44780 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

minimizing the release of radioactive 

materials to the environment. 

Each applicant for a license to possess 

and use special nuclear material in a 

plutonium processing and fuel 

fabrication plant as defined in 10 CFR 

70.4, ‘‘Special Nuclear Material,’’ must 

satisfy the provisions of 10 CFR 70.23, 

‘‘Requirements for the approval of 

applications.’’ Paragraphs (a)(3) and 

(a)(4) of 10 CFR 70.23 require that the 

applicant’s proposed equipment, 

facility, and procedures be adequate to 

protect health and minimize danger to 

life or property. 

II. Further Information 

The NRC staff is soliciting comments 

on DG–3034. Comments may be 

accompanied by relevant information or 

supporting data, and should mention 

DG–3034 in the subject line. Comments 

submitted in writing or in electronic 

form will be made available to the 

public in their entirety through the 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS). 

Personal information will not be 

removed from your comments. You may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

1. Mail comments to: Rulemaking, 

Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. 

2. E-mail comments to: 

NRCREP@nrc.gov. 

3. Hand-deliver comments to: 

Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing 

Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

on Federal workdays. 

4. Fax comments to: Rulemaking, 

Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission at (301) 415–5144. 

Requests for technical information 

about DG–3034 may be directed to 

Timothy Johnson at (301) 492–3121 or 

e-mail to Timothy.Johnson@nrc.gov. 

Comments would be most helpful if 

received by October 1, 2008. Comments 

received after that 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. Although a time limit is given, 

comments and suggestions in 

connection with items for inclusion in 

guides currently being developed or 

improvements in all published guides 

are encouraged at any time. 

Electronic copies of DG–3034 are 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site under Draft Regulatory Guides in 

the ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ collection of 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. Electronic copies are also 

available in ADAMS (http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html), 

under Accession No. ML081080479. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), which is 

located at 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland. The PDR’s mailing 

address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. The PDR can also be 

reached by telephone at (301) 415–4737 

or (800) 397–4205, by fax at (301) 415–

3548, and by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of July, 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Harriet Karagiannis, 

Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development 

Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. E8–17542 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2008–0419] 

Request for Comments on the Security 

and Continued Use of Cesium-137 

Chloride Sources and Notice of Public 

Meeting 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and a 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is conducting a 

public meeting to solicit early public 

input on major issues associated with 

the use of certain forms of cesium 

chloride (CsCl) currently used by NRCand Agreement State-licensees. To aid 

in that process, the NRC is requesting 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this notice. While the NRC has not 

initiated rulemaking on this subject, we 

are utilizing the conventionally 

established rulemaking comment 

channels. Additionally, the NRC is 

requesting names of individuals to 

participate at the public meeting in a 

roundtable discussion of the issues 

discussed in Sections II and III of this 

notice. 

DATES: Comment Dates: 

1. Comments on this notice should be 

submitted by September 30, 2008. 

Comments received after this date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

2. Nominations for participation in 

the roundtable discussion should be 

submitted by September 1, 2008. 

Public Meeting Dates: The NRC will 

also take public comments on the issues 

raised in this notice at a public meeting 

on September 29–30, 2008. Please refer 

to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for additional information. 

ADDRESSES: Members of the public are 

invited and encouraged to submit 

comments by mail to Michael Lesar, 

Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and 

Editing Branch, Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop T–6D59, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

You may also submit comments 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; search on docket 

ID: NRC–2008–0419. 

To ensure efficient and complete 

comment resolution, comments should 

include references to the section and 

page numbers of the document to which 

the comment applies, if possible. When 

commenting on the CsCl issues 

presented in this notice, please exercise 

caution with regard to site-specific 

security-related information. Comments 

will be made available to the public in 

their entirety; personal information, 

such as your name, address, telephone 

number, e-mail address, etc. will not be 

removed from your submission. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice using 

the following methods: 

Regulations.gov: Documents related to 

this notice, including public comments, 

are accessible at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, by searching on 

docket ID: NRC–2008–0419. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O–1F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC after November 1, 

1999, are available electronically at the 

NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into ADAMS, which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44781 

1An IAEA Category 1 cesium-137 source contains 

a minimum of 3000 Ci (100 TBq) and a Category 

2 source contains a minimum of 30 Ci (1 TBq). See 

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/ 

Code-2004_web.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

John P. Jankovich, Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, telephone (301) 

415–7904, e-mail 

john.jankovich@nrc.gov, or Dr. Cynthia 

Jones, Office of Nuclear Security and 

Incident Response, telephone (301) 415–

0298, e-mail cynthia.jones@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Certain radioactive sources have been 

identified by the International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of Conduct 

on the Safety and Security of 

Radioactive Sources (Code of Conduct) 

