ML24337A022

SA300 Comment Resolution Chart External

ML24337A022
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/18/2024
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
References
Download: ML24337A022 (1)

Text

ML24337A022 Comment Resolution Document - External Summary of Comments for Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting for the Agreement States.

The Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting for the Agreement States was sent to the Agreement States, NRC NMSS, and NRC Regions I, III, and IV for comment in STC Letter 24-035, Availability of Revision to Procedure SA-300 and the Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting for the Agreement States, on August 23, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML22251A240). The comment period was for 45 days and ended on October 7, 2024.

Comment No.

Source Location Comment Accepted Remarks 1

Texas Appendix C On page C1, Essential Details, the 4th bullet states and address. NMED is not setup to take a full address. It will take City, State, and zip code.

Yes Modified the Handbook to be more specific.

2 OAS Executive Board N/A In a letter dated October 4, 2024 The OAS Executive Board (Board) appreciates the opportunity to comment on STC-24-035, Revisions to Procedure SA-300 and the Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting for the Agreement States. After reviewing procedure SA-300 and the Handbook, the Board has no comments. The Board did not receive any comments from our Agreement State partners.

N/A Thank you!

3 Texas Appendix A The handbook is numbered A-9, A-10, A-11, A-10, A-11, A-12.

Pages A-10 and A-11 are repeated and contain redlined text.

Yes

4 Wisconsin Appendix A State of Wisconsin letter, dated September 27, 2024 (ML24276A089) - Comment 1 In Table A.1., Wisconsin supports having a single table which provides both where and in what timeframe reportable events from Agreement State licensees must be reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The previous version of the Handbook for Nuclear Material Event Reporting (Handbook) provided much clearer instructions to Agreement State staff on how and when to provide reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

The reviewers removed the previous chart as it was an oversimplification. The old chartwhich was brief and concisehad incorrectly characterized several of the reporting requirements which had fallen outside of the general rule. Although the new chart contains more information, it is complete and accurate.

Appendix A, NRC Regulatory Reporting Requirements, from the 2013 Handbook (ML13056A420) should not be used. Unfortunately, this chart had led some Agreement States to miss a report and/or to use the wrong reporting method.

This correction was further described in the STC 033 letter (ML22035A083).

5 Wisconsin Appendix A State of Wisconsin letter, dated September 27, 2024 (ML24276A089) - Comment 2 In Table A.1., Wisconsin does not support including the column on licensee timeliness No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

In Appendix A, the 4th column is titled Licensee

for submitting written reports to Agreement States, as licensee reporting is extraneous to the objectives of SA-300.

Reporting Requirement for Submitting a Written Report to the Agreement State.

In this column, we provided the regulatory citation associated with the written report requirement. In some cases, the requirement to submit a written report is found in a different regulation, unique from the regulation that required a report to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center (HOC). The content in this column also includes whether this written report is a 5-day, 15-day, or 30-day report. The NRC staff use this chart to help us to understand the regulatory framework as well as to anticipate the timeliness of written reports.

6 Wisconsin Flowchart 1 State of Wisconsin letter, dated September 27, 2024 (ML24276A089) - Comment 3(a)

The provided flowcharts in the Handbook contain information that is not central to the purpose of the procedure. Wisconsin recommends extraneous information be removed. Wisconsin believes that key information for Agreement State event reporting can fit on a single flowchart.

No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

The Agreement States are not the only users of this Handbook. The abstract of the Handbook was revised to include the following:

(a) Flowchart 1, The Agreement State licensee reports an event, does not contain information that will be used by Agreement States to report events. Wisconsin recommends Flowchart 1 be removed from the Handbook.

The handbook provides context of the Events program to NRC staff and is used as a reference in the NRC HOC.

This Handbook is used by NRC staff during the IMPEP reviews, staff within the NRC Headquarter Operation Center, and within the NMSS Events Coordination program.

NRC staff felt that these flowcharts were helpful in understanding the process as a whole.

7 Wisconsin Flowchart 2 (b) Flowchart 2, The Agreement State Reports Event to the NRC HOC, contains only two boxes that are applicable to Agreement States. The Agreement States involvement ends at box 2, The Agreement State contact the NRC HOC to share the reported event. There is no decision making step (diamond) prior to that box in the flowchart. All other steps in Flowchart 2 are performed by the NRC or other, federal entities. Wisconsin recommends those actions be removed from the flowchart to increase clarity of Agreement State steps in reporting an event to the NRC HOC.

No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

Flowcharts are to explain the process as a whole and include NRC staff as part of the target audience.

8 Wisconsin Flowchart 3 (c) Flowchart 3, NMED Record is Created, shows many steps performed by NRC, No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

some of which were completed in policy decisions. In addition, there are multiple final outcomes of the Flowchart including updating the NMED record after receiving and redacting the licensees written report (if applicable). Wisconsin recommends all actions performed by the NRC and references to reviewing and uploading the licensees written report be removed from Flowchart 3 to more clearly show steps taken by Agreement State staff to create an NMED record. The actions related to review of a written report should be moved to Flowchart 4.

Flowcharts are to explain the process as a whole and include NRC staff as part of the target audience.

9 Wisconsin (d) Flowchart 4, NMED Record is Updated, contains steps necessary to close the NMED record instead of steps necessary to update the record. Specifically, the Flowchart should provide the licensee written report review steps from Flowchart 3.

No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

Flowcharts are to explain the process as a whole and include NRC staff as part of the target audience.

10 Wisconsin Jurisdiction State of Wisconsin letter, dated September 27, 2024 (ML24276A089) - Comment 4(a)

Wisconsin supports the inclusion of a Jurisdiction section. However, it contains confusing information by trying to specify who has jurisdiction in various situations instead of stating the rule and providing context.

Wisconsin recommends the Section 5, Jurisdiction, be replaced with the following text:

Reportability requirements depend on the regulatory authority for the location where the reportable event occurred. For events that No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

The wording in the Handbook was in collaboration with our legal department. We are providing answers to questions that have been asked.

occur within NRCs areas of jurisdiction, the licensee is required to report directly to the NRC, and the NRC performs the follow-up investigation as necessary.

11 Wisconsin Jurisdiction State of Wisconsin letter, dated September 27, 2024 (ML24276A089) - Comment 4(b)

Wisconsin recommends the Section 5, Jurisdiction, be replaced with the following text:

Events that occur within an Agreement States jurisdiction are subject to the Agreement States reporting requirements.

Therefore licensees working in another state under reciprocity are required to report to the regulating authority for the temporary jobsite which is also the authority that granted the reciprocity license. The regulatory authority where the incident occurred should also coordinate with other Agreement States (or the NRC) when other jurisdictions are impacted.

No Weve considered your comment carefully and decided to not accept it.

The wording in the Handbook was in collaboration with our legal department. We are providing answers to questions that have been asked.