ML20039F680
| ML20039F680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1982 |
| From: | Grimes B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F620 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8201130213 | |
| Download: ML20039F680 (8) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
)
50-323 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit Nos. 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF BRIAN K. GRIMES DIRECTOR DIVISION OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS USNRC 4
i January 8, 1982 8201130213 82011 gDR.ADOCK 050002h5 PDR
2-TESTIMONY OF BRIAN K. GRIMES, DIRECTOR 2
DIV1SION OF' EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, USNRC Q.1.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
~
4 A.1.
My name is Brian K. Grimes.
I am employed as Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear 6
Regulatory Comission, Washingtnn, D. C.
I am also the NRC Cochairman on the joint NRC/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Steering Comittee for 8
Q.2.
What is the function of that conmittee?
10 A.2.
The Committee serves as a focal point for coordirretion of emergency preparedness and response activities of the two agencies.
12 Q.3.
Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications?
A.3.
Yes. A copy of rny statement of professional qualifications is 14 attached to this testimony.
I Q.4.
What is the purpose of this testimony?
16 A.4.
The purpose of nty testimony is to address the means by which the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement along with FEMA will verify that 18 capabilities called for in the onsite and offsite emergency plans at Diablo Canyon Units-1 and 2 are implemented prior to operation above 5% of full 20 power.
Q.5.
Describe the m'eans employed by NRC to verify the implementation 22 of corrective actions addressing significant deficiencies in emergency preparedness with respect to the emergency planning standards.
24 A.S.
For an uncontested case, the NRC Staff would identify any significant deficiencies concerning the emergency planning standards after reviewing the 26 onsite emergency response plans.
Similarly, FEMA would identify any significant
.. deficiencies concerning the emergency planning standards after reviewing the
I 28 offsite emergency response plans. The significant deficiencies that are identified would be addressed in NRC's safety evaluation reports and would have 30 to be corrected prior to the issuance of a full power license..
The exercise that is held to test the capability of emergency preparedness 32 plans and organizations would normally be considered by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement as part of its pre-operational inspection process.
i 34 The exercise must be held and any significant deficiencies identified in that, exercise must be corrected before power levels above five percent are exceeded.
35 Correction of any significant deficiencies identified in the exercise 1
or plan review would be handled in the same manner as the process conducted 38 by the Staff on other parts of the plant.
For emergency preparedness as for other parts of the plant, the Staff reviews those portions of the Final 40 Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) provided by the licensee and makes its findings l
in the SER based on reasonable assurance.
During the pre-operational inspection 42 process, the Staff then verifies on an audit basis that the commitments and designs provided by the licensee in the FSAR were carried out. This part of 44 the process is generally not a part of those matters that it is necessary for a licensing board to consider.
46 Although FEMA does not have a separately defined inspection process as compared to their plant review process FEMA does go into detail in many 48 areas to verify that means are available to carry out the provisions of l
the offsite plans.
For an uncontested case, FEM would review the offsite 50 plans and the conclusions of this review would be reported in an NRC SER supplement. - A finding on the exercise would be made by FEMA and provided 52 to the NRC prior to the NRC actually granting a full power license.
_~~, - -,.
.g-
~
In a contested case, there needs to be a finding of reasonable assurance 54 in the areas under controversy, and the other areas would be treated by the Staff as in an uncontested case. The emergency plan review should be the major 56 focus of a contested proceeding.
For those deficiencies that are identified in the plans there should be the identification of clear courses of action 58 to remedy those deficiencies. Also these corrective actions should be straight-forward in nature and likely to result in correcting the deficiencies. With 60 this kind of corrective action plan in place, a finding of reasonable assurance on the overall state of emergency preparedness can be made conditioned on 62 the deficiencies being fixed before operation above 5% power is permitted.
In the general uncontested case, the exercise can be addressed as part 64 of the preoperational inspection process which the licensing board does not necessarily have to consider. Since an exercise has been held in this case 66 and specific deficiencies have already been identified, I believe it is appropriate that the reasonable assurance finding should address the major 68 known deficiencies and the courses of action that have been set out for those major deficiencies. The plan deficiencies and the exercise deficiencies 70 are addressed in the memorandum dated December 29, 1981 from FEMA to me as being acceptable to FEMA for the purpose of identifying the major deficiencies, 72 and providing an adequate plan to correct the deficiencies.