(see http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/ 

publications/PDF/Code-2004_web.pdf ) 

as sources that may pose a significant 

risk to individuals, society and the 

environment if improperly handled or 

used in a malicious act. Federal 

agencies have performed recent risk and 

consequence studies that show it may 

be prudent to require additional security 

features for licensed facilities that use 

certain radioactive material, including 

CsCl sources. CsCl sealed sources are 

used in many applications, most 

commonly in irradiators, calibrators, 

and in devices for biological and 

medical research. A recent National 

Academy of Sciences study (NAS 

report) has recommended the 

replacement or elimination of CsCl 

sources (see http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=11976). 

The NRC is seeking early public input 

on the major issues associated with any 

potential regulatory actions involving 

CsCl that would reduce the risk to 

individuals, society, and the 

environment if such material were used 

in a malicious act. As a first step, the 

NRC has prepared an Issues Paper, 

contained in Section III of this notice, 

which describes issues and alternatives 

related to the overall concerns 

associated with IAEA Category 1 and 2 

CsCl sources.1 The intent of this paper 

is to foster discussion about these issues 

and alternatives before any regulatory 

actions by NRC or the Agreement States 

are initiated. The NRC will also utilize 

a public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

materials/miau/licensing.html to make 

documents relevant to the Issues Paper 

available to the public. The content of 

the Issues Paper is contained in Section 

III of this notice. 

II. Request for Written and Electronic 

Comments and Plans for a Public 

Meeting 

The NRC is soliciting comments on 

the items presented in the Issues Paper. 

Comments may be submitted either in 

writing or electronically as indicated 

under the ADDRESSES heading. In 

addition, the NRC is holding a 

facilitated public meeting at the 

Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & 

Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, 

Bethesda, Maryland on September 29–

30, 2008, on the issues discussed in 

Section III of this notice. This Issues 

Paper provides background and topics 

of discussion on the major issues that 

will be the subject of the public 

meeting. 

During the public meeting, NRC will 

conduct individual roundtable panel 

discussions, with opportunity for 

audience participation, on each issue 

contained in Section III of this notice. 

NRC is seeking the names of individuals 

interested in participating on these 

panels. Nominations by interested 

individuals or organizations should 

include the name of the proposed panel 

member, the issues they are interested 

in discussing, view point(s) on the 

issue(s), and affiliation (if any). 

Roundtable panel participants will be 

selected with the goal of providing 

balanced view points on each of the 

various issues. Please see the ADDRESSES

section to submit nominations by 

September 1, 2008. 

In addition to inviting public 

comments on the issues presented in 

Section III of this notice, the NRC is also 

soliciting specific comments related to: 

(1) Quantitative information on the costs 

and benefits resulting from 

consideration of the factors described in 

the Issues Paper; (2) operational data on 

radiation exposures (increased or 

reduced) that might result from 

implementing any of the options 

described in the Issues Paper; (3) 

whether the presented issues are 

addressed comprehensively; and (4) 

whether other options should be 

considered, including quantitative 

information on the costs and benefits for 

these other options. The Commission 

believes that stakeholder comments will 

help to quantify the potential impact of 

these proposed changes and will assist 

the NRC as potential regulatory action(s) 

are developed. 

Based on the comments received in 

both written and electronic form, and at 

the public meeting, the Commission 

will then be in a better position to 

evaluate whether to proceed with the 

development of a proposed rulemaking 

or take some other regulatory action. If 

the Commission decides to proceed 

with a proposed rulemaking, additional 

information will be published in the 

Federal Register for public review and 

comment. 

III. Issues Paper on the Use of CsCl 

Sources at NRC- and Agreement StateLicensed Facilities 

Introduction 

Section A of this Issues Paper 

describes some general considerations 

recently raised concerning the use of 

certain CsCl sources at NRC- and 

Agreement State-licensed facilities. 

Section B of the paper discusses the 

various alternatives and major issues 

that need to be addressed before 

commencing any regulatory activities 

related to the use of CsCl sources in the 

U.S. 

A. Background 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct) required the establishment of an 

interagency Radiation Source Protection 

and Security Task Force (Task Force) to 

be chaired by the NRC. The Task Force 

was charged with: (1) Evaluating and 

providing recommendations relating to 

the security of radiation sources in the 

United States from potential terrorist 

threats, including acts of sabotage, theft, 

or use of a radiological source in a 

radiological dispersal device; and (2) 

providing recommendations for 

appropriate regulatory and legislative 

changes to Congress and the President. 

