ML070510139

2007 Emergency Preparedness and Incident Response Public Meeting: Status of the EP Threat Based Project, 2/16/07

ML070510139
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden, Peach Bottom, Limerick, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle
Issue date:	02/16/2007
From:	Mccain S Exelon Nuclear, Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	NRC/FSME
Chen YJ, NSIR/EPD 415-5615
References
Download: ML070510139 (13)

Text

2007 NRC Counterpart Meeting Status of the EP Threat Based Drill Project Scott McCain Midwest Corporate EP Manager Exelon Nuclear February 16th, 2007

Recap From 2006 Meeting Complete 4th tabletop at VY Feb-06.

Conduct drill at Callaway Mar-06.

Complete new NEI guidance document.

Submit to NRC and FEMA for endorsement.

Provide industry workshop at NEI EP Forum.

1

Current Status of the Project Phase I & II - Conducted tabletop and integrated drills to develop, refine and validate new onsite and offsite guidance and objectives.

- Tabletops held at Diablo Canyon (Air), Duane Arnold (Land), North Anna (Air, Land and Water), Vermont Yankee (Land).

- Integrated drill was held at Callaway (Land).

- 16 utilities representing 51 sites (77% of NPPs) and 12 States (39%

of the states with NPPs) participated in developing the guidance.

Phase III - 3 year period for industry threat drills (09/2006).

- Industry requested NRC/FEMA endorsement of guidance.

- NRC and FEMA currently part of joint scenario working group.

Phase IV - Incorporation of threat drills into the evaluated exercise program [End State].

2

2007 2008 2009 Turkey Point (Feb) Beaver Valley (Jan)

Byron (02/21/08) St. Lucie (Feb) 1Q Palo Verde (03/05/08) Farley (Mar)

Palisades (03/08/08)

Quad Cites (04/04/07) Limerick (04/12/08) Crystal River (1-2Q)

Vogtle (05/23/07) McGuire (May) Millstone (2Q)

Seabrook (06/19/07) San Onofre (May) LaSalle (04/29/09) 2Q Browns Ferry (05/14/08) Peach Bottom (May)

Dresden (06/18/08) South Texas (05/19/09)

Salem / Hope Cr (05/18/09)

Catawba (06/23/09)

Braidwood (07/11/07) D.C. Cook (3Q) Comanche Peak (8/20/08) Oconee (Jul-09)

Brunswick (07/17/07) Fort Calhoun (3Q) Shearon-Harris (Sep) Sequoyah (08/17/09)

Prairie Island (07/24/07) Ginna (3Q) Summer (Sep) 3Q Fermi (08/20/07) Hatch (3Q) Oyster Creek (Sep)

Point Beach (08/29/07) Robinson (Aug) Kewaunee (09/09/08)

Perry (09/12/07)

Columbia (10/23/07) Fitz / Nine Mi Pt (Fall) Watts Bar (11/05/08) Arkansas Nuclear (Fall)

Susquehanna (11/13/07) Pilgrim (Fall) Davis-Besse (11/13/08) River Bend (Fall)

Grand Gulf (4Q) Waterford (Dec) Clinton (10/14/09) 4Q Wolf Creek (4Q) Surry (12/02/08) Cooper (TBD)

Three Mile Island (Oct) Monticello (12/03/08)

Calvert Cliffs (10/20/08) 3

Scenario Development Workshop Hosted by Region III RUG at Exelon Chicago headquarters on February 13.

Agenda focus was for utility and offsite scenario developers.

- Project history

- Detailed scenario development and conduct session

- Lessons Learned process

- Offsite agency coordination and funding 82 utility, state and local planners attended.

4

Jan-06 Industry Concerns Prompt review and endorsement by NRC and FEMA.

This includes relaxing the requirement of an offsite radiological release for exercises.

Defining the scope of an EP Security exercise such that it is considered a meaningful event to allow participation credit [successfully dispositioned].

Scope limitations to ERO actions. Onsite and offsite security forces are specifically tested and evaluated under different venues (such as FoF).

Single licensee inspection evaluation. Part 1 objectives fall under the exercise or FoF evals

[successfully dispositioned].

5

Today's Industry Concerns Still looking for prompt review and endorsement by NRC and FEMA. This includes consideration to vary the requirement for an offsite radiological release in exercises.

FEMA participation has primarily been as observers in the pilot drills.

No solid understanding of the federal response plans and processes by utility and state.

Scope creep of the extent of play (security force activities, site actions through an attack, rad hazards) 6

NEI 06-04 Scenario Anatomy Event Threat Met Personnel Injury and Site Initiation and Secured Damage Response A B C A: Starts with normal plant operations and proceeds up to the point that a threat event occurs (Part 1).

B: Starts with the event (plane crashes, bomb explodes, attack force crosses boundary) and ends when the onsite threat has been cleared (FoF Exercises).

C: Starts with ERO staged and/or response facilities activated and ends with the completion of the drill objectives (Part 2).

7

Drill Design - Scope/Objectives Initial Event Response (Part 1) Post Event Response (Part 2)

Scope Scope Integrated EP and Offsite initial response Large-scale post event response based on to a threat-related event. significant damage caused by a threat-related event.

Main Objectives Main Objectives

1. Classification/Notification 1. Mitigation

2. Onsite protective actions 2. Unified command / communications

3. Augmentation logistics 3. Release/Protective measure

4. Initial operator plant control actions considerations

5. ERO response logistics 4. Public Information

6. Offsite initial response/resources 5. Remote / alternate ERFs

7. Security LLEA interface 6. Multi-casualty medical response

7. Large-scale/area fire

8. 50.54(x) activities (SAM, security)

9. INS considerations

10. Crime scene considerations 8

Drill Design - Main Differences Coordination and participation of the State and local agencies is far beyond the scope of any current routine exercise - EMA REP is only a portion of this event.

While the main focus of the Phase III threat scenario is not on a radiological release nor offsite protective actions, conditions would still involve the thought and decision processes and procedures for these activities.

9

Threat Objectives Bases Tiered hierarchy based on §50.47(b)

Planning Standards plus mitigation.

Objectives are organized within the categories of the planning standards.

PS

- FEMA EEM, NUREG-0654 and IP 82302 RSPS used as templates Demonstration Criteria, the specific performance evaluation elements, were Overall Objectives derived from many sources.

- RIS 04-15, EP Lessons - Post 9/11 Facility Objectives

- 71114.07, FoF IP

- ICM Order, B.5.b section Demonstration Criteria

- Several 2005 Advisories

- Pilot tabletops and drill 10

Lessons Learned NOTE: NEI is maintaining a website for collecting and communicating Phase III onsite and offsite lessons Learned.

There is significantly more scenario development effort involved in creating the threat drills.

- Development team members are needed from each offsite agency.

- Outreach and inclusion of State agencies outside REP/EM are necessary (Terrorism or Homeland Security divisions).

A key player tabletop or similar venue prior the full ERF threat drill (to identify communications issues, vague procedure instructions and inapplicable action steps) is highly recommended.

Integration of Unified Area Command center is not well defined.

Utility employees are not familiar/proficient with onsite protective actions and communications during threat scenarios.

11

Lessons Learned Training and drills for response to, staffing of and operations from backup ERFs need to be more formally conducted to establish a minimum level of proficiency in this area.

Sites with nearby EOF and JIC facilities could have ERO mobilization issues depending on the time of day a given threat scenario takes place.

Utility employees are not familiar/proficient with onsite protective actions and communications during threat scenarios.

Time jump considerations for take cover and restored movement within the site have not been thoroughly considered in several of the personnel attack scenarios.

12

Discussion 13