BRIAN K. GRIMES PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
~
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT t
I am employed as Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
I am also the NRC Cochainnan on the joint NRC/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Steering Committee for Emergency Preparedness.
Responsibilities under my current assignments include directing the activities of personnel in the review of emergency plans for operating power reactors, operating licenses and construction permits and coordinating NRC and FEMA efforts in the review of emergency preparedness at and around nuclear power plant sites; assuring that the NRC's Operations Center is staffed, trained, and ready to respond promptly and effectively to actual or simulated emergencies, directing the NRC's inspection program to ensure NRC licensees are maintaining in effect emergency plans that there is nc, degradation in their ability to respond to emergencies.
I attended the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and received a BS degree in Chemical Engineering in 1962 and a'MS degree in Nuclear Engineering in 1964. While completing nty graduate work, I was employed as a research assistant at the University of Washington Engineering Experiment Station; my duties involved performing analytical and experimental work on the University of Washington research reactor.
In 1963, I accepted employment with the Division of Reactor Licensing USAEC.
My first assignment involved attendance at the International Institute for
.. Nuclear Science and Engineering at Argonne National Laboratory for four months.
Upon completion of this course, I was assigned as a Nuclear Engineer in the
~
Division of Reactor Licensing. My initial duties included primary responsibility for the continuing review of the nuclear safety aspects of various research reactors.
I subsequently participated in the safety evaluation of a number of construction permit applications for both pressurized and boiling water power reactors.
Later, as a Reactor Project Engineer in the Division of Reactor Licensing, I had primary responsibility for the safety review of the construction permit application for the Commonwealth Edison Company's Quad-Cities Units 1 and 2, for the Duke Power Company's Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3, for the Metropolitan Edison Company's Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, and for the Indiana & Michigan Electric Company's Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
I was assigned to the position of Technical Coordinator for Reactor Projects in October,1968. Prior to March, 1970, I served as Technical Coordinator for both pressurized and boiling water reactors. After March, 1970, as Technical Coordinator for Boiling Water Reactors, my responsibilities included coordinating the technical aspects of all safety reviews in the Boiling Water Reactor group, providing liaison with the pressurized water reactor group and serving as administrative assistant to the Assistant Director i
for Bolling Water Reactors.
I was assigned to the position of Chief of the Radiological Safety Branch, Division of Reactor Licensing in July,1971, in which position I was responsible for the review of systems necessary for the control and treatment of radioactivity
3 under nornal and accident conditions.
In January, 1972, the functions of this branch were divided and I was appointed Chief of the Accident Analysis Branch. My responsibilities as Chief of the Accident Analysis Branch included reviewing calculational nodels, procedures and nethods developed by members of the Branch for both conservative assessment and a realistic assessment of the consequences of a spectrum of accidents for all nuclear power plants and reviewing analyses of all nuclear power reactor sites performed by members of the Branch with regard to site related hazards and compliance with the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100.
In January,1976, I was assigned to the position of Chief of the Environmental Evaluation Branch in the newly formed Division of Operating Reactors.
In this position my responsibilities included supervising the review of radiological and non-radiological impacts of operating nuclear power plants from both a safety and environmental standpoint.
Branch review areas included accident analyses, site-related hazards, effluent treatment systems, off-site radiological effects, and thermal and chemical effluents.
On April 1, 1978 I was appointed Assistant Director for Engineering and Projects in the Division of Operating Reactors.
In this position my responsibilities included managing the activities of the Engineering Branch, the Environmental Evaluation Branch, Operating Reactors Project Branch No. 3, Operating Reactors Project Branch No. 4 and the Standard Technical Specification Group. On June 25, 1979, I was assigned Acting Assistant Director for Systems Engineering in the Division of Operating Reactors, and managed the Plant Systems Branch and the Reactor Safety Branch. On October 25, 1979, I was designated Director of the Emergency Preparedness Task Group reporting to the Director of the
... Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
In November,1980, all reactor emergency preparedness review activities were combined with NRC response activities in the new Division of Emergency Preparedness in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and I was appointed Director of that Division.
In this position, I supervise the Emergency Preparedness Licensing Branch, Emergency Preparedness Development Branch and the Incident Response Branch.