On August 15, 2006, the NRC 

provided the President and Congress 

with the first Report documenting the 

efforts of the Task Force. The report 

included 10 recommendations and 13 

actions to improve source security in 

the U.S. (see http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/congressdocs/correspondence/2006/president08–15–2006.pdf). Recommendation 

12–2 from this report focused on the 

security of IAEA Category 1 and 2 

radioactive sources containing CsCl. 

Specifically, this recommendation 

stated that: 

‘‘The Task Force recommends that high 

priority be given to conducting a study 

within 2 years to assess the feasibility of 

phasing out the use of CsCl in a highly 

dispersible form. This study should consider 

the availability of alternative technologies for 

the scope of current uses, safe and secure 

disposal of existing material, and 

international safety and security 

implications.’’

Section 651 of the EPAct also required 

that the NRC enter into an arrangement 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) through which NAS would 

review the civilian uses of radionuclide 

radiation sources and study potential 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44782 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

replacements for sources that pose a 

high risk to public health or safety in 

the event of an accident or attack. 

Considering technical and economic 

feasibility and risks to workers, the NAS 

was asked to report findings and 

recommendations on options for 

implementing the identified 

replacements. The NAS completed its 

review in February 2008 (see http:// 

www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=11976) and 

stated that cesium-137 in the form of 

CsCl is a greater concern than other 

radiation sources based on its 

dispersibility and its presence in 

populated areas across the country. In 

view of the overall liabilities associated 

with radioactive CsCl and the 

alternatives that are available now or 

possible in the future to replace these 

radiation sources, the NAS report 

concluded that high-activity CsCl 

sources should be replaced. The NAS 

also recommended that ‘‘Replacement of 

some radionuclide radiation sources 

with alternatives should be 

implemented with caution, ensuring 

that the essential functions that the 

radionuclide radiation sources perform 

are preserved.’’ The NAS also suggested 

options for implementing the 

replacement, including discontinuation 

of licensing of new CsCl irradiator 

sources and devices, prohibiting the 

export of CsCl to other countries and 

incentives to decommission existing 

sources and devices. 

Accordingly, the NRC is providing the 

following key points for consideration 

and discussion in order to obtain 

stakeholder input before making any 

regulatory enhancements for the 

continued use of CsCl sources. 

B. Issues for Discussion 

The following format is used in the 

presentation of the issues that follow. 

Each issue is assigned a number, a short 

title, and a list of questions and factors 

for consideration. These issues, 

questions and factors are not meant to 

be a complete or final list, but are 

intended to initiate discussion. 

Interested stakeholders are welcome to 

recommend additions, deletions, or 

modifications to the key issues for 

consideration and propose 

implementation considerations. These 

issues and factors will serve as the basis 

for discussion at the public meeting. All 

public feedback will be used in 

developing implementation options for 

Commission consideration. Meeting 

participants and commenters are 

strongly encouraged to read the NAS 

report before the public meeting or 

providing comments. 

Issue No. 1—Alternatives to the Use of 

Cesium Chloride (CsCl) Sources 

The majority of self-shielded 

irradiators used in industrial operations, 

instrument calibration, and biological/ 

medical research, are constructed with 

CsCl sources because of the suitable 

properties of cesium-137 such as long 

half-life, low cost, and moderate 

shielding requirements relative to other 

radionuclides. Currently, the physical 

form of CsCl in sources with activity 

levels under consideration (i.e., IAEA 

Category 1 and 2) is compressed 

powder. The compressed powder form 

is used because of its high specific 

activity (high gamma emission per unit 

volume) making it feasible to 

manufacture high-activity sources in a 

relatively small volume. 

In considering Issue No. 1, 

alternatives to the use of CsCl sources in 

compressed powder form, there are two 

main issues that should be considered 

and discussed. Issue 1.1: Feasibility of 

the use of other chemical or physical 

forms of cesium-137 (Cs-137) and Issue 

1.2: Feasibility of the use of isotopes 

other than Cs-137. Each of these issues 

is presented below. 

Issue No. 1.1: Feasibility of the Use of 

Other Forms of Cs-137 

Q1.1–1. Are manufacturers currently 

considering the use of other forms of 

cesium (other than CsCl)? If yes, what 

are such considerations? 

Q1.1–2. Is the use of other forms of 

cesium feasible? If so, please describe 

desired methods and discuss any 

benefits or obstacles (e.g., intended 

function of source, costs, timeframe). 

Q1.1–3. (a) Would the effect of density 

loading with different forms of cesium 

preclude their use in existing devices? 

