ML19246C194
| ML19246C194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Kerr W, Mark J, Okrent D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T, NUDOCS 7907230714 | |
| Download: ML19246C194 (77) | |
Text
...
N.C PCmJr C DCQn 1
l zy NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION i
IN YHE MATTER OF:
I I
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING on REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH
(
I Place - Washington, D.
C.
l Octe -
Tuesday, July 10, 1979 Pages 1 - 72 4
i i
I l
1
- .i.:nce.:
(
(20;!0 & -3700 ACE - FEDER.M. REPORTERS INC.
Official Reporters 444 Nerth Ccpitel Street Wcshirgten. D.C. 20C01
/
NATICNWlDE COVERAGE DAILY 77 361 268 7907230 ~!!9 r
\\
1 l
ll
. PUBLIC NCTICE SY THE CRS692 2
UNITED STATES SUC', EAR REGULATORY CC:Oi!SSICN'S I
3 ADVISORY CC?o!!! TEE CN REACTOR SAFIGUARDS l
Tuesday, Jul'y 10, 1979 5
6 The contents of this stenegraphic transcript of the 7,
proceedings of the Uc.ited States Nuclear Regulatory l
8!
Cor:aission's Ad*7isory Cc=.ittee on Reacter Safeguards (ACES),
I 9
as _repcrted herein, is an uncorrected record cf the discussions i
10 !
recorded at the meeting held en the.above date.
4 II' No nenber of th<e ACRS Staff and no c. articicant at. Onis l
12 n:eeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies
(
13 of statenent or data conta.ned in this transcript.
d 14 15 16 17 I
i 18 i
I 19i 20!
i I
i 21' I
(
I 22t 23 l
24<
Ace-Federci Reper'en, fr<.!
i 25-
- h 1 j
G. v /
2 CRS 6 9 2 1,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
]
2d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM'4ISSIO:I 1
1 3
m ADVISORY COMMITTEE CN REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
i 5
6 SUBCCMMITTEE MEETING 7.
on 3
REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH 9'
10 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.
W.
11 '
Washington, D.
C.
12 Tuesday, 10 July 1979 (T
13 l The ACPS Subcccmittee on Reactor Safety Research met, I
14 ! pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.,
Dr. David Okrent, chairman 15 of the subcommittee, presiding.
16 '
PRESENT:
17~
DR. DAVID ORREtiT, Chairman of the Sdaccmmittee 18 PROF ~ WILLIAM KERR, Member 19 DR. J. CARSON MARK, Member 20 MR. 'iILLIAM M.
MATHIS, Member 21 DR. MILTON S.
PLESSET, Member 22 l DR. CHESTER P. SIESS, Member L
23 24 Ace Pederal Repor ers, Inc.
25 l i
9 361
3 CR 5692 Hoffman 41.
ros 1 I
PROCEE DINGS i
2' MR. GOSSICK:
When it created the NRC, Congress i
3 recognized the need for an independent capability uo develop and analyze technical information on nuclear safety, safeguards d
l C
and enviromental protection as a basis for regulatory decisions.4 1
6 Thus, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research was established to perform what was characterized as " confirmatory assessment."
7 i
8 Congress took great pains to distinguish between the kind of i
9 confirmatory research NRC would perform and the traditional 10 "research and development" functions assigned to the Energy l
II '
Research and Development Administration.
NRC would have access i
i 12 to all data required to assess the areas under its regulatory
(
13 purview, and ERDA and other Federal agencies were tasked to l
Id cooperate and make facilities and support available to NRC on 15 '
a reimbursable basis.
The bulk of NRC research would be 16 performed at E RDA, now COE, facilities, with NRC not assigned i7 any lahoratories of its own.
I 13 We have made considerable progress, and also 19 encountared problems, in implementing these statutory concepts 1
20 during the past four years -- for example, we have develeped 1
21 appropriate working arrangements with COE and determined the 22 proper levels and kinds of research work to be performed at 23!
