or concerns of individual auditors.
- c. Notifications to the NRC. For those comitment changes that are I determined to warrant NRC notification, confirm that the notification has or is planned to be made and that the notification accurately describes the change.,
- d. Traceability of Commitments. Confirm that the licensee has implemented a process to ensure the traceability of commitments to support the change control process. Such processes should ensure that licensee personnel '
l
' are able to identify when their activity may involve changing a regulatory commitment and direct them to the comitment management Revision: 11/10/97 Audit Guide l; i
1
process. Select a sample of recently implemented comitments and evaluate whether the licensee's process would reasonably support identification of the commitment in case personnel subsequently propose i
to alter the design features or operating practices that were the subject of the comitments. The sample should be selected following informal discussions with appropriate regional staff, review of licensee tracking l
data, review of any reports submitted by the licensee, and consideration of other information or concerns of indivic;aal auditors. Note that the NEI guide does not provide recommendations for performing this function.
l 4.0 GUIDANCE Regulatory comitments are specific actions that have been agreed to or volunteered by a licensee and are documented in docketed correspondence. Unlike regulatory requirements (obligations) contained in regulations. licenses, and orders, regulatory commitments are not legally-binding. However, the regulatory process appropriately relies on commitments in many instances and the NRC expects licensees to honor. in good faith, commitments that have a safety or regulatory purpose. In large measure, regulatory commitments are not contained in the FSAR.
but in other docketed correspondence such as licensee event reports, responses to Notices of Violation, responses to generic letters. applications for licensing actions, and responses to requests for additional information. Those commitments not contained in the FSAR may not be controlled by a defined regulatory process such as 10 CFR 50.59. Therefore, licensees may have the ability to change docketed comitments not contained in the FSAR without informing the Comission.
The NRC staff has the ability to issue an enforcement action if the failure to implement a comitment has the potential to adversely affect reactor safety. The staff may also use the administrative enforcement tool of a Notice of Deviation if a licensee fails to satisfy a comitment. In addition.1ssues regarding completeness and accuracy of information submitted to the NRC may warrant
, consideration of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.9. Additional measures are being '
implemented to ensure that licensee comitments and other important information regarding plant design and operating practices are placed into the most appropriate licensing basis document, whether that be the license. FSAR. or docketed correspondence.
Although a specific action committed to by a licensee may not be legally-binding, the auditors should carefully consider whether the commitment. or an alternative action. is necessary to ensure compliance with an NRC regulation or otherwise ensure safe plant operation. For example. a licensee's response to a generic letter may commit to perform routine surveillances or tests beyond those contained in a plant's technical specifications in order to ensure the operability of an important system or component. The licensee's failure to implement such a comitment or failure to adequately evaluate changes 'to that comitment may call into question the operability of the related system or component. Safety concerns or possible regulatory nonconformances that are discovered during this audit should be forwarded to the appropriate regional personnel for follow-up as part of the NRC's inspection program.
Audit Guide Revision: 11/10/97 4
i l
i
'.- 4.1 VERIFICATION OF LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION OF PAST COMMITMENTS In c'efining the audit sample of approximately 15 comitments from past licensing actions and licensing activities, the auditors should consider the following in selecting (hmmitment changes for review:
- 1. Choose comitments related to a variety of systems:
- 2. Choose comitments involving a variety of engineerin such as nuclear, mechanical, civil, and electrical: g disciplines,
- 3. Choose comitments that involve a variety of licensee actions, such i as design modifications, temporary modifications, procedure i revisions, personnel training, and revised administrative controls:
l l
- 4. Ensure that the sample of selected commitments includes some which were important to the NRC staff's decision-making '>rocess for licensing actions and licensing activities during the ast several years.
l To the extent practical. identify comitments for verification that have not been l l previously addressed by NRC inspections or audits. It is desirable to choose !
commitments with a preference to risk sig71ficant issues or systems. In I addition, the auditor should attempt to verify that not only the stated commitments have been satisfied -but that the underlying intents of tne commitments have been fulfilled. For example, in contrast to verifying the installation of major pieces of equi:eent or issuance of ma or procedure or i program documents, the auditor shoulc assess the lower profi;le but essential I aspects of implementation such as the commitments regarding maintenance or
. surveillance of the subject equi) ment and training or effectiveness measures-for the subject process changes. "he commitment or aspect of a comitment being !
verified and the information needed to perform the verification should, as much as possible, be identified and communicated to the licensee prior to the site :
visit in order to minimize time spent waiting for information. The auditor should have informal discussions with the regional staff and other NRC staff with potential insights pertaining to a licensee's performance in the area of implementing commitments in preparation for the audit. '
l To verify the implementation of specific commitments, review licensee commitment
, management records, work orders, revised procedures. NRC inspection reports, and '
other documentation that could demonstrate that the specific actions were completed in accordance with the stated comitment and related schedule.
