ML20141F394
Text
- o' t 'f$, o$b 1.b-< ;
,b
,,r ** ~fe:.ne:u g /g
- o,, UNITED STATES // d
[.
g.
g
-E.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.- --WASHINGTON, D,C. 20555 gg . . - - - - -
( *
/
DEC 101980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank P. Gillespie, Chief Safeguards Standards Branch Division of Siting, Health and Safeguards Standards Office of Standards Development FROM: Martin J. King, Chief Personnel Security Branch Division of Security Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
MEETING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR PART 11 - DECEMBER 11, 1980 This will confinn our meeting on December 11, 1980 regarding implementation of 10 CFR Part 11 which was also attended by representatives of the Physical Securit J (NMSS))y Licensing Branch (Office of Nuclear Material Safety and S
..h Qffice of the Executive Legal Director. 7,g,,
e During the meeting, the following matters were ' discussed:
{
- 1. The significance and applicability of the results of the study entitled
" Potential Threat to Licensed Nuclear Activities from Insiders (Insider Study)," NUREG-0703, to the investigative and adjudicative process which will be associated with 10 CFR Part 11 implementation. In this regard, it was noted that: o "R" material access authori- #'
Oa. The national zation agency for is not designed check required credit forlocal checks or an police checks or # 6#
other checks which would develop information as to indebtedness, alcoholic or drug abuse, or mental or emotional instability, nor does the current Personnel Security Questionnaire completed by applicants for security clearance contain questions to elicit such information.
[
- h b. Intervals between investigations where prior investigations are used in support of a "U" or "R" access authorization could range from five O to ten years.
A previous investigation used to support a "U" or "R" access authori- go zation may not be reviewed or updated where at least an equivalent p' I;
CONTACT: M. J. King, PERSEC
( 42-74474 - ,
8601090301 851223 ,
50 39076 PDR
?n$ - . - -
I .D 0 un g
] Frank P. Gillespie / -
Department of Defense (D0D) or Department of Energy (DOE) security clearance is held by the applicant and certified by the granting agency as supportable by a case file containing no unresolved derogatory information.
g /e -
Contrary to the traditional government-wide clearance program, the 'h*
" burden of proof" is on the government (Nuclear Regulatory Commission p (NRC)) to support a reasonable belief that a person is untrustworthy and/or unreliable to handle or exercise control over unclassified special nuclear material covered by 10 CFR Part 11.
- 2. Whether "Grandfathering" would be acceptable under 10 CFR Part 11 which 2 would mean a accepting a certified clearance (no investigative report MN reviewed), b obtaining the minimum of security papers (e.g., no personal
- h / history data or Personnel Security Questionnaire required), and (c) waiving
^$*f D the age of investigative material which supports the existing clearance.
What investigative coverage is required for renewal of a "U" or "R"? The g*d fee schedule in 11.15 (e) of 10 CFR Part 11 suggests a national agency check.
- 4. Does 10 CFR Part 11 cover NRC employees (e.g., Office of Inspection and gp
( Enforcement (IE) inspectors)? Will they need "U's" or "R's"? Part 11
$. indicates " Licensees may not allow anyone access unless they have an NRC
_j "U" or "R"." Part 11.11 (b) states "...and no individual may be permitted -
V unescorted access to any protected area at any site subject to this part without either an NRC-U or NRC-R special nuclear material access authori-
. zation." (Same words are in 11.13 (a).)
% 5. Are there portions of 10 CFR Part 11' which will be inspected by IE? Are there requirements for them to do so?
10 CFR Part 11 d'oes not provide for a visit control program to allow for 9
/
p
. verification of nuclear material access authorizations. Is such needed,
.Y I 9 4 for example, during the conduct of shipment of strategic special nuclear p material between licensees, carriers, and/or receivers, or for a visit to a licensee by an NRC inspector, or'for visits between licensees or between licensee's and DOE or D0D and its contractors? (Refer to 10 CFR Part25.37.)
L# 7. Security packets for material access authorization requests from vendors / #
contractors / consultants to licensees should be submitted through and approved by the related licensees. Part 11 indicates otherwise.
,8. There is a question as to the interpretation of the closing date for the #
\L) submission of security packets by licensees under 10 CFR Part 11.
9 Will exemptions. to 10 CFR Part 11 be the responsibility of Safeguards
( , Standards Branch (Office of Standards Development)? g/p#
.. - + - __
. _4 /
..W -
0 e
i my' \
'I /' _ . --- - -
,./
.;,.( Frank P. Gil'espie /
. a s y h 10. Division of Security should receive a copy of each security plan approved 94 pursuant to 10 CFR Part 11. j h A method to spread out the estimated 5,000 security packets to be received by the Division of Security in conjunction with 10 CFR Part 11 should be 's' a #I established. g# ,
As a result of the meeting, it was agreed that the above matters would be considered further by you and the Physical Security Licensing Branch (NMSS) and Regulatory Improvements Branch (NMSS) and comments provided to me. .
yh?'yn a
/
Martin J. King, Chie Personnel Security Branch Division of Security Office of Administration cc: R. J. Brady, SEC
(
L. J. Evans , Jr. , NMSS D. G. Kidd, SPB G. W. McCorkle, NMSS E. C. Shomaker, ELD S
9 G
( -
l
! e