Category 3 Source Security and Accountability, 2399-2402 [2017-00169]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Wu, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
1951; email: Irene.Wu@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[NRC–2016–0276]
Category 3 Source Security and
Accountability
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Source protection; public
meetings and request for comment.
AGENCY:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
On October 18, 2016, the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
issued a Staff Requirements
Memorandum (SRM) for COMJMB–16–
0001 and directed NRC staff to take
specific actions to evaluate whether it is
necessary to revise NRC regulations or
processes governing source protection
and accountability. Specifically, the
Commission asked the staff to conduct
an evaluation of, among other things,
the pros and cons of different methods
of requiring transferors of Category 3
quantities of radioactive material to
verify the validity of a transferee’s
license prior to transfer, the pros and
cons of including Category 3 sources in
the National Source Tracking System
(NSTS), and the risks posed by
aggregation of Category 3 sources into
Category 2 quantities. As part of this
evaluation, the NRC is seeking input
from licensees, Agreement States, and
the public to inform the staff’s
assessment of potential revisions to
regulations or processes requiring
Category 3 source protection and
accountability.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments by March 10,
2017. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0276. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–
0276 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0276.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
0276 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2399
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
In 2007, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) conducted
an investigation (GAO–07–1038T) on
NRC’s licensing program and was able
to obtain a radioactive materials license
using a fictitious company and place
orders that would have resulted, if
actually obtained, in receipt of an
aggregated Category 3 quantity of
radioactive material. After the 2007
investigation, the NRC and the
Agreement States made a number of
important changes to strengthen the
licensing and regulatory processes to
prevent malevolent individuals from
obtaining a radioactive material license.
The NRC staff submitted an Action Plan
(SECY–07–0147) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML072360206) to the Commission
to respond to recommendations for
addressing security issues in the
National Materials Program. The
Commission approved the staff’s Action
Plan, which included a consideration of
expanding the NSTS to include
Category 3 sources plus a subset of
‘‘high-end’’ Category 4 sources (SRM–
SECY–07–0147) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML072620088). The proposed rule on
Expansion of NSTS to include
additional nationally tracked sources
was published in the Federal Register
in April 2008 (73 FR 19749).
In January 2009, licensees began
reporting Category 1 and 2 source
information to the NSTS. The NRC staff
submitted a request to the Commission
to defer further expansion of the NSTS
to allow staff to monitor operation of the
NSTS for one year and to apply insights
gained for the decision on system
expansion (SECY–09–0011) (ADAMS
Accession No. ML083540566). This
request for deferral was not approved,
so in June 2009, the staff requested
approval of the final rule amending
parts 20 and 32 title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to expand
reporting to the NSTS to include
Category 3 sources (SECY–09–0086)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML091390202).
In June 2009, the Commission did not
reach a decision on the proposed
rulemaking (2–2 split vote), and the
final rule was not approved (SRM–
SECY–09–0086) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML091811125). Some of the
Commission votes indicated that further
expansion of the NSTS should be based
upon a vulnerability assessment, built
off an interagency risk study for sources,
and that the original recommendation
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
2400
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Notices
lacked a risk-informed foundation for
proposed regulatory action.
In 2014, the GAO initiated an audit of
the materials licensing program to
determine whether the licensing
vulnerabilities identified in their 2007
investigation had been addressed by the
regulatory framework and other
improvements implemented by the NRC
and the Agreement States. In 2015, as
part of the audit, GAO conducted an
investigation that attempted to obtain
radioactive materials licenses from one
NRC regional office and two separate
Agreement States. The investigation
sought approval of licenses authorizing
the procurement of one Category 3
source using a fictitious company. The
2015 investigation went beyond the
2007 investigation in its sophistication
and planning, such that GAO rented
storefront/warehouse space to
demonstrate their legitimacy during prelicensing visits. Despite this level of
effort, the GAO was unsuccessful in two
of three attempts; however, the GAO
was able to acquire a license for a
Category 3 well logging source in one
attempt. GAO successfully placed an
order for one Category 3 source using
the license, then altered it and used it
to place an order for a second Category
3 source. The investigation
demonstrated that GAO could have
acquired an aggregated Category 2
quantity of material, although at no
point in the investigation were
radioactive materials actually shipped
to the fictitious company. Once notified
of the investigation by GAO in October
2015, the NRC and Agreement States
took a number of actions, one of which
included forming two NRC-Agreement
State working groups to evaluate
vulnerabilities identified as a result of
the 2015 GAO investigation.
