Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Regex Bot Edit)
(Replaced content with "{{#ask:-Request for::TSTF-545 |?site |format=table }}")
Line 1: Line 1:
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.
{{#ask:[[-Request for::TSTF-545]]
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.
|?site
 
|format=table
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 10:04, 14 May 2018