Discussions with licensee personnel in licensing system engineering and other organizations may be useful in placing the comitment and its implementation in the ap opriate historical and technical context. Where ap)ropriate, utilize t' actual hysical verifications of affected equipment or procecures. The auditor should etermine the needed level of investigation to verify the implementation l of each selected comitment. Whereas some commitments may be verified by a simple review of a revised procedure, training record, or completed work order, verification of other commitments may require more exhaustive reviews of design Revision: 11/10/97 Audit Guide i
. documents and surveillance histories, comparison of corrective actions to
~, appropriate effectiveness measures, or interviews with licensee personnel.
J 1
For each selected commitment. determine if the implementation of the comitment j resulted in an update to the facility's updated final safety analysis report '
(UFSAR). additional docketed correspondence (e.g.. a letter confirming implementation), or other comunications with the NRC staff. The auditor should also determine if the comitment should have been captured in an update of the l UFSAR. Concerns regarding a potential violation of 10 CFR 50.71(e) identified
- l during this audit should be referred to the appropriate regional office for
! follow-up or otherwise pursued using other inspection and enforcement guidance.
4.2 LICENSEE PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE NRC l fhis guidance is intended to help auditors in evaluating licensee programs related to the revision of commitments made to the NRC. The audit consists of two parts: (1) procedures and controls: and (2) implementation. Reviewing the licensee's comitment management program procedures in the office will allow more
- time for implementation review while onsite. Choose the initial selection of comitment changes in the office using licensee-supplied lists of proposed and completed comitment changes and any available independent knowledge of recent changes to previous comitments or activities that would likely affect past '
commitments. In addition, select recent commitments from docketed correspondence i
for performing the part of the audit dealing with traceability. At least one week before the audit, inform the licensee which commitment changes have been selected for possible review. This should minimize the time waiting for the licensee to produce the requested documentation. -
NEI's guidance document is an acceptable guide for licensees to follow for
! managing and changing their commitments to the NRC. The defined process and
, controls of ".3 NEI guidance document are the preferred method, but auditors may encounter various degrees of formality and involvement of NRC staff in licensee
, processes for changing commitments. Various inspection and NRR activities -
include, or will incluce, verification that comitments agreed to or volunteered by the licensee have been implemented in accordance with the original licensee comitment and related schedule. This part of the audit focuses on subsequent changes to licensee comitments tht may or may not involve interactions with the NRC. The audit should (1) evaluate the licensee's method for evaluating proposed changes to regulatory comitments with consideration given to the intent of the original comitment and the safety and regulatory significance of the proposed change, and (2) evaluate the licensee's method for communicating commitment changes to the NRC when such changes are deemed significant to safety or the NRC's regulatory functien.
An important aspect of comitment management that is not addressed in the NEl guideline is the part of the process that ensures traceability of comitments.
! The NEI guideline provides a basic framework for evaluating a change to a r comitment once licensee personnel propose such a change. However, for those I
personnel to utilize the NEI guideline, they must realize when a change to a plant design feature or operating practice affects a comitment made to the NRC l staff. For example, a licensee comits to perform independent verification at Audit Guide Revision: 11/10/97 l
l
a specific point in the execution of a procedure as a result of problems
' identified in an NRC Notice of Violation. Several years later. the licensee determines that the independent verification step is no longer necessary due to improved performance of its personnel. In order for a commitment change process to work effectively, the personnel likely to propose a revision to the affected procedure must be able to identify that the independent verification was added to the procedure as > art of a regulatory comitment. Possible ways to provide traceability incluce markings or notations within the procedure and administrative requirements to investigate proposed procedure changes that might affect regulatory comitments. Similar processes would be necessary for design .
features or other licensee commitments not incorporated into controlled '
procedures.
- 4.2.1 Procedures and Controls l
- a. Verify that the licensee has defined a process for managing comitments made to the NRC. Such process descriptions may be contained in licensee :
procedures general guidance documents, program descriptions training material, administrative documents, or combinations of these documents.