Specifically, one working group
considered enhancements to the prelicensing guidance while the second
working group evaluated the need for
enhancements to existing requirements
or guidance for license verification and
source tracking beyond Category 1 and
Category 2 thresholds.
On July 15, 2016, the GAO published
its final report of the material licensing
audit and investigation, GAO–16–330,
entitled ‘‘Nuclear Security: NRC Has
Enhanced the Controls of Dangerous
Radioactive Materials, but
Vulnerabilities Remain.’’ The report
made three recommendations:
1. Take steps needed to include
Category 3 sources in the NSTS and add
Agreement State Category 3 licenses to
the Web-based Licensing System as
quickly as reasonably possible.
2. At least until such time that
Category 3 licenses can be verified using
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
the License Verification System, require
that transferors of Category 3 quantities
of radioactive materials confirm the
validity of a would-be purchaser’s
radioactive materials license with the
appropriate regulatory authority before
transferring any Category 3 quantities of
licensed materials.
3. As part of the ongoing efforts of
NRC working groups meeting to develop
enhancements to the pre-licensing
requirements for Category 3 licenses,
consider requiring that an on-site
security review be conducted for all
unknown applicants of Category 3
licenses to verify that each applicant is
prepared to implement the required
security measures before taking
possession of licensed radioactive
materials.
Given the NRC’s operating experience
with higher-risk sources and in response
to the findings by GAO, the Commission
directed the staff to take specific actions
to evaluate whether it is necessary to
revise NRC regulations or processes
governing source protection and
accountability. Specifically, on October
18, 2016, the Commission issued its
SRM for COMJMB–16–0001, ‘‘Proposed
Staff Re-Evaluation of Category 3 Source
Accountability’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16292A812). The SRM required the
staff to conduct the following tasks:
1. An evaluation of the pros and cons
of different methods of requiring
transferors of Category 3 sources to
verify the validity of a transferee’s
license prior to transfer;
2. An evaluation of the pros and cons
of including Category 3 sources in
NSTS;
3. An assessment, based on these
evaluations, of these and any additional
options that the staff identifies for
addressing the source accountability
recommendations made by the GAO;
4. A vulnerability assessment which
identifies changes in the threat
environment between 2009 and today
that argue in favor of or against
expansion of the NSTS to include
Category 3 sources;
5. A regulatory impact analysis of the
accrued benefit and costs of the change,
to include impacts to the NRC,
Agreement States, non-Agreement
States, and regulated entities;
6. A discussion of potential regulatory
actions that would not require changes
to our regulations that arose from or
were considered by the staff working
groups, to include changes to guidance,
training, and other program
improvements such as more closely
monitoring the implementation of the
staff recommendations using the
Integrated Materials Performance
Evaluation Program process; and
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7. Any other factors arising from the
staff’s currently ongoing assessment that
the staff concludes would bear on the
Commission’s deliberation on the
proposed change.
The SRM also directed the staff to
assess the risks posed by the aggregation
of Category 3 sources into Category 2
quantities and to collaborate with its
Agreement State partners, nonAgreement States, regulated entities,
public interest groups, industry groups,
and the reactor community.
Additionally, the SRM directed the
staff to consider the results of the
assessment of the security requirements
in 10 CFR part 37, ‘‘Physical Protection
of Category 1 and 2 Quantities of
Radioactive Material,’’ as required by
the Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bills
for Fiscal Year 2015, as a means to
inform the staff’s evaluation. This
assessment, referred to as the ‘‘program
review’’ of 10 CFR part 37, encompassed
an evaluation of nine review areas
related to implementation of the
security requirements in the rule. These
areas included the results of inspections
conducted of NRC licensees in the first
two years of rule implementation, as
well as an evaluation of events reported
under the provisions of the rule. The
program review also included
consideration of the definition of
aggregation as it applies to well logging
sources and an evaluation of enhanced
tracking and accounting of radioactive
sources. A report detailing the program
review was provided to Congress on
December 14, 2016 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16348A230).
In the interest of fully informing the
public of the staff’s evaluation of
Category 3 source security and
accountability, the staff is issuing this
notice to request specific feedback from
stakeholders. The information received
from this request will help to fully
assess the regulatory impact for any
recommendations related to Category 3
source security and accountability and
will be documented in a paper that will
be provided to the Commission in
August 2017.