DOE laboratories.
As you know, this matter has been a subject 24 j of criticism b; the GAO.
NRC has also recently developed Aa4Me al Reporters, inc.
l l
2 *C tentative cri.e.:ria for placing work at labs versus ccmmercial i
t
,. 7 4
) r Jbl L/ i n
'l 4
i t
ros 2 1
firms.
Congress' concept of confirmatory research also has 2
expanded somewhat with enactment of 1973 Authorization Act, i
i 3
P.L.95-209, which directed NRC to develop a long-term plan 4
for projects for t:.e development of new or improved safety 5
systems for nuclear power plants.
i I
6 Under the Energy Feorganization Act, RES is 7:
responsible for (1) developing recommendations for research 8
deemed necessary for performance by the Commission, and 9
(2) engaging in or contracting for research which the Commission 10 deems necessarv.
Also, NMSS and NRR were made responsible for
\\
I i
11 recccmending research to enable the Commission to effec'.ively 12 perform its functions.
In practice, of course, RES accepts l
\\
(
13 '
reconmendations from all major NRC offices.
The ACRS, while i
,I i
14 not a programmatic office of the NRC, influences the direction l i
L, i or, and in some cases the performance of specific researen; 16 hence, can also be considered a " user."
17 DR. MARR:
It has been thought in the past that RES 18 is capable of initiating a proposal and having it accepted, 19 !
except for some rather special mechanisms.
This seems to me 20 questionable, in the sense that it seems to me that they 21 might have an idea and it might be impossible to implement it.
(
22 MR. GCSSICK:
I will get into that in a little bit,
~,
k 23' here.
That's a point I want to discuss with the Committee.
i 24 '
In a broad sense, of course, the NRC research program; ace veoeras nepor rs inc.
25 '
can be responsive to the public as requestors for research, t
0 !)
{
1 l
~4 i
J i
L/'
i s
i i
O
_ ros 3 1
most notable -he Congress and the scientific comrunity.
NRC 2
must also be cognizant of relevant research performed by 3
industry and the foreign ccmmunity.
4 As you know, we have a number o f interchange i
1 5
agreements with foreign countries, where we 3re exchanging I
research information as well as operational experience with 6
7.
reactors that are actually in operation.
j At the outset, there was a large set of internal o
NRC and ACRS user requirements addressing light water reactor 9,
10 l safety res^ arch needs which were fairly w_11 defined.
User i
11 requirer. cats for these older programs were stated formally, i
12 -
but for new programs were sometimes presentec. informally.
l l
{
13 In 1975, as a part of developing a "5-Year Plan,"
j l
i ta the Controller set up two panels of the Program Review l
i 15 '
Ccmmittee -- which is our counterpart to the Budget Review l
l 16 Committee which exists now.
One of these panels was on 17 research, and the other was on Workload and Forecasts.
13 The Research Panel report of May 1976 fcund several 19 instances where user requirements frcm NEC offices were not documented, or not current, or not specific, or did not contain
,o.
'l criority information.
It recommended establishment of
'l 22 additional formal proceduras for all user offices to develop 23,
a clearly documented and well organized set of user requirements 24 for the entire RES program.
From this, and with Congressional sa -Wmt Amorms. Inc.
,5 and OMB influences, evolved the procedures now in effect as i
t r
4
?
977 l
} (' i LIJ J)i
i 6
rcs 4 1.,
described in SECY 77-130B, issued on December 6, 1977.
In s
i 2
general; they provide that Research will consider requests and 3
obtain concurrences from sponsoring offices including SD, NMSS, 4
NRR, and I&E.