The controls for changing comitments made to the NRC may be included in !
l a stand-alone commitment management system or may be incorporated into l
! other licensee corrective action, licensing, or administrative programs. ,
' Comitment management systems may involve periodic assessments of all ;
outstanding commitments or may evaluate changes on a case-by-case basis. '
Indentify the governing procedures and guidance documents and discuss the licensee's comitment change process with the responsible licensee ,
personnel. Document how the licensee's process is controlled as well as l
the how the process is used to evaluate proposed changes to commitments. i For example. the process may be governed by an administrative procedure '
or other document that is controlled in accordance with facility technical specifications and quality assurance programs or the process may be controlled within a licensing group as a relatively informal i l
procedure. In either case the effectiveness of a licensee program will l consider the assessments performed for Item 3.2.2. Implementation, of this audit. !
I b. Verify that licensee programs include guidance regarding the evaluation l of proposed changes to comitments in terms of safety and regulatory I significance. The comitment change process should distinguish between
( the changes licensees can implement without interaction with the NRC and
- those governed by regulations that may require NRC review and a> proval j prior to implementation. The process should include a mechan'sm for determining when it would be appropriate to notify the NRC of a i
comitment change. The NEI guidance document is an acceptable guide for licensees to follow for managing and changing their commitments to the NRC. Ensure that the licensee has integrated the comitment management system with other line organization functions to ensure traceability of a regulatory comitment following its initial implementation. Such systems are necessary to ensure that licensee personnel are able to recognize that future changes to the affected design features or '
Revision: 11/10/97 Audit Guide I i
l l
t )
1
.a- .
operating practices require evaluation of the pro >osed change in -
.accordance with the commitment chan
_ design or procedure change process. ge process as well as the normal Although the process and review criteria in the NEI guidance document is 4 the preferred method for controlling changes to commitments, there is no l defined regulatory requirement that specifies how licensees must control thos2 changes. Therefore. licensees may define criteria for .
justification of comitment changes and NRC notification of such changes th6L are different than those recommended in the NEI guidance. For those licensees that have not adopted the NEI methodology. document a comparison of the licensee's process, including criteria for evaluation of changes and NRC notification, to that recommended in the NEI guide.
Although observations regarding the licensee's process or related criteria should be included in the documerYtion of the audit, any concerns related to the actual effectiveness v licensee programs should be reinforced by actual examples reviewed in accordance with item 4.2.2.
Implementation, of this audit guidance.
4.2.2 Imolementation .
The implementation area of the audit assesses the licensee's performance implementing its conr'tment change process. Comitments and changes thereto can involve all technicci disciplines associated with a nuclear plant. Few auditors are expert in every nuclear-related discipline. Therefore the auditor should !
recognize when technical assistance is needed to effectively review a safety evaluation or resolve a safety concern. The need for assistance can be anticipated based on the commitment changes selected for review. Also acceptable is simply identifying and documenting (in the documentation of the audit) technical questions for follow-up at a later date (either by the region or NRR).
Recognizing failures of the licensee to comply with the administrative control
. requirements of its commitment change process is important. However recognizing failures of the licensee to adequately assess how a change will affect plant operational safety or compliance with applicable regulations is more important.
The focus of the implementation part of the audit should. therefore, be on safety and ensuring that revised commitments have not led to noncompliance with applicable regulations. For example, if you agree that a commitment change was safe and believe it would not introduce issues of compliance with any regulations, questions or concerns regarding the change process can simply be documented in the audit report. By contrast, a commitment change evaluation that failed to address an obvious safety or regulatory consideration would be more significant. Failure to recognize that a commitment change required assessment by regulations such as 10 CFR 50.59 or 50.54 may also be significant. Safety concerns or possible regulatory nonconformances that are discovered during this audit should be forwarded to the appro part of the NRC's inspection program.priate regional personnel for follow-up as Audit Guide Revision: 11/10/97 l l
~
- a. Commitment Chanaes Reoorted to the NRC. In addition to the selection of commitment changes from various sources such as submittals pertaining to 1- licensing actions. responses to bulletins and generic letters, res>onses.
to NOVs. and LERs. other considerations for selecting commitment c1anges for review are:
- 1. Choose changes related to a variety of systems:
- 2. Choose changes involving a variety of engineering disciplines such as nuclear, mechanical, civil, and electrical: i
- 3. Choose changes that involve a variety of licensee actions, such as I l' design modifications, temporary modifications, procedure revisions.
personnel training, and revised administrative controls
- 4. The selected sample of commitments and commitment changes to be reviewed may need to give preference to recent items since the
- commitment management systems being evaluated vary in regard to when they were developed and the extent to which past commitments have been captured
- 5. Since changes to the FSAR and other programs are, or will be, assessed in NRC inspection procedures, this review should exclude commitments integrated into the FSAR. Quality Assurance Program.
