ML18085A187
| ML18085A187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1980 |
| From: | Kerrigan J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011040619 | |
| Download: ML18085A187 (6) | |
Text
OCT 2 4 l!l80
- Docket No.:
50-311 APPLICANT:
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY FACILITY:
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
SUBJECT:
MEETING ivITH LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK FIRE DEPARTMENT (LACFD}
On October 7, 1980, the following NRC staff members met with the LACFD to dis-cuss the LACFD role in the Salem Fire Protection Plan: J. Kerrigan {Project Manager, Unit 2), B. Ross (Project Manager, Unit 1), L. Norrholm (OIE Resident Inspector) and G. Harrison {Fire Protection Engineer). The LP.CFO felt that their concerns were not being adequately addressed by PSE&G.
The discussions were very frank and open and involved fire protection and emergency preparedness.
Many of the LACFD questions were in areas ~;hich are not under the jurisdiction of NRC.
In response to' those questions, we offered personal opinions and advice, but stressed the fact that our responses were not official NRC positions.
The major points that came out of this meeting were the following:
- 1. The LACFO has no understanding of their role in the event that they are called on site, and in particular, expressed concern about radiation protection matters~
- 2.
~Je pointed out that the NRC. requirements on fire protection are concerned only with the safe shutdown of the plant and the prevention of any release of radioactive materials. The LACFD was under the impression that NRC fire protection requirements (e.g., Fire Suppression Systems) were applicable to all areas of the plant site.
- 3.
The LACFD was interested in the actions that NRC would take in the event that the LACFD membership refuses to sign a letter of agreement with the utility.
We stated that both the Fire Protection and Emergency Planning Groups at NRC would be involved in arriving at a position v1hich could result in additional requirements being placed on the utility.
t~e stress-ed however, that it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned
{i.e., LAC To~*mship, utility, LACFD) to resolve any differences between the utility and the LACFD, if possible.
- 4.
The LACFO indicated that most of their members have never been involved in utility-sponsored training or drills. The few members that have been involved in a drill expressed concern about the adequacy of the drill.
so 11 04 o a 1 9 F
OFFICE~,--..................................
SURNAME~....................................
DATE~ *........**.........................
NRC FORM 318 (9-76) N8CM 0240 1'.:ru.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369 I
I
\\
- 5.
The TQwnshi p Mayor and Council appear to share some of the LACFD concerns and have written to PSE&G about those concerns.
- 6.
The LAGFD is not satisfied with the 1976 letter of agreement that was signed with the utility. A turnover of personnel has occurred since 1976 and the new membership is more knowledgeable about nuclear power.
The LACFD is interested in signin.9 a letter of agreement that mor~
explicitly defines utility and LACFD responsibil.ities.
- 7.
The utility _appears to be responsive to the LACFD concerns.
For example, the utility met with the LACFD on September 18, 1980 and responded to the Mayor's letter of September 29 within two days *. The problem appears to be that the LACFO has a problem expressing their concern and the utility is not sensitive to the problem.
As an example,, the LACFD. asked the utility what training they would be given and the utility responded by stating that they t>/ould sponsor any training that the LACFD asked for.
The LACFD was very frustrated with this response because they do not know what type of training they need.
For this particular question, we gave the LACFD a generic letter which describes the NRC requirements for training of the uti,1 ity fire brigade.
We indicated to the LACFO that we would:
- l. Relay their concerns to FEMA,, the* utility and the NRC Emergency Prepared:...
- ness Group.
- 2. Verify, through OIE,, that Salem is fulfilling their commitments to NRC on training of offsite an9 onsite fire brigade members (documented in the Salem Fire Protection Program).
_ / j I J. Kerriga/, Project Manager Licensing Branch No* :'3.
Division of Licensing su::::: ~ ~K~~b~~f:. :
- ~."."II. Ii".~ *'=".t:L.I. j?:..
DATE~.l.~(J(~~........... ~...
NRC FORM 318 (9-76) N RCM 0240
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------------.....:.J
- u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Docket File G. Lear NRC PDR
. v. Noonan Local PDR
- s. Pawlicki HC/NSIC/Tera
- v. Benaroya NRR Reading
- z. Rosztoczy LB/13 Reading
- w. Haass H. Denton D. Mull er E. Case R. Bal.lard D.
Eis~nhut
- w. Regan R, Purple D. Ross B, J. Youngblood P. Check A. Schwencer R. Satterfield F. Mi n1gl; a
- 0. Parr
µ! Miller F. Rosa G.