III. Specific Considerations
The NRC has developed specific
questions that are separated into
sections based on the topics and
applicability to relevant stakeholders.
These include: general questions related
to license verification, general questions
related to the NSTS, specific questions
for licensees related to license
verification, specific questions for
licensees related to the NSTS, specific
questions for Agreement States related
to license verification, specific
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Notices
questions for Agreement States related
to the NSTS, and other questions.
The NRC is requesting comments on
license verification involving transfers
of Category 3 quantities of radioactive
material and the inclusion of Category 3
sources in the NSTS. Please note that
Table 1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR part
37 provides the thresholds for Category
1 and Category 2 quantities of
radioactive material and Appendix E of
10 CFR part 20 provides the thresholds
for Category 1 and 2 sources included in
NSTS. The list of radionuclides subject
to physical security requirements in 10
CFR part 37 is different than the list of
radionuclides included in NSTS. NRC
regulations do not include a definition
for Category 3 but the NRC has
historically considered the Category 3
threshold to be greater than 1/10th of
the Category 2 threshold but less than
the Category 2 threshold.
Please be cautious in providing
comments that contain specific
examples and do not provide any
specific official-use-only, safeguards,
and/or classified information related to
a specific facility.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
General Questions Related to License
Verification
1. Should the current methods for
verification of licenses prior to
transferring Category 3 quantities of
radioactive material listed in 10 CFR
30.41(d)(1)–(5), 10 CFR 40.51(d)(1)–(5),
and 10 CFR 70.42(d)(1)–(5) be changed
such that only the methods prescribed
in 10 CFR 37.71 are allowed?
2. Would there be an increase in
safety and/or security if the regulations
were changed to only allow license
verification through the NRC’s License
Verification System (LVS) or the
transferee’s license issuing authority for
transfers of Category 3 quantities of
radioactive material? If so, how much of
an increase would there be?
3. If the NRC changed the regulations
to limit license verification only through
the LVS or the transferee’s license
issuing authority for transfers of
Category 3 quantities of radioactive
material, should licensees transferring
Category 3 quantities to manufacturers
and distributors be excepted from the
limitation?
4. Is there anything else we should
consider when evaluating different
methods of license verification prior to
transferring Category 3 quantities of
radioactive material?
General Questions Related to the NSTS
1. Should Category 3 sources be
included in the NSTS? Please provide a
rationale for your answer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
2. If Category 3 sources are included
in the NSTS, should the NRC consider
imposing the same reporting
requirements currently required for
Category 1 and 2 sources (10 CFR
20.2207(f))?
3. Should the NRC consider
alternatives to the current NSTS
reporting requirements for Category 1
and 2 sources to increase the immediacy
of information availability, such as
requiring the source transfers to be
reported prior to, or on the same day as,
the source shipment date?
4. Would there be an increase in
safety and/or security if the regulations
were changed to include Category 3
sources in the NSTS? If so, how much
of an increase would there be?
5. Is there anything else we should
consider as part of our evaluation of
including Category 3 sources in the
NSTS?
Specific Questions for Licensees Related
to License Verification
1. It currently takes approximately
one month to get credentialed to access
the LVS. If you currently do not have
online access to LVS, and NRC
establishes new requirements for license
verification involving Category 3
quantities of radioactive material, would
you be inclined to sign up for online
access, or would you use alternative
methods for license verification such as
emailing the NRC Form 748 ‘‘Manual
License Verification Report’’ to the LVS
Help Desk or calling the license-issuing
regulatory authority directly?
2. Approximately how many transfers
involving Category 3 quantities of
radioactive material do you do monthly?
What percentage involves transfers
directly to/from a manufacturer?
3. Should license verification be
required when transferring to an
established manufacturer?
4. Do you have online access to LVS?
If so, have you experienced any issues
with the LVS? Do you have any
recommendations on how to improve
LVS?
Specific Questions for Licensees Related
to the NSTS
1. It currently takes approximately
one month to get credentialed to access
the NSTS. If you currently do not have
online access to the NSTS and NRC
establishes new requirements for the
tracking of Category 3 sources in the
NSTS, would you be inclined to sign up
for online access or would you use
alternative methods for NSTS reporting
such as emailing or faxing the NRC
Form 748 ‘‘National Source Tracking
Transaction Report’’ to the NSTS Help
Desk?
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2401
2. Do you have online access to the
NSTS? If so, have you experienced any
issues with the NSTS? Do you have any
recommendations on how to improve
the NSTS?