Site Security Plan. Emergency Plan or other document governed by a !
change control mechanism contained in regulations such as 10 CFR !
50.59 or 50.54: and
- 6. Give preference to changes related to comitments which were previously considered in an NRC decision-making process. Examples include commitments related to enforcement discretion, resolution of generic safety issues, and resolution of significant inspection !
l 1ssues. l Review each selec't ed commitment change against the requirements and l guidance established in the licensee's procedures or guidance. For each change, consider:
l e the relationship between the comitment being changed and regulatory requirements (obligations):
e the relationship between the commitment being changed and overall
- plant safety or risk profile
L e the licensee's criteria for determining the acceptability of a ,
proposed commitment change (e.g.. the NEI guidance includes the use of the questions from 10 CFR 50.92):
l l e systems and components affected by the change (What is the effect of the change on their capability to perform their specified or intended functions?);
Revision: 11/10/97 Audit Guide
I .
.- i o intent of the original commitment (Was commitment related to l -
. regulatory compliance, required safety function. or process i j enhancement?):
l e potential effects of commitment change (Has licensee reasonably l l concluded that revised commitment will maintain plant safety and i l
regulatory compliance, that original commitment was unnecessary or '
i ineffective, or that revised commitment will improve performance?):
e documentation of the commitment' change (Each evaluation of. a comitment change should be documented in accordance with the )
l licensee's procedural requirements. Auditors should note that the l NRC accepted NEI guidance recomends less documentation for the
! justification of commitment changes than that typically provided in l licensee 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations or design documents.): and e effective implementation of the revised comitment (Select several l comitment changes for verification of implementation. Review !
licensee comitment management records, wurk orders, revised procedures. NRC inspection reports, and other documentation that could demonstrate that the specific revised actions were completed l in accordance with the stated commitment revision and related
! schedule. Where appropriate, utilize actual physical verifications l of equipment and processes.).
, b. [.omitment Chances Not Reported to NL Review each selected evaluation i of a commitment change against the requirements and guidance established l in the licensee's procedures or guidance. For each change, consider the l technical factors listed above as well as the licensee's criteria for i
determining if the commitment change requires notification of the NRC.
For those commitment changes not requiring NRC notification, ensure that l the justification for the change is documented in a record that will be l maintain (d for the life of the facility (maintenance of current licensing l basis).
l
- c. Notifications to the NRC. Verify that each commitment change determined to warrant NRC notification, has been or will be included in either a periodic or individual report to the NRC. Ensure that the description of l the comitment change submitted to the NRC is consistent with the action l taken by the licensee.
- d. Traceability of Comitments. Verify that each sample of a recently implemented comitment would be reasonably identifiable as a comitment to those licensee personnel most likely to be involved in a subsequent l change to the affected design feature or operating practice.
l Audit Guide Revision: 11/10/97 l
l
1 5.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
~
Document the results of this -audit in an audit report which summarizes the licensee's commitment management process, specific reviews performed, and other pertinent information (recent changes in programs, planned changes in programs, etc.). The report will be transmitted to the licensee in a standard letter from the project manager.
6.0 ENFORCEMENT The failure of any licensee to adopt the approacn recomended by NEI and accepted i by the NRC is not subject to enforcement action. However, an administrative action, such as a Notice of Deviation, may be warranted if poor licensee controls l of commitment changes resulted in a significant failure to satisfy a commitment made to the NRC. In addition. issues regarding completeness and accuracy of information submitted to the NRC may warrant consideration of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.9. Suggested items for a Notice of Deviation and apparent violations of NRC regulations, operating licenses, or other regulatory requirements discovered during execution of this audit must be referred to the appropriate regional office for follow-up or otherwise pursued using other inspection and enforcement guidance. '
7.0 COMPLETION SCHEDULE This audit shall be performed and documented for the facilities selected for the pilot effort by May 31, 1998. Subsequent audits or inspections, if necessary, will be determined on the basis of the lessons learnec from the first set of audits.
