ML20054D881
| ML20054D881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1982 |
| From: | Grimes B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054D873 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204230469 | |
| Download: ML20054D881 (7) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER AtlD LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-382
)
Waterford Steam Electric Station
)
Unit 3)
)
TESTIMONY OF BRIAN K. GRIMES, DIRECTOR NRC DIVISION OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Q.1.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
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 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
I am also the NRC Co-chairman on the joint NRC/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Steering Committee for Emergency Preparedness.
Q.2.
What is the function of that committee?
A.2.
The Committee serves as a focal point for coordination of emergency preparedness and response activities of the two agencies.
Q.3.
Have you prepared a statement of profecsional qualifications?
A.3.
Yes. A copy of my statement of professional qualifications is attached to this testimony.
Q.4.
What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.4 The purpose of my testimony is to address the means by which the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement along with FEMA will verify that the capabilities called for in the onsite and offsite 204230 M ~
2_
emergency plans at Waterford Unit 3 are implemented prior to the issuance of a full power license.
Q.5.
Describe the means employed by the NRC to verify the implemen-tation of corrective actions addressing significant deficiencies in emergency preparedness with respect to the emergency planning standards.
A.S.
In an uncontested case, the NRC Staff would identify any significant deficiencies concerning the emergency planning standards after reviewing the onsite emergency response plans.
Similarly, FEMA would identify any significant deficiencies concerning the emergency planning standards after reviewing the offsite emergency response plans.
The significant deficiencies which are identified would be addressed in the NRC's safety evaluation reports and would have to be corrected prior to the issuance of a full power license. The exercise which is held to test the capability of emergency preparedness plans and organizations would normally be considered by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement as part of its pre-operational inspection process. The exercise must be held, and any significant deficiencies identified in that exercise must be corrected, before a full power license is issued.
In an uncontested case, the correction of any significant deficiencies identified in the exercise or plan review would be handled in the same manner as the review process conducted by the Staff on other parts of the plant; the Staff reviews those portions of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) provided by the licensee or applicant and makes its findings in the SER based on the existence of reasonable assurance.
. During the pre-operational inspection process, the Staff then verifies on an audit basis that the commitments and designs provided by the licensee or applicant in the FSAR were implemented.
This part of the process is generally not a part of those matters which are necessary for a licensing board to consider.
Although FEMA does not have a separately defined inspection process as compared to their plan review process, FEMA does go into detail in many areas to verify that means are available to carry out the provisions of the offsite plans.
In an uncontested case, FEMA would review the offsite plans and the conclusions of FEMA's review would be reported in a SER supplement by the NRC. A finding on the exercise would be made by FEMA and provided to the NRC prior to the NRC's granting a full power license.
In a contested operating license (0L) proceeding, a finding of reasonable assurance must be made in the areas in controversy; areas not i
in controversy would be treated by the Staff in the same manner as in an uncontested case.
The emergency plan review, as applicable to the admitted contentions, should be the major focus of a contested OL proceeding.
Where deficiencies are identified in the plans, clear courses of action should be identified to remedy those deficiencies; these corrective actions should be straightforward in nature and should be likely to result in a correction of the deficiencies.
With this kind of corrective action plan in place, a finding of reasonable assurance on the overall state of emergency preparedness can be made conditioned upon the deficiencies being corrected before a full power license is issued.
BRIAN K. GRIMES _
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT I am employed as Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
I am also the NRC Cochainnan on the joint NRC/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Steering Committee for Emergency Preparedness. s Responsibilities under igy 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 no 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 ray 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 l
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 Comonwealth 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 l
for Boiling 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 l
for the review of systems necessary for the control and treatment of radioactivity l
l
under normal 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 models, procedures and methods 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, and the Incident Response and Development Branch.
I h
I t
.-#