ML20012G773

Discusses Proposed Action Plan for Design Basis Threat & Recommends That NRC Rept on Phase II Not Forwarded to Commission for Consideration Until All Actions Completed

ML20012G773
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/11/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Rogers K, Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
FRN-59FR38889 AE81-2, AE81-2-087, AE81-2-87, NUDOCS 9303160123
Download: ML20012G773 (4)

Text

,

h)-.

x pk pg UNITED STATES

'I E

[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION i

y WASHINGTON, D.C. M k'..CN March 11. 1993 i

MEMORANDUM FOR:

The Chairman Commissioner Rogers commissioner curtiss l

Commissioner Remick l

Commissioner de Planque FROM:

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

DESIGN BASIS THREAT REEVALUATION -

PROPOSED ACTION PIAN Staff has reviewed Mr. Chilk's memorandum, dated March 1, 1993,

'" Design Basis Threat." _Given the sensitivity and potential _

significance of these is. sues we propose to proceed in two phases.

Phase I will involve a rapid review of information~available to NRC today to include revisitin'g'the 1988 Commission decision on the need for vehicle protection requirements.~ We-will:be prepared to brief the Commission at the and of April on this-l relook, along with any new pertinent data, which will provideLthe Commission an opportunity to reassess the'1988 decision.

We'will j

also be prepared to discuss our plans regarding Phase II.

j Phase II will entail a more in depth review and analysis in the following areas:

j I

1.

Changes in the Nuclear Power Reactor-Industry.

Staff will f

reviewisignificac* changes that have occurred in the near past and will ana2/ze those changes, vulnerabilities,'and.

j systems not previously analyzed, e.g., the addition of j

Independent Spent Fuel Storage' Installations at reactor i

sites,'in terms of'the existing Design Basis Threat (DBT)

.t and threat characteristics currently under consideration.

l Where warranted, staff will propose changes or additions to existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission safeguards

}

requirements.

]

t 2.

The Use of.a Vehicle.by-an Adversary.- The Three Mile Island (TMI) intrusion and the World Trade Center bombing require-5 that.the general topic of. vehicle use by an adversary be.

examined, independent of the review of the DBT.- Staff j

examination will focus.on the use of a vehicle.to gain l

a'ccess-to'the protected" area and vital areas, the use of'a

.l

. vehicle as'a weapon or as'a bomb, and the synergistic"effect

~

r of vehic4e use on.other design basis. characteristics.

Staff'

~

also will' incorporate,

_l

. Incident Investigation as' appropriate, findings;of.the TMI Team.

Results, including a range of j

l

-protection options and costs, will be included in staff's-i l'

response to the Commission.

l ggf/

150009 I

9303160123 930311

.PDR ' COMMS MtCC l )

CORRESPONDENCE PDR.-

}

l

m :-

g n.

Dr 2

j 3.

The Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage.

Staff j

_ ill' complete a fresh revie.w of the validity of the DBT,.

i w

particularly in light of.the World Trade Center bombing.

l The characteristics.of_vehic1'e bomb attacks worldwide-will'

_ta reviewed and compared'to data derived from'the investigation'of the World Trade Center bombing.

Further, l

in its assessment ofithe general threat of radiological-staff will incorporata/ input,:such as estimates,

]

sabotage,ts and'other data, from the Intelligence Community.

assessmen l

Ra' commendations'and a range.of options and cost estimates i

for each option will be p ovided to the Commission for its.

consideration as appropriate.

]

In order to further focus staff review of the above areas and to I

~

invite an open d,iscussion of the issues, staff will' conduct a j

public workshop.

The workshop would provide interested parties i

with the opportunity to offer ideas, opinions, and suggestions, l

along with technical data'and supporting information, on the matters under review.

j Although work will begin immediately,.each of the,three major

[

areas identified in Phase II by the staff will require different.

amounts of time to complete, particularly item 3 which is i

dependent on receiving input from other. agencies that could take.

I up to 1 year.

Further, the results-in one of the three areas may affect the recommendations offered in-the. remaining two.

Therefore, staff recommends,that its report on' Phase II not be forwarded to the Commission for consideration until all actions j

are completed, and staff recommendations and accompanying cost-estimates can be formulated based'on. complete results.

With an accelerated staff effort and tizaly' response'by.other agencies, actions noted ab've, including the workshop,.'may be completed in o

nine months.

A draft timeline for conducting ~these activities is enclosed.

Based on Executive Branch:information presented at the March 5,.1993 Commission meeting that there does not appear to be an imminent credible threat, or;any indication'of significant-change in the th'reat environment,land given'the scope of the.

~

effort and need for other agencies to respond, staff believes this schedule is reasonable'. :The Commission will be kept j

informed staff progress with pari ic status report

.l I

i a

s M. Tay

[

cutive Di actor

't for operations i

Enclosure:

Action Plan Outline i

t cc:

SECY f

OGC i

OCA j

OPA PDR i

.l.

I

~

DRAFT ACTION PLAN OUTLINE ACTION Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan l.

1. Finalize Detailed Action Plan -

x-----------------------x Identify issues and scope x-----------x Revise per Commission after x----x l

Workshop 2.

Interim Commission briefing re 1986 x

3. Public Design Basis Workshop x-----------------------------x Schedule & conduct workshop x-----------x Report to Commission x------x Review and analyze input x-----------------x

4. Review & Consider IIT Findings x----------x

5. Design Basis Threat x------------------------------------------------x Collect & Analyze. Adversary x--------------------x Numbers Data Collect & Analyze Weaponry. Data x--------------------x Collect & Analyze Equipment Data x--------------------x

~

Assessment Activity on Threat x------------------------------------------------x with Intelligence Community

6. Independent Spent Fuel Storage x-------------------------------------------x Install.ations Study Let contract x--------x

^

Contract Study x----------------------------------X

7. Vehicle Use By Adversary x----------------------------------------x Vehicle as Transport to Target x----------------------------------------x Vehicle as Ramming Weapon in x----------------------------------------X Protected Area Vehicle as Bomb x-----------------------------------x

8. Report to Commission x-------x----x-----------x-----------------x Periodic status reports x

x x

Evaluate reaults, options, costs x----------X Final Report X------x

.f

.s---

wa,

h f

The Commissioners 4

s, DISTRIBUTION EDO 0008624 JTaylor HThompson Off Dir. R/F FCongel, NRR LBush, NRR RBurnett ETen Eyck CNSmith JDavidson FCOB R/F NMSS R/F CPoland LTipton JSniazak JBlaha JKnubel TMurley, NRR EJordan, AEOD RFonnar, OGC EDO R/F MBridgers, EDO

• See previous concurrence.

is:edorev2 s:ntrx2. pin CFC FCOB*

E FCOB*

E FCSS*

FCSS*

E NRR*

NRR*

NAME JDavidson CNSmith ETenEyck RBurnett FCongel LBush DATE 3/10/93 3/10/93 3/

/93 3/10/93 3/10/93 3/10/93 mammmunes.-

muniniumuumamme unum

inumusumunummuu numamuuuuuuuma meusunusummuumminum CFC NRR*

OGC*.

E

'NMSS*

NMSS*

D%t@r EDO NAME TMurley RFonner GArlotto RBernero HTFNpson JTaylor DATE 3/10/93 3/10/93 3/10/93 3/10/93 3//[/93 3/

/93 C= COPY E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY b

i r

I

- -, _