Where Research itself proposes to sponsor a 5
researh project, it must first seek concurrence from 6
appropriate user offices, or alternatively obtain ECO approval 7'
if no other office could be consideled the " user."
a Up to that point, Dr. Mark, as fou know, tha I'll 9
cover here a little later, Research has proposed a moditication I
10 to this procedure which is spelled out in the second paper 1
11 that I referred to, and proposes that it be given authority 12 to approve on its cwn projects up to, I believe the ncmber 13,
is $500,000, and up to 15 percent of its budget.
l
(
\\
I i
I 14 i
.I c.ersonally think that Research does need the 15 '
flexibility to do some work more or less cn its own.
I think 16 the issue here is a matter of degree of flexibility.
In 17 other words, what the dollar limits are.
15 percent is a la very sicable part of the overall budget.
DR. MARK:
Yes.
19l i
I 20 '
MR. GOSSICK:
Sut I do feel very strongly that we 21 shouldn't rest entirely with perception of need, as seen by 22 NRR, or NMSS, or any of the other offices.
That there may well
(_
23 1 he goed reason for work that Research perceives as needed er 24 useful, and it should be supported.
i Ace Eederal ReDorters, INC.
25 I'd like to point out also, of course, that that t
f i
i I
~} %) i L
I
7 j
r i
I
- ros 5 1
77-130B spells out that in the area of probabilistic analysis, h
2 that RES is the user office.
So, in effect, thej don't have d
,J to get any user requirement frcm one or the other o f fices,
4, although much of the work is perfect by stated requirements.
5 But NRR and others have provided that they have approval authority for all the crojects in that particular area.
e DR. MARK:
That, of course, does not quite meet the 7
3 feeling that I have.
9 MR. GCSSICK:
That's only just a small part of the 10 program.
11 DR. MARK:
I appreciate your comments there.
1 1
12 Probabilistic analysis is a great buzz-word; and it meets that i
13 buzz-word, rather than the real point.
i I
14 MR. GOSSICK:
No, the real point, as I said before, 15 I think that in any area -- that we should properly be doing 16 work in it all, as in any field.
But there is a need for some 17,
flexibility there.
As it new stands, it can be done.
I p.
have to ac.crove it for anythinc. c a. to $500r000.
Eev.end that 19 it must go to the Ccmmission for approval.
And we ha';e o
handled a few crojects like that..
21 Let me talk just a little bit about the nature of l
v.
the coordination of the review that goes on.
I think it will 23.
perhaps be helpful if you are not familiar with it.
24 '
In November '77 I asked the director of the NMSS, Acesecers a.coners, inc.
25 -
with the assistance of the Safeguards Technical Assistance and t
G " i-i<
I l
8 l
ros 6 1
Research Ccordinating Group, we call it the STAR group, to take 2
the lead in providing agancy-wide coordination of all safeguards 3 i contractual projects.
t 4
The STAR Group, consisting of representatives from 5
each o f the five program offices and from the Controller's 6
office, meets regularly, about once every two weeks, to review 7
proposed projects.
These reviews provide in-depth evaluations 8
to (1) eliminate any unnecessary duplication or overlap and 9
(2) assess programmatic relevancy.
Starting with FY S0 projects.,
i 10 the STAR Group will also assess justifications for contracter 11 source selection.
The Group conducts its. review at the project, 12 summary level for the coming fiscal year, then at the detailed l
k 13 j work statement level just prior to cLligation of funds.
I i
i 14 i Dr. Baker, Paul Baker, who is behind me, chairs th a t l 15 '
STAR Group.
You might want to ask questions about its 16 operations of him.
17 With respect to research projects, the Group also la ascertains that the provisions cf SECY 77-1303 op aser 19 requirements have been complied with.
20 l Another review group, patterned after the STAR Grcup, 21 has recently been established to perform the same interoffice 22 coordination and review functions for all projects in the 23 waste management area.
24,
This means all work in CCE laboratories, or contracts, bO' M F3f StDorttf5,lDC.
25 with outside sources.
n
)b1 O
i 9
t
_.ros 7 1
DR. MARK:
This is not the STAR Group?
