DOCSLIB.ORG

Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report Report to the President and the U.S. Congress Under Public Law 109-58, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report Submitted by: The Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission On Behalf of: Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Acknowledgments In addition to the members of the task force and the individual members of the subgroups, we would like to acknowledge and recognize Merri Horn for her role coordinating the task force activities. We would like to acknowledge the efforts of Merri Horn, Patricia K. Holahan, and Patricia Rathbun for their role in putting the final report together. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Francis “Chip” X. Cameron and Patricia Rathbun for leading the facilitated meetings of the task force. Also, Chip Cameron led the effort in convening stakeholders for and leading the facilitated closed stakeholder meeting in January 2006. We would also like to acknowledge the help of Helen Chang for editing the task force report. i Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................vii 1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background....................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Understanding the Need to Protect and Secure Radioactive Sources....................1 1.1.2 Understanding the Regulatory Framework for Radioactive Materials.....................3 1.2 Overview of Task Force Activities...................................................................................7 1.3 Stakeholder Interactions.................................................................................................8 1.4 Report Layout.................................................................................................................8 2 Radiation Source Usage.......................................................................................................9 2.1 IAEA Code of Conduct Use Categories..........................................................................9 2.2 Panoramic and Underwater Irradiator...........................................................................11 2.3 Self-Shielded Irradiators...............................................................................................12 2.4 Gamma-Knives.............................................................................................................12 2.5 Teletherapy ..................................................................................................................13 2.6 Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators .....................................................................13 2.7 Radiography.................................................................................................................14 2.8 Well-Logging ................................................................................................................14 2.9 Source Manufacture .....................................................................................................15 3 Radioactive Source Lists....................................................................................................16 3.1 Background..................................................................................................................16 3.2 Radioactive Source Lists..............................................................................................16 3.2.1 IAEA Code of Conduct.........................................................................................16 3.2.2 DOE Radiological Threat Reduction Program......................................................18 3.2.3 DOE/NRC Radiological Dispersal Devices Report...............................................20 3.2.4 U.S. Import/Export Controls.................................................................................21 3.2.5 National Source Tracking System........................................................................21 3.2.6 NRC Security Orders...........................................................................................22 3.2.7 NRC Standards for Protection against Radiation .................................................23 3.2.8 DOE Occupational Radiation Protection ..............................................................24 3.2.9 DOT Transportation Rules...................................................................................24 3.3 Conclusions..................................................................................................................26 3.4 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................27 4 Security and Control of Radioactive Sources...................................................................28 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................28 4.2 Current Programs for Security and Control of Radioactive Material..............................29 4.2.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Program...........................................................30 4.2.2 Department of Energy Program ...........................................................................37 4.2.3 Department of Defense Program .........................................................................42 4.2.4 Department of Homeland Security Program.........................................................44 4.2.5 Federal Bureau of Investigations Program...........................................................46 4.2.6 Department of Transportation Program................................................................46 4.3 Discussion....................................................................................................................46 4.4 Conclusions..................................................................................................................51 4.5 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................51 5 Transportation Security of Radioactive Sources..............................................................53 5.1 Overview of Radioactive Material Transport Safety Program........................................53 5.1.1 Overview of the Domestic Transport Safety Program ..........................................53 