Specific Questions for Agreement States
Related to License Verification
1. Approximately how many licenses
do you authorize for Category 1, 2, and
3 quantities of radioactive material?
2. If license verification through the
LVS or the transferee’s license issuing
authority is required for transfers
involving Category 3 quantities of
radioactive material, would you
encourage the use of LVS among your
licensees, or plan for the additional
burden imposed by the manual license
verification process?
3. If license verification through the
LVS or the transferee’s license issuing
authority is required for transfers
involving Category 3 quantities of
radioactive material, would you
consider adopting the Web-Based
Licensing System (WBL) to ensure that
the most up-to-date licenses are
available for license verification using
the LVS or voluntarily provide your
Category 3 licenses (similar to what
some Agreement States do now for
Category 1 and 2 licenses) to be
included in WBL, or would you do
neither and prefer licensees to use the
manual license verification process?
4. What would the impact in time and
resources be on your program to handle
the additional regulatory oversight
needed for Category 3 licensees if
license verification through the LVS or
the transferee’s license issuing authority
was required for transfers involving
Category 3 quantities of radioactive
material?
Specific Question for Agreement States
Related to the NSTS
1. The NRC currently administers the
annual inventory reconciliation process
on behalf of the Agreement States. This
process involves providing hard copy
inventories to every licensee that
possesses nationally tracked sources at
the end of the year, processing
corrections to inventories, and
processing confirmations of completion
of the reconciliation into the NSTS. The
process involves a significant amount of
staff time and resources from November
to February. If the Agreement States
were to adopt administration of the
annual inventory reconciliation process
and if Category 3 sources were included
in the NSTS, what would the additional
regulatory burden be on the Agreement
States to perform the annual inventory
reconciliation for Category 1, 2, and 3
sources?
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
2402
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Notices
Other Questions
1. Should physical security
requirements for Category 1 and 2
quantities of radioactive material be
expanded to include Category 3
quantities?
2. Some Category 3 sources are
covered under a general license (10 CFR
31.5). Should the NRC consider
establishing maximum quantities in
general licensed devices, thereby
reserving authorization to possess
Category 1, 2, and 3 quantities of
radioactive material to specific
licensees?
IV. Public Comments Process
The NRC is committed to keeping the
public informed and values public
involvement in its assessment effort.
Responses to this solicitation will be
considered by NRC in preparing a report
to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the
Senate, pursuant to Public Law 113–
235, Section 403 and will inform staff
consideration of the regulatory impacts
for any recommendations related to
Category 3 source security and
accountability, which will be
documented in a paper to be provided
to the Commission in August 2017. The
NRC, however, does not intend to
provide specific responses to comments
or other information submitted in
response to this request.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
V. Public Meetings
The NRC plans to hold three public
meetings and two webinars during the
public comment period for this action.
The first public meeting is scheduled for
January 31, 2017, at NRC Headquarters.
The two other public meetings will be
held outside of the Washington DC area.
The webinars are scheduled for
February 21, 2017 and March 2, 2017.
The public meetings and webinars will
provide forums for the NRC staff to
discuss the issues and questions with
members of the public. The information
received will be used by NRC to develop
a report to the Commission. The NRC
does not intend to provide any
responses to comments submitted
during the public meetings and
webinars. Each public meeting and
webinar will be noticed on the NRC’s
public meeting Web site at least 10
calendar days before the meeting.
Members of the public should monitor
the NRC’s public meeting Web site for
additional information about the public
meetings at https://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm. The
NRC will post the notices for the public
meetings and webinars and may post
additional material related to this action
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
to the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
NRC–2016–0276. The Federal
Rulemaking Web site allows you to
receive alerts when changes or additions
occur in a docket folder. To subscribe:
(1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC–
2016–0276); (2) click the ‘‘Sign up for
Email Alerts’’ link; and (3) enter your
email address and select how frequently
you would like to receive emails (daily,
weekly, or monthly).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day
of December 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pamela J. Henderson,
Deputy Director, Division of Material Safety,
State, Tribal and Rulemaking Programs,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2017–00169 Filed 1–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0235]
Tribal Policy Statement
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Policy statement; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing this
Statement of Policy to set forth
principles to be followed by the NRC
staff to promote effective government-togovernment interactions with American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes, and to
encourage and facilitate Tribal
involvement in the areas over which the
Commission has jurisdiction. It provides
agencywide guidelines that achieve
consistency, but also encourage customtailored approaches to consultation and
coordination that reflect the
circumstances of each situation and the
preference of each Tribal government. It
is the NRC’s expectation that all
program and regional office consultation
and coordination practices will be
consistent with or adhere to the NRC
Tribal Policy Statement.
