ML23214A262

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NEI 99-04 R1 - Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes
ML23214A262
Person / Time
Site: Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date: 07/31/2023
From:
Nuclear Energy Institute
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NEI 99-04, Rev 1
Download: ML23214A262 (1)
v • d • e


Text

NEI 99-04, Rev. 1

Guideline f or Managing NRC Commitment Changes

Prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute July 2023

July 2023

Revision Table

Revision Description of Changes Date Responsible Modified Person

0 Original Issue

General revision to update to current NRC guidance and improve clarity of the process

  • Separate background information from the actual process steps for improving general usability of the process 1
  • Include a step-by -step process for evaluation of July 2023 PWROG/RITF commitment changes
  • Retain 10 CFR 50.92 evaluation only for regulatory commitments relied upon by NRC to reach a licensing decision
  • Eliminate periodic reporting of commitment changes

July 2023

Acknowledgements

Andrew Howe, Westinghouse

Sara Scott, Xcel Energy

Andrew Beck, Energy Harbor

Tim Hammons, South Texas Project

Hossein Hamzehee, STARS Alliance

Martin Murphy, Curtiss-Wright

NEI Lead: Brett Titus

July 2023

Executive Summary

This document provides a process for a licensee to manage (that is, revise or eliminate) regulatory commitments. Regulatory commitments and obligations are defined and their legal statuses differentiated. NRC expects licensees to maintain compliance with their commitments, but licensees may revise or eliminate commitments based on experience and changing plant conditions.

Revision 0 of this document was issued in July 1999, and was subsequently endorsed by the NRC.

Revision 1 is a general update of the document to reflect more than 20 years of licensee and NRC experience with regulatory commitments. It incorporates the evolution of NRC regulations and practices as they impact regulatory commitments.

July 2023

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Definitions........................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Differentiation of Obligations and Commitments.............................................................. 1 2.3 History of Regulatory Commitment Management............................................................. 3 Commitment Management Process................................................................................................ 4 References..................................................................................................................................... 11

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Commitment Management Change Process.............................................................................. 12 Table 1: Commitment Evaluation Summary............................................................................................... 13

July 2023

INTRODUCTION

This document identifies concepts that licensees can use to develop their plant-specific programs for managing regulatory commitments, including new commitments made after issuance of this document as well as existing commitments. The guideline is intended to be used either to change (i.e., modify or delete) individual commitments on a case-by -case basis, or as part of a comprehensive effort to re -

baseline the total population of commitments. The guidance applies to commitments formally communicated to the NRC - that is, docketed under the current regulatory structure. The guidance applies to operating reactors as well as to c ommitments made under 10 CFR 50.82(a) for plants seeking license termination (decommissioning).

BACKGROUND

2.1 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 of licensee actions communicated to the NRC. The definitions are consistent with information in LIC -105 (Reference 3).

  • Obligation - any condition or action that is a legally binding requirement imposed on licensees by the NRC through applicable rules, regulations, orders, and licenses (including technical specifications and license conditions). These conditions (also referred to as regulatory requirements) generally require formal NRC approval as part of the change-control process. Also included in the category of obligations are those regulations and license conditions that define change-control processes and reporting requirements for licensing -basis documents such as the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), quality assurance program, emergency plan, security plan, fire protection program, etc.
  • Regulatory Commitment - an explicit statement to take a specific action agreed to, or volunteered by, a licensee and submitted in writing on the docket to the NRC.

2.2 Differentiation of Obligations and Commitments

Licensees routinely track a variety of commitments, including commitments made to non -regulatory organizations such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, as well as corrective actions and self-assessments. These commitments are not in the scope of the management process of this document.

As part of their routine interface with the NRC, licensees may agree to take actions covering a wide range of topics. Some of these topics have high safety significance, while others have low or no safety significance. The agreed-upon actions may exceed regulatory requirements or involve a specific method for meeting an obligation. Historically, the licensees statements of action related to these obligations have been called commitments.

All regulatory commitments made by a licensee to the NRC are docketed in formal correspondence from the licensee. If not docketed, then a statement identifying a specific action is not a regulatory commitment.