It's a i
2j similar relationship to the program.
I 3
hR. GCSSICK:
The same kind of charter.
4 DR. MARK:
What is it then called?
5 MR. GCSSICK:
We haven't come up with a good i
I 6
acronym, but anyway, it's a STAR-like group to handle all 7
waste projects.
We came out with some perfectly dreadful a
9 DR. BAKER:
Waste Management Coordination Review 10 ;
Group is the title.
11 '
MR. GCSSICK:
Since 1977, a Contract Review Board, 1
12 :
with members frcm tha program offices and the ECO staff, has t
13 !
reviewed all proposed. commercial contracts for poten tial j
i i
i I
14 overlap or duplications prior to obligation.
The functions of ;
i t
15 this board will be expanded to include review of the relevancy,'
16 need, benefits of work, source selection placement, level of 17 fanding, and other determinations that the present Safeguards 18 Group and Waste Management Group v.ake.
This will cover all 17 other program areas except Safeguards and Waste Management and 20 will be expanded to cover interagency work, such as CCE tasks, 21 as well as commercial placements over $100,000 in amount.
22 DR. MARK:
Excuse me again, Lee.
23 '
When you use the word " safeguards" it is possible 24 to wonder about the distinction between safeguards and i
Ace Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 1 security.
You are using the word to cover both?
t 361 2_/7
i 10
^ ros 3 1
MR. GCSSICK:
Right.
Material control and accounting 121 and physical security, both the research work by RES and the 3
technical assistance work that's being done within NMSS, and i
4 to a lesser degree, in NRR.
5 DR. MARK:
So to some degree, we're getting away i
6 from the SS -- Safeguards and Security, and just using the 7'
word " Safeguard"?
3 MR. GCSSICK-It has beccme an extremely ccm=cn 9
term for both.
10 DR. MARK:
I find myself troubled by that problem.
11 DR. SEISS:
My chapter title was " Safeguards a.d 12 Security."
k_
13,
DR. MARK:
Exactly.
That's why I asked the cues'. ion, i
i 14 '
because they are distinguishable, sometimes.
But you are l
15 using the word " safeguards" to include security?
16 MR. GCSSICK:
That's correct.
We had a rather long, L7 I would say a]=ost a philosophical discussion of this recently la '
when we took up the up-grade rule on reactors as well as on 19 fuel cycle facilities.
But yes, wheriever I use the word 20
" safeguards" in this kind of a discussion, it's both the 2'
physical security, protection against sabatoge of either a 22 l reactor or a fuel cycle, and material control and accounting 23 as it applies primtrily.
i DR. MARE:
They have been separated sometimes.
That 24 Ace-feceral Repor*ers, Inc.
25 is why I am raising the question, because you propose now to I
i l
l i
i 11 I
' ros 9 1
use the word " safeguards" to co'zer the field.
2i MR. GOSSICK:
That's 10.
n 3^
Let me just mentica one other matter, as far as 4,
review of contracts.
We have been icoking at the matter of 5
a senior contract review board which would be made up of t
6 senior management pecple in the staff, to sort of review the 7:
results and resolve any differences of the coordination and a
review process of these other bodies
- hat I just mentioned.
-I 9
This is actually spelled out in out Senate 10 authorization.
And I believe, in its present configuration 11 as it stands in the legislation, that group would report I
i 12 directly to the Commissioner.
13 L Let me talk just a little bit about the financial
,i I
i la constraints that apply to the program.
15 As you know, aside from the requirements for J
16 initiat_ng research projects set forth in SECY 77-1303, there i
l 17,i are a number of financial constraints.
There is a requirement is for prior Controller /EDO coordinat-icn, and in certain cases 19 i Ccngressional approval, for any new program start not I
20 previously approved during the budget process.
Transfer of 21 funds of $250,000 or more from a budget and reporting element 22 to another within RES muct also be coordinated with the 23 Controller /EDO.