(b) Would it require modification of 

existing devices? 

Q1.1–4. Is it feasible that high-activity 

(e.g., IAEA Category 1 and 2) cesium 

sources will be available in alternative 

material forms? If so, what is the 

estimated timeframe for manufacturing? 

Q1.1–5. Since all the CsCl is 

manufactured in Mayak, Russia, is it 

known if the cesium source producer 

can modify its production process? 

Q1.1–6. Would other entities (in the 

U.S. or worldwide) engage in 

manufacturing sources with alternative 

forms of Cs-137? 

Issue No. 1.2: Feasibility of the Use of 

Isotopes Other Than Cs-137 

Q1.2–1. (a) Can cobalt-60 (Co-60) be 

substituted for radioactive CsCl for any 

applications? (b) If so, what types of 

applications? (c) If not, why not? 

Q1.2–2. Can the shielding challenges 

for Co-60 be addressed by switching 

from lead shields to more effective 

tungsten or depleted uranium shielding? 

Note: Consider that tungsten shielding is 

more expensive than lead and manufacturing 

depleted uranium shielding is a very 

specialized, expensive operation that 

requires NRC or Agreement State licensing 

for its entire lifecycle. 

Q1.2–3. What are the attendant risks 

associated with Co-60 source 

transportation? 

Note: Consider the shorter half-life (5.27 y) 

of Co-60 radiation sources would require that 

they be replaced more frequently that Cs-137, 

which entails the transportation of both fresh 

and used sources. 

Issue No. 2—Use of Alternatives 

Technologies 

An alternative technology is defined 

in the context of this document as a 

technological process that provides the 

same societal benefits as the devices 

that utilize CsCl at the present time, but 

without the use of radionuclides. Some 

of the potentially feasible alternative 

technologies include such processes as 

x-ray irradiators or electron beam 

irradiators. Previous reports, such as 

those prepared by the Radiation Source 

Protection and Security Task Force and 

the NAS, referenced above, addressed 

the issue of alternative technologies to 

a limited extent. A more extensive 

examination of the feasibility of these 

and other alternative technologies is 

needed. 

Therefore, in considering Issue No. 2, 

use of alternative technologies, there are 

four main issues that should be 

considered and discussed: 

Q2–1. Are X-ray generators already 

commercially available as substitutes for 

applications that do not require the 

gamma rays with Cs-137 and Co-60? 

Q2–2. Are X-ray tubes cost-effective 

considering the initial cost, operating 

costs, and requirements for more 

maintenance for periodic calibration 

and replacement than radioactive 

sources? 

Q2–3. Is there any indication that the 

performance of the alternatives will 

change (improve or worsen) with 

respect to Cs-137? 

Q2–4. Regarding the availability of 

alternative technologies, (a) what is the 

timeframe of future availability of each 

alternative, and (b) what is the cost for 

each of the alternative technologies 

(capital costs, operation costs, cost to 

users)? 

Issue No. 3—Possible Phase-Out of CsCl 

Sources 

Discontinuation of the further use of 

CsCl sources with activity levels in 

IAEA Category 1 and 2 was 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44783 

recommended for consideration by the 

Radiation Source Protection and 

Security Task Force and by the NAS, 

referenced above. 

Both reports recognize the important 

role that devices, containing such 

sources, fulfill in serving public health, 

research and instrument calibration at 

the present time. But the reports also 

considered the potential risks associated 

with these sources and, consequently, 

recommended phasing out their future 

use. NRC has not made any decision in 

this regard, but as a follow-up to the 

recommendations, NRC is seeking 

additional information that would 

provided relevant information for its 

decisionmaking process. 

In considering Issue No. 3, possible 

phase-out of CsCl sources, there are four 

main issues that should be considered 

and discussed: Issue 3.1: Potential 

rulemaking issues and justification for 

regulatory change; Issue 3.2: 

Transportation and storage issues 

associated with removal of CsCl sources 

from licensee facilities; Issue 3.3: 

Consideration of government incentives 

and voluntary actions by industry and 

manufacturers; and Issue 3.4: Impact of 

U.S. changes to regulating CsCl on the 

international community. Each of these 

issues are presented below. 

Issue No. 3.1: Potential Rulemaking 

Issues and Justification for Regulatory 

Change 

Q3.1–1. (a) What would be the 

medical consequences if CsCl was to be 

banned for medical (e.g., blood) 

irradiators? (b) What would be the 

impact to existing and future biomedical 

research using these devices? (c) Can 

alternative technologies be used for 

medical applications and/or biomedical 

research (research on animals and 

tissue?) 