8.0 CONTACT i
If you have questions regarding this audit guidance, contact William Reckley, NRR/DRPW/PD3-3. at (301) 415-1314 e-mail WDR.
9.0 STATISTICAL DATA REPORTING TAC numbers will be opened for the reporting of time spent in the preparation for and execution of this audit. i 10.0 RESOURCE ESTIMATE It is estimated that approximately 125 hours0.00145 days <br />0.0347 hours <br />2.066799e-4 weeks <br />4.75625e-5 months <br /> per facility will be expended in performing this audit. The required time will consist of an in-office review of process descriptions, procedures, and documentation related to comitments and commitment changes that has been provided by the licensee in support of the audit ,
and an onsite portion involving interviews, review of supporting documentation for commitment changes, and verification of implementation of specific comitments. Subsequent evaluation of the audit reports and preparation of recomendations is estimated to require an additional 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />. The total resource estimate, assuming audits at eight facilities, is 1100 hours0.0127 days <br />0.306 hours <br />0.00182 weeks <br />4.1855e-4 months <br />.
Revision: 11/10/97 Audit Guide
~.
The development incorporated of this into NRR's guidance Operating and Plan forthe 998$erformance
- 1999 as as of the part of audits have been the Reactor Licensing Program as well as being part of the division level operating plan for DRPE/DRPW.
11.0 REFERENCES
Nuclear Energy Institute's. " Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments."
Revision 2. cated December 19. 1995 (copy attached).
SECY-95-300. Nuclear Energy Institute's Guidance Document. " Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments." dated December 20. 1995.
SECY-94-066. " Evaluation of Issues Discussed in SECY-92-314. ' Current Licensing Basis for Operating Plants'." dated March 15, 1994.
SECY-92-314. " Current Licensing Basis for Operating Plants." dated September 10. 1992.
SECY-94-003. " Plan for Implementing Regulatory Review Group Recommendations."
dated January 7. 1994, SECY-97-036. " Millstone Lessons Learned Report. Part 2: Policy Issues." dated February 12, 1997.
SECY-97-042 " Response to OIG Event Inquiry 96-04S Regarding Maine Yankee." dated February 18, 1997.
END
)'
Attachment:
NEI Guideline For Managing NRC Commitments. Rev. 2. 12/19/95 1
Audit Guide Revision: 11/10/97 l
.. - t .
l
\
GUIDELINE FOR MANAGING NRC COMMITMENTS l
Nuclear Energy Institute l Revision 2 December 19,1995 l
e eo e t
O 9
Attachment
. distinction between commitments ef high and low (or even no) safety significance, and
, , the lack cf a readily acceptable and practical method for eliminating or changing
~
resulting commitments when wananted, impedes the achievement ef this objective.
Licensees have historically treated commitments seriously and only make changes after due consideration of any safety impacts. At times, licensees have besitated to change commitments, even though justi5ed from a safety standpoint, due to concerns that the NRC may negatively view the commitment changes, or because the process for changing commitments is perceived as burdensome. A uniform practice regarding commitments and commitment change marhantama within the industry would assist individual utilities l
l in focusing resources on signl5 cant issues and in changing past commitments that no longer serve their intended purpose. ,
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS l
Manneing commitmente L . Any significant commitment of utility resources, whether to satisfy a concem of an NRC inspector, to respond to a NRC generic communication, l or to determine the appropriate manner to implement a regulatory l requirement, should be the result of a reasoned management decision-l making process. To ensure proper management control of utility resources, l an internal process to control commitments should be established. For I
example:
> - Commitments and their relative priority should be based upon an evaluation'orthe 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 ofresponsibility.
1 2
Revision 2:12/19/95
. Notices cf Violation and Licensee Event Reports identify actions to
, , minimize recurrence cf the adverse condition. Historically, not all such actions were naratary to =Ini=f= recurrence -- some
~
represented enhancements to ongoing practices not directly related to the cause of the event. Future correspondence abould not identify these actions as commitmeats.
chan,in, commit =,ne. .