5.1.2 Overview of the International Transport Safety Program......................................54 ii 5.2 Overview of Federal Radioactive Material Transport Security Programs ....................54 5.2.1 DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Transport Security Program.............................................................................................................54 5.2.2 DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Transport Security Program..55 5.2.3 DOT Federal Railroad Administration Transport Security Program......................57 5.2.4 DOT Federal Aviation Administration Transport Security Program.......................58 5.2.5 Transportation Security Administration ................................................................58 5.2.6 U.S. Coast Guard Transport Security Program....................................................59 5.2.7 NRC Transport Security Program ........................................................................60 5.3 Discussion....................................................................................................................61 5.4 Conclusions..................................................................................................................65 5.5 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................66 6 Background Checks ...........................................................................................................67 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................67 6.2 Types of Background Checks and Investigations .........................................................67 6.3 Summary of Current Programs.....................................................................................68 6.3.1 Department of Energy Program ...........................................................................68 6.3.2 Department of Homeland Security Program.........................................................68 6.3.3 Federal Bureau of Investigation Program.............................................................69 6.3.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Program ...................................................70 6.4 Stakeholder Interactions...............................................................................................70 6.5 Discussion....................................................................................................................70 6.6 Conclusions..................................................................................................................74 6.7 Summary of Recommendations ...................................................................................75 7 Storage of Radioactive Sources ........................................................................................75 7.1 Background..................................................................................................................75
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chilling Effects on Free Expression: Surveillance, Threats and Harassment
    chapter 16 Chilling Effects on Free Expression: Surveillance, Threats and Harassment Elisabeth Eide Professor of Journalism Studies, Oslo Metropolitan University Abstract: This chapter addresses global surveillance as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013 and discusses the effects such surveillance – and indeed its revelation – may have on freedom of the press and investigative journalism. The chilling effect – an act of discouragement – has proven to be an effective way of deterring public intel- lectuals and other citizens from voicing their opinions in the public sphere. This chapter presents some examples of how it works on practicing freedom of expres- sion for both groups and individuals, as well as how it may affect relationships between various actors in the public sphere, particularly the state and the media, and journalists/writers and politicians. Finally, it discusses consequences for the future of investigative journalism. Keywords: chilling effect, investigative journalism, surveillance, freedom of expression Rarely it is mentioned, in this regard, that surveillance fundamentally questions journalistic work as such – at least in its form of investigative journalism that requires confidential communication with sources. —Arne Hintz (2013) Introduction This chapter addresses the chilling effect on freedom of expression and free- dom of the press. As a case study, it discusses how investigative journalism, Citation: Eide, E. (2019). Chilling Effects on Free Expression: Surveillance, Threats and Harassment. In R. Krøvel & M. Thowsen (Eds.),Making Transparency Possible. An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (pp. 227–242). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.64.ch16 License: CC BY-NC 4.0 227 chapter 16 revealing modern global surveillance helped by whistleblower Edward Snowden (in June 2013), may be hampered by this effect, oftentimes in the form of a tight relationship between state power and the media.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protection of Journalistic Sources, a Cornerstone of the Freedom of the Press
    Thematic factsheet1 Last update: June 2018 THE PROTECTION OF JOURNALISTIC SOURCES, A CORNERSTONE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the right of journalists not to disclose their sources is not a mere privilege to be granted or taken away depending on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their sources, but is part and parcel of the right to information, to be treated with the utmost caution. Without an effective protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result, the vital “public watchdog” role of the press may be undermined. Any interference with the right to protection of journalistic sources (searches at journalists’ workplace or home, seizure of journalistic material, disclosure orders etc) that could lead to their identification must be backed up by effective legal procedural safeguards commensurate with the importance of the principle at stake. First and foremost among these safeguards is the guarantee of a review by an independent and impartial body to prevent unnecessary access to information capable of disclosing the sources’ identity. Such a review is preventive in nature. The review body has to be in a position to weigh up the potential risks and respective interests prior to any disclosure. Its decision should be governed by clear criteria, including as to whether less intrusive measures would suffice. The disclosure orders placed on journalists have a detrimental impact not only on their sources, whose identity may be revealed, but also on the newspaper against which the order is directed, whose reputation may be negatively affected in the eyes of future potential sources by the disclosure, and on the members of the public, who have an interest in receiving information imparted through anonymous sources and who are also potential sources themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections
    Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections Updated June 22, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45345 SUMMARY R45345 Intelligence Community Whistleblower June 22, 2021 Protections Michael E. DeVine Intelligence community (IC) whistleblowers are those employees or contractors working in any Analyst in Intelligence and of the 18 elements of the IC who disclose their reasonable belief of a violation of law, rule, or National Security regulation; gross mismanagement; waste of resources; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health and safety. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) whistleblowing policy and guidance are publicly available and specifically address the process for making protected disclosures and identify whistleblower protections for IC contractors, members of the Armed Forces, and federal IC employees. IC whistleblower protections have evolved in response to perceptions of gaps that many observers believed left whistleblowers vulnerable to reprisal. The first whistleblower legislation specific to the IC, enacted in 1998, was limited to specifying a process for IC whistleblowers to make a complaint but offered no specific protections. Subsequent legislation, enacted in 2010, included only general provisions for protecting IC whistleblowers with no additional guidance on standards for implementation. Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-19, signed in 2012, provided the first specific protections against reprisal actions for making a complaint. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 codified these provisions, which were further supported by IC implementation policy. In early 2018, Congress passed legislation to address perceived gaps in protections for IC contractors. Other provisions in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, along with DOD implementing guidance, provide protections for members of the Armed Forces, including those assigned to elements of the IC.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Our Sources of Information
    Protecting our sources of information Why journalists need to resist legal attacks European Federation of Journalists Protecting our sources of information Why journalists need to resist legal attacks Written for the EFJ by Ronan Brady Acknowledgments Material in this booklet is based on contributions at the Protection of Sources seminar in Prague in May 2003, including papers by Tim Gopsill from the NUJ, Professor Dirk Vorhoof from Gent University, and Inger Hoedt Rasmussen from the Danish Bar and Law Society. Valuable contributions were also made by EFJ representatives Jean Claude Wolff, Androula Georgiadou, Michael Klehm, Martine Simonis and Ljuba Babic Kosir, as well as by Thomas Verfuss, President of the Association of Journalists at the International Criminal Court, Dejan Anastasijevic and Jovan Dulovic from Vreme, Serbia, and Ronan Brady. The EFJ would like to thank the Council of Europe and the European Commission for supporting the Protection of Sources seminar. European Federation of Journalists Conference reports can be found on the EFJ website at http://www.ifj-europe.org/ Protecting our sources Contents Preface Preface 1 n May 2003 the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) convened a sem- Introduction 2 inar in Prague under the title Protection of Sources under Fire. The Confidence in the truth I seminar was a response to increasing attempts throughout Europe to undermine the principle of confidentiality of sources. Attacks included 1 Source protection 4 Danish journalists having their phones illegally tapped, British journalists across Europe threatened with prosecution by a beer company and Belgium journalists Confidential sources 12 having their homes and offices searched.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 37 Number 3 Article 7 Spring 2012 The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange Molly Thebes Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Molly Thebes, The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange, 37 N.C. J. INT'L L. 889 (2011). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol37/iss3/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This note is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol37/iss3/ 7 The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange Molly Thebes t I. Introduction .......................... ...... 889 II. Is Julian Assange a Journalist .......... ...... ......... 894 III. The Feasibility of Extraditing Journalists ....... ...... 898 A. Sweden ........................... ..... 899 B. Iceland.............903 1. Libel Tourism .................... ..... 904 2. Source Protection.. ................. ..... 906 3. Whistleblower Protections.....................907 4. International Effect of the Initiative ...... .... 908 5. Limitations of the Initiative .......... ...... 909 C. European Media Laws ................ ..... 911 IV. Conclusion............... ................. 913 I. Introduction The legal battle over the custody of Julian Assange has been well publicized in the media, with both Sweden and the United States vying for authority over the WikiLeaks founder and ex- computer hacker.' While the United States is seeking jurisdiction over Assange for his well-documented involvement in the unauthorized acquisition and dissemination of a quarter of a million diplomatic cables2 and tens of thousands of wartime tB.A.