DATES: This policy statement is effective
on January 9, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2012–0235 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0235. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced. The Tribal
Policy Statement, in its entirety, is in
the attachment to this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin O’Sullivan, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–8112, email: Tribal_
Outreach.Resource@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Discussion
III. Opportunity for Public Participation
IV. Procedural Requirements
I. Background
The purpose of the NRC Tribal Policy
Statement is to establish policy
principles to be followed by the NRC to
promote effective government-togovernment interactions with Indian
Tribes, and to encourage and facilitate
Tribal involvement in the areas over
which the Commission has jurisdiction.
The NRC licenses and regulates the
Nation’s civilian use of radioactive
materials to protect public health and
safety, common defense and security,
and the environment under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA)
(42 U.S.C. 2011). Other statutory
provisions such as the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C.
300101) can require Tribal consultation
as part of the NRC’s evaluation of
agency activities during licensing
actions, rulemaking, or policy
development. The NRC complies with
statutory provisions and NRC regulatory
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2399-2402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00169]
[[Page 2399]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0276]
Category 3 Source Security and Accountability
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Source protection; public meetings and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 18, 2016, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for COMJMB-16-0001
and directed NRC staff to take specific actions to evaluate whether it
is necessary to revise NRC regulations or processes governing source
protection and accountability. Specifically, the Commission asked the
staff to conduct an evaluation of, among other things, the pros and
cons of different methods of requiring transferors of Category 3
quantities of radioactive material to verify the validity of a
transferee's license prior to transfer, the pros and cons of including
Category 3 sources in the National Source Tracking System (NSTS), and
the risks posed by aggregation of Category 3 sources into Category 2
quantities. As part of this evaluation, the NRC is seeking input from
licensees, Agreement States, and the public to inform the staff's
assessment of potential revisions to regulations or processes requiring
Category 3 source protection and accountability.
DATES: Submit comments by March 10, 2017. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is
able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0276. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Wu, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1951; email: Irene.Wu@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0276 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0276.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0276 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted an
investigation (GAO-07-1038T) on NRC's licensing program and was able to
obtain a radioactive materials license using a fictitious company and
place orders that would have resulted, if actually obtained, in receipt
of an aggregated Category 3 quantity of radioactive material. After the
2007 investigation, the NRC and the Agreement States made a number of
important changes to strengthen the licensing and regulatory processes
to prevent malevolent individuals from obtaining a radioactive material
license. The NRC staff submitted an Action Plan (SECY-07-0147) (ADAMS
Accession No. ML072360206) to the Commission to respond to
recommendations for addressing security issues in the National
Materials Program. The Commission approved the staff's Action Plan,
which included a consideration of expanding the NSTS to include
Category 3 sources plus a subset of ``high-end'' Category 4 sources
(SRM-SECY-07-0147) (ADAMS Accession No. ML072620088). The proposed rule
on Expansion of NSTS to include additional nationally tracked sources
was published in the Federal Register in April 2008 (73 FR 19749).
In January 2009, licensees began reporting Category 1 and 2 source
information to the NSTS. The NRC staff submitted a request to the
Commission to defer further expansion of the NSTS to allow staff to
monitor operation of the NSTS for one year and to apply insights gained
for the decision on system expansion (SECY-09-0011) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML083540566). This request for deferral was not approved, so in
June 2009, the staff requested approval of the final rule amending
parts 20 and 32 title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to
expand reporting to the NSTS to include Category 3 sources (SECY-09-
0086) (ADAMS Accession No. ML091390202). In June 2009, the Commission
did not reach a decision on the proposed rulemaking (2-2 split vote),
and the final rule was not approved (SRM-SECY-09-0086) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML091811125). Some of the Commission votes indicated that further
expansion of the NSTS should be based upon a vulnerability assessment,
built off an interagency risk study for sources, and that the original
recommendation
[[Page 2400]]
lacked a risk-informed foundation for proposed regulatory action.
In 2014, the GAO initiated an audit of the materials licensing
program to determine whether the licensing vulnerabilities identified
in their 2007 investigation had been addressed by the regulatory
framework and other improvements implemented by the NRC and the
Agreement States. In 2015, as part of the audit, GAO conducted an
investigation that attempted to obtain radioactive materials licenses
from one NRC regional office and two separate Agreement States. The
investigation sought approval of licenses authorizing the procurement
of one Category 3 source using a fictitious company. The 2015
investigation went beyond the 2007 investigation in its sophistication
and planning, such that GAO rented storefront/warehouse space to
demonstrate their legitimacy during pre-licensing visits. Despite this
level of effort, the GAO was unsuccessful in two of three attempts;
however, the GAO was able to acquire a license for a Category 3 well
logging source in one attempt. GAO successfully placed an order for one
Category 3 source using the license, then altered it and used it to
place an order for a second Category 3 source. The investigation
demonstrated that GAO could have acquired an aggregated Category 2
quantity of material, although at no point in the investigation were
radioactive materials actually shipped to the fictitious company. Once
notified of the investigation by GAO in October 2015, the NRC and
Agreement States took a number of actions, one of which included
forming two NRC-Agreement State working groups to evaluate
vulnerabilities identified as a result of the 2015 GAO investigation.
Specifically, one working group considered enhancements to the pre-
licensing guidance while the second working group evaluated the need
for enhancements to existing requirements or guidance for license
verification and source tracking beyond Category 1 and Category 2
thresholds.
On July 15, 2016, the GAO published its final report of the
material licensing audit and investigation, GAO-16-330, entitled
``Nuclear Security: NRC Has Enhanced the Controls of Dangerous
Radioactive Materials, but Vulnerabilities Remain.'' The report made
three recommendations:
1. Take steps needed to include Category 3 sources in the NSTS and
add Agreement State Category 3 licenses to the Web-based Licensing
System as quickly as reasonably possible.
2. At least until such time that Category 3 licenses can be
verified using the License Verification System, require that
transferors of Category 3 quantities of radioactive materials confirm
the validity of a would-be purchaser's radioactive materials license
with the appropriate regulatory authority before transferring any
Category 3 quantities of licensed materials.
3. As part of the ongoing efforts of NRC working groups meeting to
develop enhancements to the pre-licensing requirements for Category 3
licenses, consider requiring that an on-site security review be
conducted for all unknown applicants of Category 3 licenses to verify
that each applicant is prepared to implement the required security
measures before taking possession of licensed radioactive materials.
Given the NRC's operating experience with higher-risk sources and
in response to the findings by GAO, the Commission directed the staff
to take specific actions to evaluate whether it is necessary to revise
NRC regulations or processes governing source protection and
accountability. Specifically, on October 18, 2016, the Commission
issued its SRM for COMJMB-16-0001, ``Proposed Staff Re-Evaluation of
Category 3 Source Accountability'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML16292A812).
The SRM required the staff to conduct the following tasks:
1. An evaluation of the pros and cons of different methods of
requiring transferors of Category 3 sources to verify the validity of a
transferee's license prior to transfer;
2. An evaluation of the pros and cons of including Category 3
sources in NSTS;
3. An assessment, based on these evaluations, of these and any
additional options that the staff identifies for addressing the source
accountability recommendations made by the GAO;
4. A vulnerability assessment which identifies changes in the
threat environment between 2009 and today that argue in favor of or
against expansion of the NSTS to include Category 3 sources;
5. A regulatory impact analysis of the accrued benefit and costs of
the change, to include impacts to the NRC, Agreement States, non-
Agreement States, and regulated entities;
6. A discussion of potential regulatory actions that would not
require changes to our regulations that arose from or were considered
by the staff working groups, to include changes to guidance, training,
and other program improvements such as more closely monitoring the
implementation of the staff recommendations using the Integrated
Materials Performance Evaluation Program process; and
7. Any other factors arising from the staff's currently ongoing
assessment that the staff concludes would bear on the Commission's
deliberation on the proposed change.
The SRM also directed the staff to assess the risks posed by the
aggregation of Category 3 sources into Category 2 quantities and to
collaborate with its Agreement State partners, non-Agreement States,
regulated entities, public interest groups, industry groups, and the
reactor community.