. Changes to commitments should also be the result of a reasoned management decision-making process. To ensure continued management control ofresources applied to commitments, the following commitment change practices are recommended:
Each licensee should periodically consider evaluating its outstanding l commitments and the manner in which its commitments have been i implemented, to the extent that the conduct of the evaluation itselfis l cost-effective (e.g., focuses on those commitments that have a major I impact on the utility's costs). The license: should determine whether !
the current commitment represents the most cost-effective way of satisfying the safety issue that prompted the commitment and should change those commitments as appropriate. ;
l Each licensee should establish a practical commitment change l process that distinguishes the relative safety significance and regulatory interest ofcommitments communicated to the NRC staff. .
Attachment A to this guideline provides an example commitment i change process. !
l 1
- 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.
I 4
Revision 2: 12/19/95
to correct or preclude the recurrence cf adverse conditions or to make improvements to the plant or plant processes. A Regulat ry C2mmitment is an
.. intentional undertaking by a licensee to complete a speciSc action. In the past, not all licensee w..spondence has clearly ~ distinguished the difference between Regulatory Commitments and factual statements, descriptive information, and voluntary enhancements not intended to constitute commitments. Potential confusion resulting from this lack of clarity will require dialogue between a licensee and the NRC on a cese-by-case basis. Implementation of the Guidelines Jbr Managing NRC Commitment: should remedy this situatiou in the ibture.
Because Regulatory Commitments are not legally binding requirements, licensee management has the latitude to decide the scope and details of the intended actions without signiscant 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 anNor ofhigh regulatory interest are communicated to the NRC. The recommended change process does not apply to confutnatory action letter commitments as described in the NRC's Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600.
Obligations No changes from current requirements are needed. De available statutory-based mechanisms include petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.g02, 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 CFR2.202.
Regulatory commitments ne attached flowcharts, Figures A-1 and A-2, outline a regulatory =mmbent ~'
management change process that (1) delineates commitments that have safety signiScance an#or regulatory interest; (2) establishes guidance for notifying the NRC of changes to commitments that have safety significance anNor regulatory interest; and, (3) establishes a rationale for eliminating past regulatory commitments that have negligible safety signiScance an&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. j 6 l Revision 2: 12/19/95
?
l
.- , . , STEP 2: ' IS 'IME CHANGE SIGNIFICANT TO SAFETY 1
< Commitmc t changes that are not captured by the codi5ed processes identified in Step 1 above still need to be evaluated in terms of their safety significance unless application of the NSAC-125 screening criteria under Step 1 determined that the change does not impact the ability of a SSC to perform its safety function. Figure A-2 outlines a determinstically-based approach for conducting safety annenemer.ta De process is brie 0y described below: ,
De first step is to evaluate if the change sould negatively impact the ability of a SSC to perform its intended safety fLmetion. NSAC-125, Section 4, contains useful criteria for performing this evaluation. Other relevant information in performing this evaluation is an understanding of the safety basis for the original commitment. A review ofpertinent documentation (e.g., NRC Bulletin or Generic 1.etter, LER, NOV, etc.) that prompted the original commitment is a source for basis information. A further factor to be considered in performing the evaluation is whether the change could negatively impact the ability oflicensee personnel to ensure the SSC is capable ofperforming its intended safety function as a result of changes to procedures, programs and other human performance elements. If the evaluation determines that the change could not negatively impact the ability of a
, SSC to perform its intended safety function, the change is not safety significant.
If the evaluation determines that the change could impact the ability of a SSC to perform its intended safety function, then an assessment applying the criteria of 10
. CFR 50.92 (c), (1) through (3), should be performed to determine if the change involves a significant hazards consideration. Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) insights can be used to supplement deterministic-based assessments. If the assessment determines that a significant hazards consideration exists, the change is significant to safety. Otherwise, the change is not safety significant.
)
Changes to commitments that are evaluated as being significant to safety would either not be implemented or would require discussion with the NRC and review and approval, as appropriate, or written notification. Changes evaluated as not j significant to safety would proceed to Step 3 to assess its compliance issue exists.
I I
l Revision 2:12/19/95 l
)
, , information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) or 10 CFR 2.204; and,-(4) commitments identified as long term corrective actions in response to a NRC Notice cf
- Violation. Regulatory commitments may involve both new actions as well as .
existing actians credited by licensees 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 syd -etion is a regulatory commitment. Changes to regulatory commitma.u not captured in categories (1) through (4) would proceed to Step 5.
If the original commitment has yet to be implenented, the licensee can pd with the change, but the NRC should be noti 5ed of the change as soon as practicable aAer the change is approved by licensee management, but before any committed completion date. Notification should be accomplishei by supplementing the docketed correspondence containing the original commitment.
If the original commitment was made in response to a Notice of Violation, the licensee can proceed with the change, but the NRC should be notl5ed of the change as soon as practicable aAer the change is approved by licensee management if the commitment has been in place less than two years. Notification should be accomplished by supplementing the NOV response.
For other commitments in this category, 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 netification to the NRC.
STEP 5: WAS THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT MADE TO MINIMIZE RECURRENCE OF AN ADVERSE CONDITION?
Commitments to take long-term corrective actions in Licensee Event Reports (LERs) are made to minimi= recurrence of adverse conditions. A good measure of the effectivenen 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 rif the last' inspection'or the period within the last two -
. inspections, whichever is longer, as. an indication that the adverse condition related to a particular area has been corrected.
Licensees may find it usefhl to periodically review tne necessity ofcommitments related to minimiring recurrence of adverse conditions. Licensees need the flexibility to change or eliminate commitments they determine are no longer necessary based on:
10 Revision 2: 12/19/95
, . . bases. For example, all LER commitment changes related to procedures for which a I
.- ,'. ~
, revised commitment was identlSed that =ialmi=d recurrence cf the original adverse condition could be provided as a listing in the report under a general basis description.
Documentation Figure A-3, Revised Commitment Evaluation Summary," provides documentation of the decisions made in applying the above change process. 'Ibe form would serve as proof that an evaluation was performed and should be retained by the licensee either (1) tmtil submittal of the annual report or report Bled coincident with the FSAR updates per 10 CFR 50.71(c) for commitment changes that require NRC notificatien, or (2) for the life of the facility for commitment changes that de not require NRC notl5ca: ion. Where the form calls for a description of the rationale for a decision, h is expected that, in the majority ofinstances, a justi5 cation ofone or two sentences would be sufficient. In some cases a more detailed explanation or reference to a backap assessment may be appropriate. It is not the intent to generate lengthy descriptions supponed by detailed analyses, but rather to capture the essence of the basis for changing the commitment.
4 i
12 Revision 2: 12/19/95
~
, FIGURE A-2 SAFETY SIGNIFTCANCE ASSEREMENT mECISION STEP n ,
PRollDECSION STEP 1 .
1 P C0uta g CHANGEBfPACT ASIUTY OF SSC 70 PEAFORM SAFETY PUNCT10N
)
l l
vas l
V PERr0Ru ASSESSMENT USING CRITERIA 0F 10 CFR 50,92(C) (1)THRU(3) !
l P DOES
' . CHANGE RESul.T E
IN SIGN!FICANT MAZARDS CONSIDERATION
) SONIFIC 70 tAFETY m
" CONTNJE WITH DECISION STEF 2 V
, V o0CvMExinAfonALE lf Couu:Tufwr enAust a m 1907 WETY SONFICANT r PROCEEDTODEC1880NSTEP3 14 Revision 2: 12/19/95 s
m *
,.- . Has the original commitment been implemented?
. *'.P No. EXIT PROCESS *. Provide timely notification cfrevised commitment to NRC.
.- _ Yes. EXIT PROCESS *. Notify NRC cfrevised commitment in next annual /RFO interval summary report.
- 4. Was the original commitment (1) explicitly credited as the basis for a safety decision in an NRC SER, (2) made in response to an NRC Bulletin or Generic Letter, (3) made in response to a request for information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) or 10 CFA 2.204, or, (4) identi6ed as a long term corrective action in response to a NRC Notice of Violation?
No. Continue with S'IEP 5. .
Yes. Has the commitment been implemented? (see page 11 of the guidance if the commitment was made in response to a Notice of Violation.)
No. EXIT PROCESS . Provide timely noti 5 cation ofrevised commitment to NRC.
es. EXIT PROCESS *. Notify NRC ofrevised commitraent 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 LER)?
No. Change commitment. No NRC notification required.
Yes. Is the revised commitment necessary to =Inimi= recurrence of the adverse condition?
No. Briefly describe rationale **:
~
Change commitment. No NRC notification required.
Yes. Notify NRC ofrevised commitment in next annual /RFO interval summary report.
- EXIT PROCESS means the balance of this summcry is not to be completed.
- Attach additional sheets providing rationale,ifnecessary.
. 16 Revision 2: 12/19/95 4