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 16 th , 2007 1 Recap From 2006 MeetingComplete 4 th 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.

2 Current Status of the ProjectPhase 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].

3Arkansas Nuclear (Fall)River Bend (Fall)

Clinton (10/14/09)Cooper (TBD)Fitz/ Nine Mi Pt (Fall)Watts Bar (11/05/08)Pilgrim (Fall)Davis-Besse(11/13/08)

Grand Gulf (4Q)Waterford (Dec)

Wolf Creek (4Q)Surry (12/02/08)Three Mile Island (Oct)Monticello (12/03/08)Calvert Cliffs (10/20/08)Columbia (10/23/07)Susquehanna (11/13/07) 4QOconee(Jul-09)Sequoyah(08/17/09)D.C. Cook (3Q)Comanche Peak (8/20/08)Fort Calhoun (3Q)Shearon-Harris (Sep)Ginna(3Q)Summer (Sep)

Hatch (3Q)Oyster Creek (Sep)Robinson (Aug)Kewaunee (09/09/08)Braidwood (07/11/07)Brunswick (07/17/07)Prairie Island (07/24/07)

Fermi(08/20/07)

Point Beach (08/29/07)Perry (09/12/07) 3QCrystal River (1-2Q)Millstone (2Q)LaSalle (04/29/09)Peach Bottom (May)South Texas (05/19/09)Salem / Hope Cr (05/18/09)Catawba (06/23/09)Limerick (04/12/08)McGuire (May)

SanOnofre(May)Browns Ferry (05/14/08)Dresden (06/18/08)Quad Cites (04/04/07)Vogtle(05/23/07)

Seabrook (06/19/07) 2QBeaver Valley (Jan)

St.Lucie(Feb)Farley (Mar)Turkey Point (Feb)Byron (02/21/08)Palo Verde (03/05/08)Palisades (03/08/08) 1Q200920082007 4 Scenario Development WorkshopHosted 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 funding82 utility, state and local planners attended.

5Jan-06 Industry ConcernsPrompt review and endorse ment 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 FoFevals

[successfully dispositioned

].

6 Today's Industry ConcernsStill looking for prompt review and endorsement by NRC and FEMA. This includes consideration to vary the requirement for an offsit e radiological release in exercises.FEMA participation has primarily been as observers in the pilot drills. No solid understand ing 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, radhazards) 7 NEI 06-04 Scenario AnatomyA: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 (FoFExercises).C:Starts with ERO staged and/or response facilities activated and ends with the completion of the drill objectives (Part 2).

Event Initiation Threat Met and SecuredPersonnel Injury and Site Damage ResponseABC 8Drill Design -Scope/ObjectivesMain Objectives 1.Mitigation 2.Unified command / communications 3.Release/Protective measure considerations 4.Public Information 5.Remote / alternate ERFs 6.Multi-casualty medical response 7.Large-scale/area fire 8.50.54(x) activities (SAM, security) 9.INS considerations 10.Crime scene considerationsMain Objectives 1.Classification/Notification 2.Onsite protective actions 3.Augmentation logistics 4.Initial operator plant control actions 5.ERO response logistics 6.Offsite initial response/resources 7.Security LLEA interfaceScopeLarge-scale post event response based on significant damage caused by a threat-related event.ScopeIntegrated EP and Offsite initial response to a threat-related event.Post Event Response (Part 2)Initial Event Response (Part 1) 9Drill Design-Main DifferencesCoordination 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.

10 Threat Objectives BasesTiered hierarchy based on §50.47(b) Planning Standardsplus mitigation.Objectivesare organized within the categories of the planning standards.

-FEMA EEM, NUREG-0654 and IP 82302 used as templatesDemonstration Criteria, the specific performance evaluation elements, were derived from many sources.

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

-71114.07, FoF IP

-ICM Order, B.5.b section

-Several 2005 Advisories

-Pilot tabletops and drillDemonstration CriteriaFacility ObjectivesOverall Objectives PS RSPS 11 Lessons LearnedThere is significantly more scenario development effort involvedin 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 threatdrill (to identify communications issues, vague procedure instructionsand 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.

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

12 Lessons LearnedTraining 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.

13 Discussion