1

July 2023

A docketed statement identifying a specific action by a licensee is either a regulatory requirement or a regulatory commitment (possibly within the context of license renewal). A regulatory requirement (obligation) is not subject to the change management process of this document because there are statutory-based mechanisms which govern those actions:

  • 10 CFR 2.802 Petition for rulemaking - requirements for filing
  • 10 CFR 50.90 Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit

The management process in this document also does not apply to statements incorporated into the plant UFSAR, which are not defined as commitments and are subject to revision under 10 CFR 50.59.

With regard to regulatory commitments within the license renewal process, during the course of a license renewal application review, regulatory commitments are made; t hese commitments are captured in the license renewal safety evaluation report. Many of the commitments for license renewal are subsequently incorporated into the plants UFSAR, or reconstituted as license conditions, and therefore the management process in this document does not apply. (However, these actions have historically continued to be incorrectly referred to as commitments in various NRC documents, including the associated license renewal safety evaluation reports that are issued as NUREGs. ) For regulatory commitments within the license renewal process, only those not incorporated into the UFSAR or reconstituted as license conditions may be managed under the process of this document.

Regulatory commitments have been routinely used to address the following regulatory areas:

  • Shutdown Risk
  • Post-Fukushima Reevaluated Hazard Evaluations (Seismic and Flooding)

In many cases, regulatory commitments made to address the above issues may be more significant than other commitments because the regulatory issue being considered may be beyond the design basis of the plant. Licensees are still expected to ensure the above issues are adequately addressed consistent with the original commitment purpose.

While compliance methods are sometimes identified by the NRC in regulatory guides or other reports, regulation 10 CFR 50.109(a)(7) states : If there are two or more ways to achieve compliance with a

2

July 2023

license or the rules or orders of the Commission, or with written licensee commitments, or there are two or more ways to reach a level of protection which is adequate, then or dinarily the applicant or licensee is free to choose the way which best suits its purposes. The implementing details for compliance with an obligation, where the obligation does not provide for a specific method and more than one method may be used to comply with the underlying regulatory requirement, may be managed by the process of this document. This is based on an NRC precedent established in safety evaluations associated with plant license amendments for NRC O rder EA-02-026 (Reference 7).

2.3 History of Regulatory Commitment Management

Although the terms regulatory commitment and licensing bases are not used in 10 CFR Part 50, they are nevertheless used frequently in the context of interactions between the NRC and licensees. Note that 10 CFR Part 54 for license renewal defines current licensing basis to include a licensees written commitments.

Licensees historically have made changes to these commitments only after due consideration of any safety impacts. At times, licensees have hesitated to chang e commitments even when justified from a safety standpoint, due to concerns that the NRC may view the commitment change negatively, and that the process for changing commitments is burdensome. Revision 0 of this document (Reference 1) allayed those concerns and provided an acceptable and less burdensome method for commitment change management.

Issues concerning the use of regulatory commitments usually center on the legal standing of the commitment and the NRCs authority to enforce the action committed to by a licensee. The NRC has determined that keeping regulatory commitments as an element of licensing basis information should continue because, when handled properly, the commitments support the overall licensing process by adding flexibility, improving efficiency, and maintaining the flow of information between the NRC and licensees.

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report (OIG-11 -A-17), Audit of NRCs Management of Licensee Commitments, completed on September 1 9, 2011 (Reference 4), identified that the definition and use of commitments were not consistently understood throughout the NRC. As a result, the OIG audit determined that the NRC staff may have accepted licensee-proposed commitments rather than the necessary regulatory requirement or obligation, such as a license condition, order, rule, or regulation.

This is especially true of older commitments that were established in the years before NEI 99-04, Revision 0, was developed and endorsed by the NRC in SECY-00-045 (Reference 2).

Per LIC-105, regulatory commitments are appropriate for matters that are of significant interest to the staff but do not warrant either legally binding requirements or inclusion in the plants UFSAR or programs subject to formal regulatory change control mechanisms. Nevertheless, the regulatory process appropriately utilizes commitments in many instances, and the NRC expects licensees to honor these commitments in good faith.

Also per LIC-105, in some cases licensees may choose to allo w a third party (e.g., an owners group or NEI) to work with the NRC on their behalf to resolve generic issues or issues germane to a vendor type.

Licensees and the NRC staff should ensure that regulatory commitments related to third party submittals are well understood and documented (i.e., the submittal should state that the group is

3

July 2023

authorized to make the regulatory commitment on behalf of the licensees, or each licensee should separately submit a regulatory commitment related to the generic document).

NEI guidance for managing commitments was provided in Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments (Attachment to Reference 5). The NRC determined in SECY 95 -300 (Reference 6 ) that the NEI guidance document was an acceptable method for licensees to follow for managing and changing their regulatory commitments to the NRC.

Subsequently, the guidelines were refined based on industry and NRC experience and were incorporated into NEI 99 -04 Revision 0. The NRC, in its endorsement of NEI 99-04, Revision 0, in SECY-00-45 (Reference 2 ), further clarified the standing of regulatory commitments and affirmed the licensees right to modify or delete regulatory commitments shown to be ineffic ient or ineffective. The specific changes identified as beneficial to the overall commitment identification and management processes by the NRC included:

  • Differentiation between regulatory commitments and enhancements, routine corrective actions described in NRC-licensee correspondence for Notices of Violation or Licensee Event Reports, planned actions to restore compliance with NRC rules and regulations, corrective actions taken in accordance with quality assurance programs, and other descriptive information.
  • Recommendation to use information management systems, procedure annotations, or other methods to ensure traceability of regulatory commitments after implementation.
  • Acknowledgement that interactions between the NRC and groups of licensees (such as owners groups or NEI) generate regulatory commitments applicable for a plant.

COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS

This section provides a comprehensive set of concepts and stepwise directions for implementation of a plant-specific program for commitment managem ent, specifically for changes or deletions of regulatory commitments. The process determines if the commitment change, if not governed by another codified process, may proceed without NRC approval and to identify the timing of any required NRC notification.

If the commitment change is determined not to be permissible, then no change may be made under this guidance and another regulatory change process must be used to make the change.

The flowchart, Figure 1, outlines a regulatory commitment management change process that (1) screens regulatory commitment changes for which another statutory change process is applicable ;

(2) establishes guidance for notifying the NRC of changes to commitments that have safety significance ;

and (3) establishes a rationale for eliminating regulatory commitments that have negligible safety significance and/or regulatory interest.

Table 1 is a summary sheet that, when completed, provides an adequate level of documentation for the decisions made in revising a commitment using this change process.

4

July 2023

STEP 0: DOCUMENT THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE REGULATORY COMMITMENT AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL AND SAFETY JUSTIFICATION

This preliminary step documents relevant information about the regulatory commitment and the proposed change which is used in the subsequent decision steps. All information is documented in Table 1.

0.1 Identify the regulatory commitment tracking identification number (if applicable).

0.2 Identify the source document which originally identified the regulatory commitment on the NRC docket, including if the item was specifically called out as a regulatory commitment.

0.3 Provide a description of the current regulatory commitment.

0.4 Provide a description of the proposed regulatory commitment as proposed to be changed.

0.5 Identify the implementation status of the regulatory commitment as one of the following:

  • a one-time action not yet implemented,
  • a recurring action where the first implementation has not yet occurred, or
  • a recurring action which has already been implemented.

If not yet implemented, identify the committed date.

0.6 Identify the plant document(s) which implement the regulatory commitment.

NOTE: The change justification in Step 0. 7 may be prepared and documented in parallel with Steps 1-4; some parts of the justification identified in Step 0.7 may not be required.

0.7 Provide a justification for the proposed change; address the following:

  • What is the purpose of the original regulatory commitment?
  • Is the regulatory commitment incorporated into the plant licensing basis documents, such as the UFSAR or required plant program? If so, identify the specific UFSAR section or plant program.
  • Was the regulatory commitment relied upon by the NRC to reach a licensing decision (i.e.,

issue a license amendment, grant an exemption, approve a licensee response to an NRC order, bulletin, generic letter, etc.) as stated in a docketed NRC communication?

  • If the regulatory commitment was relied upon by the NRC, then does the proposed change impact one or more safety function(s) of any SSC(s)? If YES, identify all impacted SSCs and corresponding functions, and the impact of the proposed change. If the impact is negative, then document an assessment of that impact on plant safety considering the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c) for significant hazards consideration.

5

July 2023

  • Is the regulatory commitment used to comply with any obligation? If YES, does the obligation as written allow for other methods of compliance? Does the proposed change maintain compliance with the obligation?

STEP 1: IS THERE A CODIFIED CHANGE PROCESS FOR THE COMMITMENT?

NOTE: A commitment controlled by any of the codified change processes identified by this step is not a regulatory commitment as defined in Section 2.1 ; however, due to the prior historical inclusion of such items as commitments, this step is provided as a check to ensure the appropriate change process is identified. If a different change process is applicable per this step, the commitment should be removed from the regulatory commitment tracking list.

1.1 If the change under consideration is to a regulatory commitment contained within a document subject to a codified change process (see examples below), then the provisions of the codified change process govern the change, and the change process of this document is not applicable.

END

1.2 If the change under consideration is for a regulatory commitment where the proposed change would:

  • Result in non-compliance with a regulation, or
  • Require a change to the plants Operating License or Technical Specifications, or
  • Require an exemption or other NRC prior approval,

6

July 2023

then a different codified process (see examples below) would govern the change, and the change process of this document is not applicable:

  • 10 CFR 2.802 Petition for rulemaking - requirements for filing
  • 10 CFR 50.90 Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit

END

1.3 If the change under consideration is for a regulatory commitment which does not screen out in Steps 1.1 thr ough 1.2, then proceed to Step 2.

STEP 2: WAS THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH AN OBLIGATION?

Regulatory commitments related to compliance with obligations may arise from 1) specific actions to meet an obligation where the regulatory commitment maintains compliance, or 2) responses to a notice of violation (NOV) or licensee event report (LER) where the corrective action(s) are related to restoration of compliance with an obligation. (Note that this second category is maintained for historical purposes only; responses to NOVs and LERs for restoration of compliance are no longer considered to be regulatory commitments.)

2.1. Is the proposed change related to compliance with an obligation? If no, continue with Step 3 ;

otherwise, continue with Step 2.2.

2.2. If the proposed change to the regulatory commitment impacts restoration of compliance with an obligation, either revising the proposed action while still restoring compliance with the obligation, or revising the date of restoration of compliance for the original action, then NRC notification or approval may be required:

2.2.1. If the proposed change can be justified, then notify NRC of the change prior to the original commitment date. END

2.2.2. If the proposed change cannot be justified without prior NRC approval, then the change process of this document is not applicable. END

2.3. If the proposed change to the regulatory commitment impacts ongoing compliance with an obligation after restoration of compliance by the committed date has been completed, then evaluate if the proposed change would still achieve compliance with the obligation.

2.3.1. If the proposed change would result in non-compliance with an obligation, then the change process of this document is not applicable, and the proposed change may not be implemented without prior NRC approval. END

7

July 2023

2.3.2. If the proposed change is to implement an alternative method which maintains compliance with the obligation, but the proposed alternative would require a revision to the plants O perating License or Technical Specifications, then the change process of 10 CFR 50.90 governs the change, and the change process of this document is not applicable. END

2.3.3. If the proposed change would maintain compliance with the obligation (i.e., it is an alternative compliance method), then the proposed change is acceptable without NRC notification. END

STEP 3: DID THE NRC RELY UPON THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT BEING CONSIDERED FOR CHANGE?

Regulatory commitments may be made as part of a regulatory action, and the NRC may have either reviewed and approved the action volunteered or agreed to by the licensee or relied upon the commitment as part of the basis for approval in lieu of upgrading the commitment to an obligation.

(Note that current regulatory practices would require any such action to be elevated to an obligation.)

Regulatory commitments may involve new actions as well as existing actions 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 requested action is a regulatory commitment.

If the proposed change to the regulatory commitment has been justified based on being consistent with the regulatory purpose of the original commitment, and the NRC did not directly rely upon the commitment to justify approval of the regulatory action, then the change may be implemented; otherwise, the proposed change should not be implemented without additional justification or NRC approval.

3.1. If the regulatory commitment was not made as part of another regulatory action or does not satisfy any of items (1), (2), or (3) below, then continue at Step 4.

(1) specific statements in NRC safety evaluation reports crediting specific licensee commitments as being the basis for an NRC staff safety conclusion (general references to an entire licensee report, such as a fire hazards analysis, are not considered to be specific commitments in this context);

(2) commitments made in response to NRC bulletins and generic letters; or

(3) commitments made in response to requests for information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) or 10 CFR 2.204.

3.2. If the regulatory commitment was made and relied upon by the NRC as part of another regulatory action, then evaluate the change for safety significance:

3.2.1. Evaluate the proposed change to the regulatory commitment - could the change negatively impact the ability of one or more structures, systems, or components (SSC)s to perform their intended safety function?

3.2.1.1. Identify the intended safety function(s) of impacted SSCs. (The plants 10 CFR 50.65 program documentation may be used to identify SSC safety functions.)

3.2.1.2. Identify the safety function(s) potentially impacted by the proposed change.

8

July 2023

3.2.1.3. Evaluate the impact of the proposed change, considering the safety basis for the original commitment by reviewing the pertinent documentation (e.g., NRC bulletin or generic letter, LER, NOV) that prompted the original commitment.

3.2.1.4. If the proposed change involves changes to procedures, programs and other impacts to human performance elements related to ensuring SSC performance, evaluate the impact of the proposed change on the capability of licensee personnel to ensure the SSC(s) is capable of performing its intended safety function.

3.2.2 If the evaluation of Step 3.2.1 determines that the change would not negatively impact the ability of an SSC to perform its intended safety function, the change is not safety significant; continue with Step 3.3.

3.2.3 If the evaluation of Step 3.2.1 determines that the change could negatively impact the ability of an SSC to perform its intended safety function, then an assessment of the safety significance of the proposed change is made with consideration of the significant hazards criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c).

3.2.4 If the safety assessment of Step 3.2.3 determines that the proposed change is not significant to safety, then the change may proceed; continue with Step 3.3. Otherwise, the change is potentially safety significant, and should not be implemented using the change management process of this document. END

3.3 If the original commitment has not yet been implemented, then notify the NRC of the change prior to any committed completion date; notification should be accom plished by supplementing the docketed correspondence containing the original commitment. END

3.4 If the original commitment has been implemented, the proposed change may be implemented without notification to the NRC. END

STEP 4: WAS THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT MADE TO MINIMIZE RECURRENCE OF A CONDITION ADVERSE TO QUALITY?

Regulatory commitments may be made as corrective actions to adverse conditions, including preclusion of recurrence of significant adverse conditions. Licensees may change or eliminate commitments they determine are no longer necessary or effective. Notification to the NRC is only required if the initial corrective action has not yet been implemented.

4.1. If the regulatory commitment is not a corrective action for a condition(s) adverse to quality, then the proposed change may be made without NRC notification. END

4.2. If the regulatory commitment is a corrective action of a condition adverse to quality, and if the proposed change to the regulatory commitment is justified based on one or more of the following criteria, then the proposed change may be implemented without NRC notification.

  • The regulatory commitment has not been successful in correcting the adverse condition or precluding recurrence, and alternative actions are to be implemented by the change.

9

July 2023

  • There is a more effective way to correct or preclude recurrence of the adverse condition other than the method of the original regulatory commitment.
  • The regulatory commitment may no longer be necessary due to changing conditions at the plant.
  • In hindsight and based on experience, the regulatory commitment may never have been necessary to correct or preclude recurrence of the adverse condition.
  • The commitment may subsequently have been incorpora ted into a plant program or other administrative control that is subject to a revision review process (e.g., procedure changes governed by administrative technical specifications).

END

4.3. If the regulatory commitment is a corrective action of a condition adverse to quality, and if the proposed change to the regulatory commitment can not be justified based on any of the criteria in Step 4.2, then the proposed change should not be implemented. END

10

July 2023

REFERENCES

1. Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI 99-04, Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes, Revision 0 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003680088).
2. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-00-045, Acceptance of NEI 99-04, Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitments, dated February 22, 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003679799).
3. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, LIC-105, Managing Regulatory Commitments Made by Licensees to the NRC, Revision 7 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16190A013).
4. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OIG-A-17, Audit of NRC's Management of Licensee Commitments, September 19, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12334A683).
5. Nuclear Energy Institute, Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments, Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12300A004 - Attached to SECY 300).
6. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-95-300, Nuclear Energy Institute, Policy Issue - Nuclear Energy Institutes Guidance Document, Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments, December 20, 1995 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 060270189).
7. NRC Order EA-02-026, Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures, February 25, 2002. (Attachment 2 of this reference is identified as Safeguards Information which was not used.)

11

July 2023

Figure 1: Commitment Management Change Process

YES

NO

YES YES

NO NO

YES YES

NO NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES YES

NO NO

12

July 2023

Table 1: Commitment Evaluation Summary

Commitment Tracking Number: __________________

Title:

Step 0 - DOCUMENT THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE REGULATORY COMMITMENT AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL AND SAFETY JUSTIFICATION Source Document: ___________________________________________________________________

Existing Commitment

Description:

Revised Commitment

Description:

Summarize Justification for Revising Commitment:

Identify the implementation status of the regulatory commitment:

Identify the plant document(s) which implement the regulatory commitment.

(Attach additional sheet(s) as necessary. )

13

July 2023

Commitment Tracking Number: __________________

Title:

Step 1 - IS THERE A CODIFIED CHANGE PROCESS FOR THE COMMITMENT?

1.1 Is the commitment located in the QA Plan, Security Plan, Emergency Plan, In -Service Testing Plan, In-Service Inspection Plan, Fire Protection Plan, UFSAR, or plant procedure?

YES - STOP. Do not proceed with this evaluation. Instead, use the appropriate codified process.

NO - Continue with this evaluation.

1.2 Would the commitment change result in non-compliance with a regulation, require a license change, exemption, or other NRC approval?

YES: STOP. Do not proceed with this evaluation. Instead, use the appropriate codified process. END NO: Proceed to Step 2.

Step 2 - Was the original commitment designed to achieve compliance with an obligation?

2.1 Is the change related to compliance with an obligation?

YES - Continue with Step 2.2.

NO - Continue with Step 3.

2.2 Is the change a revision of an action or committed date for restoration of compliance?

YES: The change in committed action or date is justified; notify NRC of change prior to initial date.

END YES: The change in committed action or date is not justified; STOP - do not proceed with this evaluation; request appropriate regulatory approval. END NO: Continue with Step 2.3.

2.3 Is the change a revision of an action for ongoing compliance with an obligation and does the proposed change still achieve compliance?

YES: The change in committed action maintains compliance; of the proposed change may proceed without NRC notification. END YES: The change in committed action maintains compliance but requires a change to the plants Operating License or Technical Specifications ; STOP - do not proceed with this evaluation; request appropriate regulatory approval. END NO - STOP; compliance with the obligation is not maintained; request appropriate regulatory approval. END

14

July 2023

Commitment Tracking Number: __________________

Title:

Step 3 - Did the NRC rely upon the original commitment being considered for change?

3.1 Is the regulatory commitment relied upon by the NRC as part o f another regulatory action?

NO - Continue with Step 4.

YES - Continue with Step 3.2 3.2 Evaluate the safety significance of the proposed change to the commitment.

3.2.1 Could the change negatively impact one or more SSC safety functions?

NO - Continue with Step 3.3.

YES - Evaluate the change for safety significance (Step 3.2.3).

SSC Function(s) negatively impacted:

Document safety significance evaluation

3.2.4 Is the change safety significant (step 4.4)?

YES - STOP - do not proceed with this evaluation, obtain NRC prior approval. END NO - Continue with Step 3.3.

3.3 Has the original commitment been implemented?

NO - The original commitment has not been implemented - notify NRC by supplementing the docketed correspondence of the original commitment prior to the committed date. END YES - The original commitment has been implemented - the proposed change is acceptable without NRC notification. END

15

July 2023

Commitment Tracking Number: __________________

Title:

Step 4 - Was the original commitment made a corrective action of a condition adverse to quality?

4.1 Is the regulatory commitment related to recurrence of a dverse conditions to quality?

NO - The proposed change may proceed without NRC notification. END YES - Continue with Step 4.2.

4.2 Is the proposed change justified as not being adverse to quality ?

YES - The proposed change may proceed without NRC notification. END NO - The proposed change should not proceed. END

16

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23214A262&oldid=3698083"