    [Show full text]
  • A Federal Shield Law That Works: Protecting Sources, Fighting Fake News, and Confronting Modern Challenges to Effective Journalism
    A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW THAT WORKS: PROTECTING SOURCES, FIGHTING FAKE NEWS, AND CONFRONTING MODERN CHALLENGES TO EFFECTIVE JOURNALISM Anthony L. Fargo* I. INTRODUCTION Covering government and politics is rarely easy for journalists even in the best of times. Officials want to hide information that would make them look bad. Candidates and party leaders try to “spin” coverage to favor their side. Sources with potentially important news to share often have hidden or not-so-hidden agendas that could cast doubt on their veracity. Recent months certainly have not been the best of times for journalists. The President of the United States has labeled mainstream news outlets as “enemies of the people.”1 President Trump and his most ardent supporters frequently call any news that portrays the administration unfavorably “fake news.”2 Public trust in the news media is low, especially among those aligned with the President’s party.3 President Trump and his attorney general have announced that they are going to get tough on people who leak classified or sensitive information to the press, which could chill potential news sources and, if leakers are prosecuted, possibly lead to journalists being subpoenaed to identify their sources or face contempt citations.4 * Anthony Fargo is an Associate Professor and Director for the Center for International Media Law and Policy Studies, The Media School, Indiana University. The author thanks Patrick Ober for his valuable research assistance. Funding for this study was provided by the Barbara Restle Press Law Project. 1. Michael M. Grynbaum, Trump Calls Media the “Enemy of the American People,” N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Source Protection for Journalists
    3 Tow Center for Digital Journalism DIGITAL A Tow/Knight Report SECURITY AND SOURCE PROTECTION FOR JOURNALISTS SUSAN MCGREGOR Funded by the Tow Foundation and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation 4 Acknowledgements This paper is the product of countless conversations, encounters, recommen- dations and insights provided to me over the past year by members of the digital security and journalism communities. Though it would be impossible to name everyone whose insight and exper- tise has informed this work, my deepest thanks go to Franzi Roesner, Carey Shenkman, Nabiha Syed, Seamus Tuohy, Chris Walker and Carol Waters for providing invaluable feedback and direction on early versions of this pa- per; your expertise and insight was invaluable. Also to Oktavia Jonsdottir, Scott Klein, Quinn Norton, Jeremy Singer-Vine and Jennifer Valentino- DeVries, who shared their ideas and work processes with me. And a very special thanks to Peter G. Neumann, who offered me the long view on digital security and directed me to essential resources and experts on the subject. This project would also not have been possible without the financial and intellectual support of my colleagues at Columbia Journalism School, and the Tow Center for Digital Journalism–particularly Emily Bell and Taylor Owen. Likewise, I am very grateful to both OpenITP and TacticalTech– organizations whose generosity in hosting me in the fall of 2013 made pos- sible so many enlightening interactions with the digital security community. Without the openness of these organizations and their associates, this work would not have been possible. And finally, many grateful thanks to my talented, enthusiastic, and insightful illustrator and collaborator, Matteo Farinella, for truly making the invisible, visible.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and Secret Evidence in Legislation and Before the Courts
    National Security and Secret Evidence in Legislation and before the Courts: Exploring the Challenges Didier Bigo, Sergio Carrera, Nicholas Hernanz and Amandine Scherrer No. 78/ January 2015 Abstract This study provides a comparative analysis of the national legal regimes and practices governing the use of intelligence information as evidence in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. It explores notably how national security can be invoked to determine the classification of information and evidence as 'state secrets' in court proceedings and whether such laws and practices are fundamental rights- and rule of law-compliant. The study finds that, in the majority of Member States under investigation, the judiciary is significantly hindered in effectively adjudicating justice and guaranteeing the rights of the defence in ‘national security’ cases. The research also illustrates that the very term ‘national security’ is nebulously defined across the Member States analysed, with no national definition meeting legal certainty and “in accordance with the law” standards and a clear risk that the executive and secret services may act arbitrarily. The study argues that national and transnational intelligence community practices and cooperation need to be subject to more independent and effective judicial accountability and be brought into line with EU 'rule of law' standards. This document was originally commissioned by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and published in December 2014. It is available for free downloading on the European Parliament’s website (www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/509991/IPOL_STU(2014)509 991_EN.pdf) and is republished by CEPS with the kind permission of the Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 February 8, 2021 Acting Attorney General Monty
