ML20133A690
| ML20133A690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/26/1996 |
| From: | Martin T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Tipton T NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701020048 | |
| Download: ML20133A690 (8) | |
Text
- _ . _ - _ _ _ _
24 g#
i, e 4 UNITED STATES E
j j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20 6 0001
. . . . . ,o December 26, 1996 Mr. Thomas E. Tipton Vice President and Director Operations, Maragement, and Support Services Division Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 300 1776 Eye Street, N.W. '
Wa hington, DC 20006-2496
Dear Mr. Tipton:
We have completed our review of " Nuclear Power Plant Personnel Access Authorization Standards and Procedures - NEI 95-01 (Revision 1)" which you forwarded to B. Grimes, NRC, on'May 9, 1996, and have determined that it continues to raise substantial questions of compliance with applicable NRC regulations and Regulatory Guide 5.66.
Your May 9,1996, letter advised that portions of the original NEI-95-01 were revised to address NRC staff concerns about the document as discussed with NEI representatives at a public meeting on April 22, 1996. Your letter also stated that the revised version would be distributed to the industry with a copy of Mr. Grimes' review letter as soon as it was available.
Enclosed are some examples of guidance found in Revision 1 that raise substantial questions of compliance. The examples are not intended to be ;
inclusive of all potential regulatory issues in the document. Rather, they '
represent the types of issues that appear throughout Revision 1.
Some licensees have told us that they had received Revision 1 from the NEI and that they were unsure if the NRC had endorsed it. Also, some were uncertain as to whether they had to continue to follow their current physical security plan commitments to implement "all elements" of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 5.66, " Access Authorization Program for Nuclear Power Plants," June 1991, because some of the NEI guidance appeared to reduce program effort below that described in the RG. We advised the licensees that the NRC staff had not endorsed the original or revised NEI 95-01 and that they must continue to implement all elements of RG 5.66 if they have committed to do so in their physical security plans.
We recommend that the NEI thoroughly review Revision 1 and any other NEI access authorization or fitness-for-duty program implementation documents that it has provided to licensees to ensure that following the guidance will not place licensees in violation of NRC regulations or their license commitments /
to the NRC. g 9701020048 961226 bREh E P 64 tib 9 mon C UJsJtJJg M &E ew IRC RLE CENTHICOPY 7W76 ,
Thomas T. Tipton !
1 If you have any questions, please contact N. Ervin of my staff at J
- (301) 415-2946.
Sincerely, j Original signed by D. Matthews l for Thomas T. Martin, Director Division of Reactor Program Support -
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation )
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1: J. Lieberman 1 i
Distribution:
Central Files PDR PSGB r/f T. Martin D. Matthews A. Thadani F. Miraglia l 1
i i
DOCUMENT NAME: g:\ current \AA9501R. nee *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE i Tm receive e copy of this document,Indcote in the box: "C" = Copy without ettechment/ enclosure "E" = Copy with ettechmentfiprJosure *N* (Noch 0FFICE PSGB:DRPM w 16 PSGB:DRPM _
l{E OGC l BC:P3Cg My$F BC:PGLB)MRM NAME NEErvin /f LLBush GS RFonner* LJQuMinghW DMatthefws DATE 12//') /96 1 ,i 12// 7 /96 12/9/96 12/T'/V86 12/qh/96 0FFICE D:DRPM:48%\,\ l NAME TTMartinD ~
lDATE 12/MO/96 12/ /96 12/9/96 12/ /96 12/ /96 d 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
O Comments on the NEI'S " NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL ACCESS AUTHORIZATION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES, NEI 95-01 (REVISION 1), JUNE 1996"
GENERAL COMMENT
S:
- 1. Many of the sections in Revision 1 address actions to be taken or discuss in detail the meaning of access authorization (AA) elements without including everything that is required. We recognize that the NEI has added periodic qualifiers in Revision 1, such as, "Nothing in these guidelines shall be used to abrogate any regulatory d'cument-if use. . . leads to any conflict. ..the regulatory document shall ve,"en." in an effort to address this issue, which we identified during our review of the original version of NEI-95-01.
However, based on questions and comments we have received from licensees regarding Revision 1 guidance and our review of the document, it appears that not fully addressing requirements may still cause licensees to violate NRC regulations or their license commitments to the NRC, even with the periodic qualifiers. Some examples are provided in our specific comments below.
- 2. Revision 1 specifically references other industry guidance documents which were never provided to, or reviewed by, us and directs licensees to follow their guidance (e.g., "ACAD 93-009" or "NEI 95-04" are referenced in paragraph 14). We do not know if such documents meet the intent of applicable NRC regulations.
- 3. Revision 1 specifies certain actions to be taken that, although not in conflict with applicable regulations, are not specifically required by the NRC. For example, paragraph 8 provides only one, very specific example of an acceptable written personality test (the "MMPI"). The AA rule does not dictate a specific written personality test. The Commission discussed the issue of requiring a specific test in the AA rule summary and stated that "It is not the intent of the Commission to recommend a particular test." The j Commission position, as stated in paragraph 6.3 of the Appendix to Regulatory Guide (RG) 5.66, is that " Reliability and stability must be determined by the result of a reliable written personality test or other professionally accepted clinical evaluation procedures."
- 4. It appears that some guidance in Appendix G to Revision 1 (" Access Authorization (AA) Program Issues and Responses" June 1996) conflicts with the intent of applicable regulations and could cause licensees to violate NRC regulations or their license commitments to the NRC. As discussed during the April 22, 1996, public meeting, we conditionally agreed in October 1994 that, if our comments were incorporated into a draft version of Appendix G, it should not conflict with the applicable regulations. The NEI subsequently advised us that the NEI had incorporated the NRC's comments and distributed the final version of the document to industry, but that the response to one issue had been removed for further discussion with the NRC staff. There was no indication that the NEI did not agree with or did not include any other NRC comments. Subsequently, a number of licensees advised us that they were not aware of certain NRC clarifications and that they thought that the NRC had ENCLOSURE
1 t
l agreed that the published document met the intent of 10 CFR Parts 26~(fitness-
- for-duty (FFD) rule), 73.56 -(AA rule), and 73.57 (Fingerprint (FPC) rule). We j advised them that if our comments were not incorporated, it was possible that some of the guidance could conflict with' applicable regulations.
2 We noted that you did attach a copy of our October 1994 comments to a Appendix G, however, there is no clarification provided specifically in the
- text of Revision 1 that would identify the NRC comments that were not
- incorporated. Therefore, it appears that the guidance could still have the
! potential to cause licensees to violate NRC regulations or their license i commitments to the NRC, especially sinc'e Revision 1 provides certain guidance i that is also found'in the NEI document, " Access Authorization (AA) Program
! Issues and Responses," without identifying the NRC comments or qualifiers regarding that guidance. NEI's failure to identify the NRC positions that i were not incorporated in the text of Revision 1 might cause licensees to
- violate NRC regulations or their license commitments to the NRC. Some j examples are provided-in our specific comments below.
1 SPECIFIC COMENTS:
! 1. Paraaraoh 4." Definitions-lhese definitions expand upon but do not reolace i the definitions found in RG 5.66 Guidelines.".
! - Definition 4.1, " Ascertaining activities " refers to Section 10.1 of i Revision 1 which only refers to reinstatement requirements. Neither paragraph addresses screening actions required for employees with active unescorted
- access (UA), badged or unbadged, who are away from licensee or. licensee-2 approved behavioral observation programs (BOPS). in excess of 30 days. This l j does not appear to be clarified anywhere in Revision 1.
i i The intent of the AA rule and the NRC requirements associated with such an >
l absence were discussed in detail in our comments to you regarding the March-i 1993 draft of the NEI's " Access Authorization (AA) Program Issues and
, Responses," referenced above. We advised you that UA is considered interrupted when an individual is away from a licensee or licensee-approved .
. BOP for more than 30 days, reaardless of whether the unescorted access is
, active or has been terminated and that the licensee must ascertain that the j activities the individual engaged in during the absence did not have the
- potential to affect his or her trustworthiness and reliability. It should be i clarified that the "ascertainina" must be completed orior to allowing reentry j into the reactor protected area.
- 2. Paraaraoh 5.2."Temoorary Unescorted Access Authorization".
l
! - Paragraph 5.2 states that a "one year suitable inquiry is required prior to the granting of a temporary UA." This does not fully meet the intent of
, the FFD rule, which is that a one-year suitable inquiry be completed ap_d i
suitable inquiries be initiated for the remainder of the previous five years i-i j ENCLOSURE J ;
i I _ - - . -_- -
l (i.e., inquiries must be transmitted prior to granting te.aporary UA). This I comment also applies to paragraph 13 and could apply to other areas of the document.
- Paragraph 5.2 of Revision 1 specifies that identity must be verified but l does not specify that it must be verified through a photo ID, such as a .
driver's license, military ID, passport or similar document, for temporary UA l authorization, as is specified in the Appendix to RG 5.66. Additionally, paragraph 6.3 of Revision 1 provides general verification of identity information which also does not include the actions specified in the Appendix to RG 5.66 for temporary UA authorization. Failure to specify that identification must be verified through a photo ID may cause confusion by appearing to imply that the lesser actions will still meet the intent of the AA rule.
- Paragraph 5.2 identifies some of the screening actions specified in the temporary UA requirements in the Appendix to RG 5.66 relative to obtaining a recommendation from one developed character reference. Regulatory intent regarding this issue appears to be reduced further by language in paragraphs 3 )'
and 6.7 of Revision 1. Paragraph 3 of Revision 1 states, "if there is any.
conflict or variance between the supplementary information in the appendices of NEI 95-31 and the text, the text shall govern." Paragraph 6.7 provides general guidance for accomplishing character and reputation checks and states that "No spacific frequency of contact is required...."
The Appendix to RG 5.66 specifies that licensees must develop information from a reference who has had frequent and direct association with the person !
applying for UA when conducting background screening for temporary UA. Our i October 24, 1994, comments to you regarding the March 1993 draft of the NEI's
" Access Authorization (AA) Program Issues and Responses," referenced abwe,
- specified that industry guidance "...should include some discussion on the imoortance of the "freauent" and " direct" association when conducting an
. investigation for arantina a temocrary access." We also commented that such an investigation is " limited at best and only one developed reference is relied on, which is why the NRC and the industry agreed that the association must be frequent and direct..." and that in " responding to the question of how !
frequent must the association be, you may want to point out that frequent, by 1 i definition, occurs "often", and often, by definition, occurs many times, not i
- occasionally." l i
We note that although NEI's final version of its " Access Authorization (AA)
Program Issues and Responses" does incorporate our above definition of
" frequent," Revision 1 does not. Therefore, if licensees choose to apply guidance specified in Paragraphs 3 and 6.7 of Revision 1, they could determine ,
that the contact no longer has to be frequent and direct for the developed i j reference required for temporary UA authorization. l
, The intent of the temporary access provisions in the AA, FFD, and FPC rules, i as described in the supplementary information section of the federal Register notices at rule publication and in regulatory guidance, such as RG 5.66, was to allow " temporary" UA based on a reduction in some of the required scope of ENCLOSURE i
. -3_ !
Z
access screening, contingent upon certain specified screening that the Commission determined necessary to provide high assurance that the individuals were trustworthy and reliable and that they did not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. Licensees are expected to complete the screening and specified elements must be met, such as those described above or temporary UA cannot be granted.
- 3. Paraaraoh 6.4. "Emoloyment History".
- Paragraph 6.4 appears to reduce current licensee requirements and regulatory intent regarding "best effort," as specified in the Appendix to RG 5.66 for employment history. Paragraph 6.4 provides extensive guidance but fails to address certain, very specific requirements identified in the Appendix to RG 5.66 regarding completion of the three-year employment history.
These concerns were discussed with NEI representatives at the April 22, 1996, public meeting referenced above.
The Appendix to RG 5.66 specifies that a minimum three-year inclusive employment history immediately preceding application fdr unescorted access is mandatory. It states that if employment history cannot be accomplished for the entire five-year period utilities may consider applicants for unescorted access basad upon an inclusive three-year retrospective employment check and that "under no circumstances may unescorted access be granted based on an employment check of less than three years..." If licensees have made reasonable attempts to complete the full five-year employment check but cannot, they must complete an employment check covering at least the past three years.
- Para 6.4 states that licensees may use " secondary sources" of employment verification if " reasonable documented attempts" to obtain information do not produce a "oromot" response. Our October 24, 1994, comments to you regarding the March 1993 draft of the NEI's " Access Authorization (AA) Program Issues and Responses," referenced above, specified that the check itself must still be completed on a best effort basis and cannot be closed out as best effort just because it cannot be completed in a couple of days.
Using secondary sources, such as just looking at pay stubs and verifying through personal references who generally do not have knowledge of the euployment information necessary to complete a proper check (e.g.,
disciplinary history, reasons for termination, eligibility of rehire, etc.), !
should only be a last resort in cases in which companies have gone out of l business.
- 4. Paraaraoh 6.5." Education History".
- Paragraph 6.5 of Revision 1 only provides h1gh school as an example of I education that must be checked for the previous five years and fails to !
identify actions specified in the Appendix to RG 5.66 relative to checking 1 military training, night school, technical school, trade school, or i correspondence courses if enrollment was in lieu of high school or college. l It does reference a previous NUMARC guidance document (Appendix I to Revision !
ENCLOSURE e
- 1) which appears to adequately address this, however,Section VI of Attachment C to Revision 1 specifically states that "It is not necessary to check military training, night school, technical school, trade school, or correspondence courses unless full time participation in one of these was in lieu of high school." This attachment is the Personal History Statement and contains instructions to applicants regarding what information must be identified. The conflicting guidance in the 3 documents could cause licensees to violate NRC regulations or their license commitments to the NRC. The Appendix to RG 5.66 specifies that licensees must check military training, night school, technical school, trade school, or correspondence courses if enrollment was in lieu of high school or college. ,
i
- 5. Paraaraoh 6.7. " Character and Reputation".
- Paragraph 6.7 allows licensees to use developed references in lieu of required listed references when completing their full background investigations, with no applicable qualifiers or limitations. The Appendix to RG 5.66 specifies that licensees must examine the applicant's reputation for emotional stability, reliability, and trustworthiness through contact with two references supplied by the applicant and at least two additional references (not related to the applicant) developed during the investigation. ,
A best effort must be made to contact 2 listed references and 2 developed I references. Best effort would include obtaining additional listed references l from the individual.
Our October 24, 1994, comments to you regarding the March 1993 draft of the ;
NEI's " Access Authorization (AA) Program Issues and Re.ponses," referenced '
above, provides similar guidance regarding "best effort" attempts to contact developed references. Our " Response B.2." states, "Another approach would be ,
to obtain additiont.1 listed references from the individual being processed and ,
try again." Th d URC staff comment was not included in the published " Issues and Responses" guidance document. In cases in which licensees have obtained a reasonable number of additional listed references and still cannot obtain the listed references, they could use developed references.
- 6. Paraaraoh 16. " Audits of Contractor / Vendor Proarams".
- Paragraph 16 states "For audits of C/Vs by more than one licensee, there is an industry scheduling program. Additionally, background investigating agencies or similar use entities used by more than one licensee can be included in this annual audit program." If this is meant to include background investigating agencies or other entities used in the licensee's
" utility program" as addressed in paragraph 13.1 of the Appendix to RG 5.66, the guidance may cause licensees to violate NRC regulations or their license commitments to the NRC. There do not appear to be any provisions in the AA rule that allow licensees to " share" audits of contractors or vendors used for the " utility programs", only for Contractor and Vendor administered access authorization programs (self screening contractor AA programs).
ENCLOSURE
's 1
It appears that the guidance in Paragraph 16 regarding inclusion of a subject matter expert "from the licensee's access authorization or fitness-for-duty program...as long as the expert does not audit his or her own work" may conflict with the intent of the AA rule. We note that our position regarding this kind of issue is attached to Appendix H of Revision 1, however, Paragraph 3 of Revision states, "if there is any conflict or variance between the supplemer.tary information in the appendices of NEI 95-01 and the text, the text shall govern." Therefore, Revision 1 overrides the Appendix.
Also, it is not. clear what the NEI means by "as long as the expert does not audit his or her own work?" Some licensees have questioned whether the
" expert" can " review background investigation files as long.as he/she did not process."that-individual," even though he/she may have provided generic guidance regarding what must be done to complete the screening, etc.
It appears that the above guidance may conflict- with the intent of the AA rule and could cause licensees to violate NRC regulations or their license commitments to the NRC.
- Paragraph 16 states that "There is no requirement for a licensee to have a copy of a shared audit in hand before it grants UAA to an individual under this program." That is correct; however, licensees cannot grant UAA to individuals without ensuring that the contractor / vendor or subcontractor ,
programs meets the requirements of the AA Rule. The above statement could be !
misinterpreted. We have expressed concern about guidance such as this '
previously. In our October 24, 1994, comments to you regarding the March 1993 draft of the NEI's " Access Authorization (AA) Program Issues and Responses,"
referenced above, we specified that licensees do have responsibilities with ,
respect to review of contractor / vendor / subcontractor programs prior to j approval. '
The AA rule states that "The licensee may accept an access authorization program used by its contractors or vendors for their employees provided it meets the requirements of this section."
i 1
1
~ l l
ENCLOSURE i