~ainas
- w. Butler R. Vollmer
- w. Kreger J. P, Knight R. Houston R. Bosnak T. Murphy F. Schauer L. Rubenstein R. E. Jackson T. Speis Project Manager J. Kerrigan
- w. Johnston Attorney, OELD J. Stolz J. Lee
- s. Hanauer I
OIE (3)
\\~. Gammi 11 i
ACRS {16)
I R. Tedesco F. Schroeder D. Skovholt M. Ernst NRC Partici~ants:
R. Baer
- c. Ber*l i nger K. Kniel B. Ross (i. Knighton*
~. Norrholm A. Thadani D. Ton di J. Kramer D. Vassallo P. Collins D. Ziemann bee:
Applicant & Service List
/
_J
Dock~t Np.:. 50-311 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 OCT 2 4 1980 APPL~CANT: PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY FACILITY; SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK FIRE DEPARTMENT (LACFD)
.On October 7, 1980, the following NRC staff members met with the LACFD to dis-cuss th~ ~ACFD role in the Salem Fire Protection Plan: J. Kerrigan (Project Manager, Unit 2), B. Ross (Project Manager, Unit 1), L. Norrholm (OIE Resident InspeGtor) and G. Harrison (Fire Protection Engineer).
The LACFD felt that their concerns were not being adequately addressed by PSE&G.
The discussions were very frank and open and involved fire protection and
~mergency preparedness.
Many of the LACFD questions were in areas which are not u~d~r the jurisdiction of NRC.
In response to those qu~stions, we offered personal opinions and advice, but stressed the fact that our responses were not official NRC positions.
The major points that came out of this meeting were the following:
- l. *Th~ LACFD has no understanding of their role in the event that they are called on site, and in particular, expressed concern about radiation protection matters.
- 2.
We pointed out that the NRC requirements on fire protection are concerned only with the safe shutdown of the plant and the prevention of any release of radioactive materials. The LACFD was under the impression that NRC fire protection requirements (e.g., Fire Suppression Systems) were applicable to all areas of the plant site.
- 3. The LACFD was interested in the actions that NRC would take in the event that the LACFD membership refuses to sign a letter of agreement with the utility.
We stated that both the Fire Protection and Emergency Planning
~roups at NRG would be involved in arriving at a position which could result in additional requirements being placed on the utility.
We stress-ed however, that it would be in the best interest of all parties concerned (i.e., LAC Township, utility, LACFD) to resolve any differences between the utility and the LACFD, if possible.
- 4.
The LACFD indicated that most of their members have never been involved in utility-sponsored training or drills. The few members that have been involved in a drill expressed concern about the adequacy of the drill.
=-- -=- ---- 5.
Th~ Township Mayor and Council appear to share some of the LACFD concerns qnd have written to PSE&G about those concerns.
- 6.
The LAGFD is not satisfied with the 1976 letter of agreement that was signed with the utility. A turnover of personnel has occurred since 1976 and the new membership is more knowledgeable about nuclear power.
The LACFD is interested in signing a letter of agreement that more explicitly defines utility and LACFD responsibilities.
- 7.
The utility appears to be responsive to the LACFD concerns.
For example,.
the utility met with the LACFD on September 18, 1980 and responded to the Mayor's letter of September 29 within two days.
The problem appears to be that the LACFD has a problem expressing their concern and the utility is not sensitive to the problem.
As an example, the LACFD asked the utility what training they would be given and the utility responded by stating that they would sponsor any training that the LACFD asked for.
The LACFO was very frustrated with this response because they do not know what type of training they need.
For this particular question, we gave the LACFD a generic letter which describes the NRC requirements for training of the utility fire brigade.
W~ indicated to the LACFD that we would:
- l. Relay their concerns to FEMA, the utility and the NRC Emergency Prepared-ness Group.
- 2.
Verify, through OIE, that Salem is fulfilling their commitments to NRC on trai~ing of offsite and onsite fire brigade members (documented in the Salem Fire Protection Program).
n, J{r,vU;r~
(/d. Kerrigan, P~ject Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Mr. R. L.
~ittl, General ~anager Li cens ins & Cnvi 1*on:ncnt
[ngi 11c:e1*i !-ig & Construction Der a l't.i;:,:::nt Public Sc:1-yice ~lecLric & Gas Cr~::;;p.1:-,y 80 rad~ PJ.:ce i:ci*:ark, ::t:1*: l\\:rsc:y 07 l 01 cc:
Ric!-.. ::rd fryling, Jr., Esq.
Assistant ~eneral Counsel Public Sc:1*vice Electric & Gas Co!i;pany 80 Park Place
- ~ehark, Nev/ L1ersey 07100 l<ark l*:etterhc:hn, Esq.
Co~~er, Mocre*& Cober Suite 1 C~O 1747 ?cn::syhz-:nia,'\\vc:nue, N.
I~.
~2S~~ng~on, D. C.
20006