Additionally, the SRM directed the staff to consider the results of
the assessment of the security requirements in 10 CFR part 37,
``Physical Protection of Category 1 and 2 Quantities of Radioactive
Material,'' as required by the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bills for Fiscal Year 2015, as a means to
inform the staff's evaluation. This assessment, referred to as the
``program review'' of 10 CFR part 37, encompassed an evaluation of nine
review areas related to implementation of the security requirements in
the rule. These areas included the results of inspections conducted of
NRC licensees in the first two years of rule implementation, as well as
an evaluation of events reported under the provisions of the rule. The
program review also included consideration of the definition of
aggregation as it applies to well logging sources and an evaluation of
enhanced tracking and accounting of radioactive sources. A report
detailing the program review was provided to Congress on December 14,
2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16348A230).
In the interest of fully informing the public of the staff's
evaluation of Category 3 source security and accountability, the staff
is issuing this notice to request specific feedback from stakeholders.
The information received from this request will help to fully assess
the regulatory impact for any recommendations related to Category 3
source security and accountability and will be documented in a paper
that will be provided to the Commission in August 2017.
III. Specific Considerations
The NRC has developed specific questions that are separated into
sections based on the topics and applicability to relevant
stakeholders. These include: general questions related to license
verification, general questions related to the NSTS, specific questions
for licensees related to license verification, specific questions for
licensees related to the NSTS, specific questions for Agreement States
related to license verification, specific
[[Page 2401]]
questions for Agreement States related to the NSTS, and other
questions.
The NRC is requesting comments on license verification involving
transfers of Category 3 quantities of radioactive material and the
inclusion of Category 3 sources in the NSTS. Please note that Table 1
of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 37 provides the thresholds for Category 1
and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material and Appendix E of 10
CFR part 20 provides the thresholds for Category 1 and 2 sources
included in NSTS. The list of radionuclides subject to physical
security requirements in 10 CFR part 37 is different than the list of
radionuclides included in NSTS. NRC regulations do not include a
definition for Category 3 but the NRC has historically considered the
Category 3 threshold to be greater than 1/10th of the Category 2
threshold but less than the Category 2 threshold.
Please be cautious in providing comments that contain specific
examples and do not provide any specific official-use-only, safeguards,
and/or classified information related to a specific facility.
General Questions Related to License Verification
1. Should the current methods for verification of licenses prior to
transferring Category 3 quantities of radioactive material listed in 10
CFR 30.41(d)(1)-(5), 10 CFR 40.51(d)(1)-(5), and 10 CFR 70.42(d)(1)-(5)
be changed such that only the methods prescribed in 10 CFR 37.71 are
allowed?
2. Would there be an increase in safety and/or security if the
regulations were changed to only allow license verification through the
NRC's License Verification System (LVS) or the transferee's license
issuing authority for transfers of Category 3 quantities of radioactive
material? If so, how much of an increase would there be?
3. If the NRC changed the regulations to limit license verification
only through the LVS or the transferee's license issuing authority for
transfers of Category 3 quantities of radioactive material, should
licensees transferring Category 3 quantities to manufacturers and
distributors be excepted from the limitation?
4. Is there anything else we should consider when evaluating
different methods of license verification prior to transferring
Category 3 quantities of radioactive material?
General Questions Related to the NSTS
1. Should Category 3 sources be included in the NSTS? Please
provide a rationale for your answer.
2. If Category 3 sources are included in the NSTS, should the NRC
consider imposing the same reporting requirements currently required
for Category 1 and 2 sources (10 CFR 20.2207(f))?
3. Should the NRC consider alternatives to the current NSTS
reporting requirements for Category 1 and 2 sources to increase the
immediacy of information availability, such as requiring the source
transfers to be reported prior to, or on the same day as, the source
shipment date?
4. Would there be an increase in safety and/or security if the
regulations were changed to include Category 3 sources in the NSTS? If
so, how much of an increase would there be?
5. Is there anything else we should consider as part of our
evaluation of including Category 3 sources in the NSTS?
Specific Questions for Licensees Related to License Verification
1. It currently takes approximately one month to get credentialed
to access the LVS. If you currently do not have online access to LVS,
and NRC establishes new requirements for license verification involving
Category 3 quantities of radioactive material, would you be inclined to
sign up for online access, or would you use alternative methods for
license verification such as emailing the NRC Form 748 ``Manual License
Verification Report'' to the LVS Help Desk or calling the license-
issuing regulatory authority directly?
2. Approximately how many transfers involving Category 3 quantities
of radioactive material do you do monthly? What percentage involves
transfers directly to/from a manufacturer?
3. Should license verification be required when transferring to an
established manufacturer?