Congress must be notified of any constructicn 24 projects of S1 million or more.
Any changes excecding Ac.e.c re aeoorers.inc.
25
$500,000 in any of the seven major budget categories must be P
f*
J b' li LI I
i
-ros 10 1
cleared with appropriate Congressional committees.
And, based 2 :1 cn authorization or appropriation acts, a ficor or ceiling 3
designated for particular items must be cbserved, and any 4
exceptions that occur cleared with the appropriate commictees.
5' Also, as directed by the Commission, any new project not 6
previously identified in an approved budget with total projected 7
costs of $2 million or more, or $500,000 in any one year, must 3
he reviewed by EDO, and in fact, by the PRG, before inclusicn 9
in the EES budget.
10 DR. MARK:
We've mentioned the STAR Group, and then 11 you also mentioned the Senior something or otrer.
12 DR. KERR:
Review Board?
l x
t.
13 MR. GOSSICr.
Senior Contract Review Board.
I 14 l
.DR.
MARK:
That bcdy reports to the Commission.
The 15 others report to you?
16 MR. GOSSICK:
Actually, the STAR Group is chaired 17 by a member from the material safety division, but ~. hey la actually are working on behalf of the entire staff.
19 DR. MARK:
Their reports, their suggesticns, reach 20 you -- not the Ccmmissioner?
21 MR. GOSSICK:
Nell, with one exception.
22 In the case of all safeguards projects we have a 23,
requirement by law that any contract of cver J20,000 must 24 be reviewed by the Ccmmi.ssion.
And the Waste Group and the aces.ws neoomn I nc.
25, Star Group prcvide all the review, the documentation, and i
I 6
l 36i 20U
i 13 i
t
~ ros 11 1
putting the material for each of these kinds of contracts in 2l shape so that it can be brought up and approved by, or acted i
3' on, by the Commission.
That's a recuirement in the law that i
4 must take place.
5 DR. MARK:
But the waste management is your office?
6 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
It does not have a similar kind 7
of constraint on it.
3 DR. MARK:
So the directorf of the Commission, apart 9
from the statutory limit on safeguards, is reserved to the 10 L Senior Review Beard?
11 MR. GOSSICK:
Right.
12 DR. MARK:
Thank you.
13 l MR. GOSSICK:
Okay.
Perh=ps just a little bit more i
i 14 on whether research should be done :y NRC or others.
t t
15,
As was pointed out earlier, Congress was rather i
16 explicit in characterizinc. the confirmatorv. nature of NRC's 17 ! research.
The ccnference report of the Energy Reorganization la Act, 1974, stressed that "it is not intended that the Ccmmission 19 build its own laboratories and faciiities for research and 20 development or try to duplicate tha research and develcpment 21 responsibilities of ERDA.
The Ccamission will drew upon ERDA 22 and other Federal agancies for research findings and such 23-assistance as may be needed in developing capabilities for 24 confirmatory assessment, and as may be otherwise needed in Ac..secersi nemners inc.
25,
performing its functions.
It woulu be a serious mistaxe to l
~'i 36i cdi
i 14 j
- ros 12 1 !
make a regulatory agency respcasible for the performance of 2
research that goes beyond the need for confirmatory assessment.
3 Indeed, to exceed these bounds creates a conflict of interest.
4 The regulatory agency should never be placed in a position to l
5 generate, and then have to defend, basic design data of its 1
6 own."
7, DR. SIE3S:
What is thn t from, please?
8 MR. GOSSICK:
This is from the Conference Report 9
associated with the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
10,
DR. SIESS.
That refers only to research, and not i
11 the licensing act.
Some of those words sound a little strange '
12 If I apply them to the licensing act.
I 13 l MR. GOSSICK:
Perhaps.
This was purely in the I
i 14 '
context of discrising the kind of research work that NRC was l
I I
15 to undertake, or not to undertake.
16 "The regulatory agency must insist en the submission 17 cf all of the data required to demonstrate the adequacy of the 13 design contained in a license application or amendments thereto.
19 The regulatory agency should not assume any part of the burden 20 of the applicant to prove the adequacy of a license 21 application."
22 '
DR. OKRENT-Excuse me.
Do you think that that's 23 followed, the last quote?
24 MR. GOSSICK:
Dave, I can't cite you any ^xample Aa swere s econen, inc.
I 25 j of an exception to it.
I, i
9.19 i
i L V <i l
1
l 15 4
~-ros 13 1,
DR. LEVINE:
I can.
I'll tell you, in all my i
21 years of experience, it has never been f o.'_lowe d.
The q
l I
3i regulatory people always had to drum up and find some basis 1
a 4
for some of their decisions outside of all other sources.
And 5
I think that is still tr.
coday.
l 6'
DR. OKRENT:
I think you're reading some thing which 7
can be used to back up differing points of view.
And that a
particular cn.,
for example, in my opinion, is frequently not 9,
followed by the NRC or by the AEC before.
If they had been 10,
obliged to fc llow it, many things would be different.
So I
}
l 11 i want to get back to this question of how restrictive you t
.12 consider what you are reading, ac we go on.
l 13 !
MR. GOSSICK:
Well, there are, of course, other la I avenues of cooperation in addition to contractual arrangements i.
i 15,
with industry for certain kinds of research work.
In response 16 to a Commission reqcest, the s taf f in June o f 19 75 sent to 17-the Cctmission a set of guidelines to be used in determining 13 NRC involvement in cccperative research arrangements with 19 industry at a time when extension of such a program with ERPI 20 and General Electric was being censidered.
Five criteria 21 '
were described for such involvement.
22 One:
information to be obtained is directly 23; necessary to the NRC mission.
24 Two:
alternative means of acquiring the necessary Ace-;.e.,S a.oo,te,s. inc.
25 -
information are not reasonable available.
i i
I I
...h p7 A
i 16 legal or substantial appearanca of conflict ros 14 1'
Three:
a i
2' of in*erest does not exist, and all applicable laws and 3
procedures are honored.
t a'
Four:
Government funds are not being u3e' as a i
l 5
substitute or replacement for private funds.
I i
I.
i Five:
accroariate arrangements can be established 6
to o.rotect the NRC's interests.
l
/
I'm sure Saul Levine can elaborate on that, on the 3
9 capabilities of the various groups that perform needed l
10 research, and the constraints or impediments involved.
11 I might add, that perhaps I mentioned before that I
12 we have developed tentative criteria to be used by the STAR l
b 13 l Group and this Waste Management Grcup, as well as the Contract l i
14 Revic.w Board, for determining whether work should be done in i
15 the DOE laboratories or by contract with other sources.
And 16 how that decisicn should be documented and made a matter of 17 i record.
l i
13 DR. MARK:
No, on exactly this point, was an 19.l extansion of the centract with I?RI and GE, which was ccne in the centext of t".e boiling e.er, to which the indusef tock strcng excepticn -
20 I
hcw has that been resclad~
,li, MR. GQ56IO.:
I just recently asked t'.e sane questien.
_2,
2 MR. LEVINE:
What was the question?
p u!
l 24 ]
MR. GOSSICK:
On the extension of the scerece v %co m we. I, 25 ]
MR. LEVINE:
It was down by a 4 to 1 vote.
It was e
n i
90' I
l
/
7 b' 1 J
l LU
17
' ros 15 1
resolved by a 4 to 1 vote.
't 2 'i l
MR. GOSSICK:
On proceeding with the extension of 3
the ccatract.
Was that approved by the Ccmmission?
4 VOICE:
About a week and a half ago, by the i
5' Commission.
6 DR. PLESSET:
What about CLTA?
7 MR. LEVINE:
I'll have to reserve judgment on that.
8 DR. MARK:
But it is resolved.