Q3.1–2. (a) What would be the 

consequences if CsCl was to be banned 

for irradiators that are used for 

industrial and calibration purposes? (b) 

What is the impact on existing 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) standards and licensee 

conditions that require the use of Cs-137 

for calibration purposes? 

Q3.1–3. What would be the economic 

consequences to users if CsCl was to be 

banned? 

Q3.1–4. What would be the economic 

consequences to vendors if CsCl was to 

be banned? 

Q3.1–5. (a) Should the NRC 

discontinue all new licensing and 

importation of these sources and 

devices? (b) What is the regulatory 

basis? (c) Who (NRC, DHS, or jointly) 

should conduct the risk analysis? 

Issue No. 3.2: Transportation and 

Storage Issues Associated With 

Removal of CsCl Sources From Licensee 

Facilities 

Q3.2–1. (a) Are there transportation 

packages available for transportation? 

(a) Who should bear the transportation 

costs? 

Q3.2–2. (a) How could the current 

CsCl sources be disposed given that 

CsCl is defined as a ‘‘Greater Than Class 

C’’ source and currently has no disposal 

mechanism in the U.S.? (b) If disposal 

was made available by DOE, what 

would be the cost of disposal? 

Q3.2–3. (a) Where could the 

decommissioned sources be stored? (b) 

What disposition options are needed in 

the United States? 

Issue No. 3.3: Consideration of 

Government Incentives and Voluntary 

Actions by Industry and Manufacturers 

Q3.3–1. Should the Federal 

government issue incentives to 

implement replacements? 

Q3.3–2. (a) Are there feasible 

incentives to shift users away from 

radioactive CsCl for users? (b) 

Manufacturers? 

Q3.3–3. (a) What incentives should 

the Federal government provide to 

licensees to decommission their existing 

sources or devices because the devices 

still have use value? (b) For licensees 

that are defined as ‘‘not-for-profit’’ (e.g., 

hospitals), what type of incentives could 

be made available to change 

technologies? 

Q3.3–4. How can the Federal 

government compensate licensees when 

they are forced to decommission these 

sources? Should compensation include 

the cost of the replacement technology? 

Decommissioning? 

Issue No. 3.4: Impact of Potential U.S. 

Changes to Regulating CsCl on the 

International Community 

Q3.4–1. How can the U.S. prevent 

recovered sources from 

decommissioned devices (or the devices 

themselves) from being sold outside the 

U.S.? 

Q3.4–2. (a) If the U.S. decides to ban 

the use of CsCl sources, should the U.S. 

have a position in denying or 

eliminating after-market sales of CsCl 

irradiators outside the U.S.? (b) Would 

this be potentially denying medical care 

to developing countries? 

Q3.4–3. What should the role of the 

International Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA) be in assisting the U.S. in 

ensuring the safe and secure use of CsCl 

sources and devices? 

Issue No. 4—Additional Requirements 

for Enhanced Security of CsCl Sources 

In considering Issue No. 4, additional 

requirements for enhanced security of 

CsCl sources, there are three main issues 

that should be considered and 

discussed: 

Q4.1. Should the NRC and Agreement 

States require more stringent security 

measures than those currently mandated 

(e.g., should additional requirements be 

implemented for IAEA Category 1 and 2 

sources)? 

Note: The current requirements for 

increased security of certain high-risk 

radioactive sources in the U.S. are: (a) 

Compensatory Measures for panoramic 

irradiators; (b) Additional Security Measures 

for manufacturers and distributors; (c) 

Increased Controls for licensees with 

Category 1 and 2 devices and sources; (d) 

Fingerprinting for access to radioactive 

material (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/ 

byproduct/orders.html). 

Q4.2. Should the NRC and Agreement 

States require more stringent security 

measures for lower than Category 2 CsCl 

sources and devices (e.g., Category 3 

sources)? 

Q4.3. Would additional security 

requirements for CsCl create a 

disincentive for owning them? 

Issue No. 5—Role of Risk Analysis in 

Potential Future CsCl Requirements 

In considering Issue No. 5, the role of 

risk analysis in NRC and Agreement 

State requirements for CsCl, the main 

issues that should be considered and 

discussed: 

Q5.1. (a) How should the NRC 

determine the economic and social 

disruptions/impacts to the public, 

licensees, and the environment? (b) 

How should these factors be measured 

in decision making? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of July 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

John P. Jankovich, 

Team Leader, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–17545 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Request for Comments and Notice of 

Public Hearing Concerning China’s 

Compliance With WTO Commitments 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Request for comments and 

notice of public hearing concerning 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES