Sandbox: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Regex Bot Edit) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The investigation into how an individual accessed the Protected Area (PA) with a badge identified that the intent was to deactivate PA access as a way of proactively controlling access while the individual was on medical leave for an indeterminate amount of time. However, only the Fitness for Duty (FFD) program aspect was suspended but the badge access was inadvertently not deactivated. | The investigation into how an individual accessed the Protected Area ([[PA|PA]]) with a badge identified that the intent was to deactivate [[PA|PA]] access as a way of proactively controlling access while the individual was on medical leave for an indeterminate amount of time. However, only the [[Topic::Fitness for Duty|Fitness for Duty]] ([[FFD|FFD]]) program aspect was suspended but the badge access was inadvertently not deactivated. | ||
This was initially reported by ENS 53378 when discovered but retracted on Friday because actually PA access should be considered “authorized” for the purposes of the reporting criteria. The supervisor/sponsor still allowed access for PA entry, the time period was less than 30 days (FFD requirement), the event was not considered an intrusion event or a behavior observation violation, and there was no malicious intent on anyone’s part. | This was initially reported by [[ENS::ENS 53378|ENS 53378]] when discovered but retracted on Friday because actually [[PA|PA]] access should be considered “authorized” for the purposes of the reporting criteria. The supervisor/sponsor still allowed access for [[PA|PA]] entry, the time period was less than 30 days ([[FFD|FFD]] requirement), the event was not considered an intrusion event or a behavior observation violation, and there was no malicious intent on anyone’s part. | ||
Though no direct example is found in the guidance in Generic Letter 91-03 and Regulatory Guide 5.62 for the Reporting of Safeguards Events, the intent of the reporting criteria would suggest that 10 CFR 73 Appendix G Section I (b) wouldn’t apply to this event. Note: the FFD reporting programmatic reporting 10 CFR 26.719(b)(4) does still apply. | Though no direct example is found in the guidance in [[generic letter::NRC Generic Letter 91-03|Generic Letter 91-03]] and [[Regulatory Guide::Regulatory Guide 5.62|Regulatory Guide 5.62]] for the Reporting of Safeguards Events, the intent of the reporting criteria would suggest that [[CFR::10 CFR 73 Appendix G#|10 CFR 73 Appendix G]] Section I (b) wouldn’t apply to this event. Note: the [[FFD|FFD]] reporting programmatic reporting [[CFR::10 CFR 26.719#b4|10 CFR 26.719(b)(4)]] does still apply. | ||
Revision as of 10:00, 7 May 2018
The investigation into how an individual accessed the Protected Area (PA) with a badge identified that the intent was to deactivate PA access as a way of proactively controlling access while the individual was on medical leave for an indeterminate amount of time. However, only the Fitness for Duty (FFD) program aspect was suspended but the badge access was inadvertently not deactivated. This was initially reported by ENS 53378 when discovered but retracted on Friday because actually PA access should be considered “authorized” for the purposes of the reporting criteria. The supervisor/sponsor still allowed access for PA entry, the time period was less than 30 days (FFD requirement), the event was not considered an intrusion event or a behavior observation violation, and there was no malicious intent on anyone’s part.
Though no direct example is found in the guidance in Generic Letter 91-03 and Regulatory Guide 5.62 for the Reporting of Safeguards Events, the intent of the reporting criteria would suggest that 10 CFR 73 Appendix G Section I (b) wouldn’t apply to this event. Note: the FFD reporting programmatic reporting 10 CFR 26.719(b)(4) does still apply.