The work will 9
proceed.
And that's about a $5 miliion undertaking for the i
10 l next three years.
l i
I
- 1 '
MR. C-055ICK :
I think that's about right.
i 12 l You asked about priqrities, how priorities are I
I k-13 established.
This is a fairly lex subject; and I guess l
i e
tire process of our l
la !
one fact,.I might say, is that t c.
1 is budget formulation, the preparation of proposals for programs 16 unat research puts together the stated requiremeats from the 17 1 so-called user offices, go in that budget formulation I
la '
process.
In fact, there's a couple of charts, I believe,
<l 19 l attached ec the handout which sort of show the sequence of
'l 20 events on budget formulation.
21 And, in putting that budget together, research 22 spells out its priority ranking cf its so-called decision units.
In other words, the particular areas within which 23 24,
work projects are included.
Ace F.eers aeocners, inc.
25 At the end, of course, we have to end up with an i
q.-
.I sVI
- r
18 ros 16 1l overall ranking of all o f these decisicn units, not just 2 3 within research but within every work decisic:. ; nit in the il 3
entire budget has to he ranked, ordered and finally approved 4
by the Commission and sent over to OMB.
Of course, that is made:
5, up of decision packages.
There is no one unit that stands well l
6' ahead of everything else.
7-But, depending of the level of ef fort, there is this 8
attempt to rank order every decision package that is addressed 9
in our budget.
I think more generally, however, the matter of 10 priority is generally established by research in working with 11 the user offices,as far as the relation of internal importance.
e 12 But certain of these priorities change as we go through the j
t 4
13,
budget year, let alone through year to year.
j i
14,
.I think certainly one can look at the events at l
15 '
Three Mile Island and see that perhaps we'll see some things in lo a couple of years that we hadn't anticipated before.
17 I think at that, I have just one other comment with 18 ] regard to long-range planning.
We did have a 5-Year Plan, 17 which I think I referred to.arlier and I think you have seen, 20 that came out in 1978, that was chaired by Mr. Levine and 21 other members of this staff.
22
'e, of course, include in the budget submission a 23 five-year projection of the funding levels.
This tends to be, a
24 :
however, fairly gross as f ar as any detail is concerned, that Ace Feceral Reporters, Inc, 25 we are now looking at the need and the possibility of going i
t t
19 i
- ros 17 1] back and refurbishing, i f you will, this 5-Year Plan to gat i
CR 5692
.l end il 2.l as good a picture as we can, o f where we think we ' re going.
3 4
l 5
6 7'
l l
3 i
i l
- I 10 i i
i 11 I
l i
12,
1 t
1 14 '
I I
15 16 17 18 19 I
20.I
'i l
21 '
22 23-24 l A*Fecerai aeooners. Inc.
25 i
i i
361 287 J
5692.02.t.
20 gsh I think that with that, let me address any questions 2
that you have.
Some I can't answer, but I'll see if there's 3
someone behind me who can help.
4 DR. SIESS:
0.'
this chart, where are we as of this 5
week?
6 MR. GO SS I CK : As of this week in terms of the 7
budget, you will find the budge; at the top part of the BRG 8
bubble.
It has not yet reached me.
It will be coming to 9
me next week beginning, I guess, actually at the end of this 10 week to start resolving some of the differences as a result Ji of the BRG's scrubbing of the various prograns.
12 In other words, it will be handled -- let's s ee.
13 What is my date to get to the comm.ission with the thing?
14 DR. BAKER: I don't remember.
k' 15 MR. SMITH: The mi ddle of next week.
It's very 16 close.
17 DR. SIESS: When the commission asks the ACRS to get IS scme comments to ther
_n order to consider them in relation 19 to the budge t, they were assuming that those comments would r late to that area just on the co mm iss io n, and we are not 20 e
21 yet at tnat stage.
22 The latest inf orma t ion that we have is shat's ccme 23 out of BRG.
Is that rignt?