    U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 February 8, 2021 Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson: We, the undersigned press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights advocacy organizations, write today to share our profound concern about the ongoing criminal and extradition proceedings relating to Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, under the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.1 ​ While our organizations have different perspectives on Mr. Assange and his organization, we share the view that the government’s indictment of him poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. We urge you to drop the appeal of the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court to reject the Trump administration’s 2 extradition request. ​ We also urge you to dismiss the underlying indictment. ​ The indictment of Mr. Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely—and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do. Journalists at major news publications regularly speak with sources, ask for clarification or more documentation, and receive and publish documents the government considers secret. In our view, such a precedent in this case could effectively criminalize these common journalistic practices. In addition, some of the charges included in the indictment turn entirely on Mr. Assange’s decision to publish classified information. News organizations frequently and necessarily publish classified information in order to inform the public of matters of profound public significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Sources and Whistleblowers in a Digital Age
    Information Law and Policy Centre, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies: An initiative supported by Guardian News and Media Protecting Sources and Whistleblowers in a Digital Age 1 Foreword 3 Summary 4 Background 6 The legal framework for source protection 7 Concerns arising from the legal framework 11 Definitional difficulties 14 Other legal concerns relating to ownership of information 16 Practical considerations 17 Technological factors 20 10 recommendations 21 For policy action 21 For journalists and organisations 21 For researchers and NGOs 22 Future plans 23 Protecting Sources and Whistleblowers in a Digital Age Developments in digital technology open up vast opportunities for news organisations to create and distribute journalism in new ways. The process of journalistic investigation has changed too. The laptop and phone play as important a role in the life of an investigative reporter as the notebook once did. Contact with a source is now as likely to happen digitally as in person. We create vast tracts Foreword of data - from internet connection records to communications data – and this information can tell interested parties everything about a reporter, the story they’re pursuing, and the source they’re protecting. But, while the process may have changed, we still tell the same kinds of stories: scrutinising those in power; exposing wrongdoing; and working in the public interest. Our journalism continues to rely on an ability to offer protection and anonymity for sources and whistleblowers. Evidence from sources lay behind our reporting of tax transgressions in the Panama Papers and behind enabling ex-footballers to tell their stories of abuse in the sports youth system.
    [Show full text]
  • Securing a Favourable Environment for Journalists in the Netherlands
    Final draft 13 April 2018 Feedback welcome until 15 May 2018 Institute for Information Law (IViR), Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam Securing a favourable environment for journalists in the Netherlands Written by Geert Lokhorst & Leon Trapman Edited by Tarlach McGonagle Special adviser: Otto Volgenant 13 April 2018 Final draft 13 April 2018 Feedback welcome until 15 May 2018 1 Final draft 13 April 2018 Feedback welcome until 15 May 2018 Executive summary In its 2016 Recommendation on protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors,1 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CoE) called on the organisation’s 47 member states to ‘create and secure a favourable environment’ for the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This very timely and in-depth study examines the extent to which such a ‘favourable environment’ exists in the Netherlands. The study’s overall conclusion is that while Dutch law, policy and practice secure an environment that is by and large favourable for freedom of expression, journalistic activities and the safety of journalists,2 there is still room for improvement in several areas. The study first gives an overview of the Council of Europe’s legal framework. It then examines Dutch law (including draft laws and case-law), policy and practice to assess the extent to which they adhere to the Council of Europe’s standards. Taking its cue from the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation, the study contains particular focuses on prevention of threats and risks for freedom of expression, journalistic activities and safety of journalists and other media actors; protection and support measures, and prosecution of those behind threats and violence targeting journalists.3 The study identifies a number of strengths and weaknesses of the Dutch framework, a selection of which is listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital
    Julie Posetti Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age Published in 2017 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France © UNESCO 2017 ISBN 978-92-3-100219-9 This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open- access/terms-use-ccbysa-en). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. Author: Julie Posetti (WAN-IFRA/World Editors Forum/University of Wollongong, Australia) Academic Researchers: Julie Posetti, France/Australia (Chief Researcher); Marcus O’Donnell, Australia; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Brazil; Ying Chan, China; Doreen Weisenhaus, China. Graduate Research Assistants: Federica Cherubini, Angelique Lu, Alice Matthews, Alexandra Waldhorn, Emma Goodman, Farah Wael. Undergraduate research contributors: Jake Evans, Alexandra Sazonova-Prokouran, Jessica Sparks, Nick Toner, Olivia Wilkinson. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the University of Wollongong (Australia) as well as UNESCO colleagues, in particular Caroline Hammarberg.
    [Show full text]