4. Do you have online access to LVS? If so, have you experienced
any issues with the LVS? Do you have any recommendations on how to
improve LVS?
Specific Questions for Licensees Related to the NSTS
1. It currently takes approximately one month to get credentialed
to access the NSTS. If you currently do not have online access to the
NSTS and NRC establishes new requirements for the tracking of Category
3 sources in the NSTS, would you be inclined to sign up for online
access or would you use alternative methods for NSTS reporting such as
emailing or faxing the NRC Form 748 ``National Source Tracking
Transaction Report'' to the NSTS Help Desk?
2. Do you have online access to the NSTS? If so, have you
experienced any issues with the NSTS? Do you have any recommendations
on how to improve the NSTS?
Specific Questions for Agreement States Related to License Verification
1. Approximately how many licenses do you authorize for Category 1,
2, and 3 quantities of radioactive material?
2. If license verification through the LVS or the transferee's
license issuing authority is required for transfers involving Category
3 quantities of radioactive material, would you encourage the use of
LVS among your licensees, or plan for the additional burden imposed by
the manual license verification process?
3. If license verification through the LVS or the transferee's
license issuing authority is required for transfers involving Category
3 quantities of radioactive material, would you consider adopting the
Web-Based Licensing System (WBL) to ensure that the most up-to-date
licenses are available for license verification using the LVS or
voluntarily provide your Category 3 licenses (similar to what some
Agreement States do now for Category 1 and 2 licenses) to be included
in WBL, or would you do neither and prefer licensees to use the manual
license verification process?
4. What would the impact in time and resources be on your program
to handle the additional regulatory oversight needed for Category 3
licensees if license verification through the LVS or the transferee's
license issuing authority was required for transfers involving Category
3 quantities of radioactive material?
Specific Question for Agreement States Related to the NSTS
1. The NRC currently administers the annual inventory
reconciliation process on behalf of the Agreement States. This process
involves providing hard copy inventories to every licensee that
possesses nationally tracked sources at the end of the year, processing
corrections to inventories, and processing confirmations of completion
of the reconciliation into the NSTS. The process involves a significant
amount of staff time and resources from November to February. If the
Agreement States were to adopt administration of the annual inventory
reconciliation process and if Category 3 sources were included in the
NSTS, what would the additional regulatory burden be on the Agreement
States to perform the annual inventory reconciliation for Category 1,
2, and 3 sources?
[[Page 2402]]
Other Questions
1. Should physical security requirements for Category 1 and 2
quantities of radioactive material be expanded to include Category 3
quantities?
2. Some Category 3 sources are covered under a general license (10
CFR 31.5). Should the NRC consider establishing maximum quantities in
general licensed devices, thereby reserving authorization to possess
Category 1, 2, and 3 quantities of radioactive material to specific
licensees?
IV. Public Comments Process
The NRC is committed to keeping the public informed and values
public involvement in its assessment effort. Responses to this
solicitation will be considered by NRC in preparing a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, pursuant to Public Law 113-235, Section 403 and will inform
staff consideration of the regulatory impacts for any recommendations
related to Category 3 source security and accountability, which will be
documented in a paper to be provided to the Commission in August 2017.
The NRC, however, does not intend to provide specific responses to
comments or other information submitted in response to this request.
V. Public Meetings
The NRC plans to hold three public meetings and two webinars during
the public comment period for this action. The first public meeting is
scheduled for January 31, 2017, at NRC Headquarters. The two other
public meetings will be held outside of the Washington DC area. The
webinars are scheduled for February 21, 2017 and March 2, 2017. The
public meetings and webinars will provide forums for the NRC staff to
discuss the issues and questions with members of the public. The
information received will be used by NRC to develop a report to the
Commission. The NRC does not intend to provide any responses to
comments submitted during the public meetings and webinars. Each public
meeting and webinar will be noticed on the NRC's public meeting Web
site at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. Members of the
public should monitor the NRC's public meeting Web site for additional
information about the public meetings at https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. The NRC will post the notices for
the public meetings and webinars and may post additional material
related to this action to the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2016-0276. The Federal
Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or
additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the
docket folder (NRC-2016-0276); (2) click the ``Sign up for Email
Alerts'' link; and (3) enter your email address and select how
frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or
monthly).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of December 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pamela J. Henderson,
Deputy Director, Division of Material Safety, State, Tribal and
Rulemaking Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2017-00169 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P