24 MR. GCSSICT:
If you have the latest out of the BR3, 25 tha t's o f last we dc.
361 288
692.02.2-21 gsh 1
DR. SIESS: As of July 5th, I th ink.
2 MR. MC CRSLESS: It is anticipated, I belle /e, that 3
BRG will itave their report in the next day or two.
4 MR. SMITH: It goes to Lee tomorrow.
5 DR. SIESS: Of course, we're trying to get a report 6
by Saturday.
If we don't get a report by Saturday, it becomes 7
sometime in August.
3 MR. GOSSICK: You are trying to finalize your report 7
to the co mm i ss io n, right.
10 DR. SIESS: It will 'e this Saturday or a month from o
Satu day.
11 r
12 MR. GOSSICK: We.ll, a month from Sacurday the 13 commission had better have the budget all tied up and ready 14 to go to GMB.
k-15 DR. SIESS* What is the status of the FY >30 16 supplement request?
17 MR. GOSSICK: That is also being handled by the SRG 18 in parallel with the meeting on budget s ide oy side.
We see 19 that at the same time.
20 CR. OKRENT: Will we see the BRG decisicns tomorros 21 also, or are you coing to send them by mail so that we get 22 them next Mo nda y?
23 Th ey'r e still reviewing, I think.
This is a s et of 24 numbers, as I understand it, and they're reconsidering.
25 DR. SIESS: We're looking at a tabla marked July 5, 3b1 28
5692.02.3 22 gsn i
1979 with the BRG column in it.
2 MR. MC CRELESS: That is not the final BRG nuncer.
3 Las t Friday afternco.'. RES met with SRG and they recl aimed 4
them.
The BRG is considering the information tha-wa s 5
presented at that time and that's the report that's due 6
t omo rrow.
7 MR. SMITH: SRG has in fact marked that up again.
8 We now have a revised table like that.
Tha t 's g oi ng to be 9
the final mark that's going to Lee tomorrow.
10 MR. GO SSICK: Why can't they have it right now?
Ji MR. SMITM: They can have what I have right now.
12 MR.' GOSSICK: I'll give you a cocy of mine.
13 DR. SIESS: Every lit.tle bit helps.
de don't want 14 to conf use the commissioners any more than we can help.
(_
15 Ob viously, if we writa our report based on a budget 16 that's no.t the one that they're looking at, they're going to 17 be confused.
IS MR. SMITH: You have to realize that the ESO may 19 change these marks before it goes to the committee.
But witn 20 that proviso, you're welcome to it.
21 CR. S IE SS: E30 will get a copy of our report. I 22 guess he could explain the dif ferences between what ue 23 reported on and what he sent to the commis sioners.
24 DR. OKRENT: Excuse me, but could we ge t that right 25 now and get it Xeroxed so we could have it?
e.
c J
692.'02.4 23 gsh 1
MR. SMITH: I have a copy here.
2 MR. GOSSICK: All right.
3 DR. SIESS: This I think we definitely want.
Is 4
.this a ll research?
5 MR. GOSSICK: Yes, all research.
6 MR. SMITH: Some of the words and rationale may 7
change oefore it goes to Lee, out the numbers are going to 8
change.
9 DR. OKRENT: Could you get this Xeroxed quickly?
10 Did you have your hand up, Carson?
J1 DR. MARK: Well, a while ago, but I think it's b een 12 c o ve re d, I wanted to ask about the interaction between the 13 S130 million supplemental and the budget as we have previously 14 s een it.
(
15 Some o f that will be, I think, I hope, made clear 16 here.
Some of the early versions of this struck me as 17 errant nonsense, and I'm enxious to see how the supplementals IS look.
19 MR. GO SS ICK : The supplemental request, you mean?
20 DR. MARK: And the possible e ff ect on the other 21 programs.
22 DR. SIESS: That's on this sh ee t, Carson.
23 DR. MARK: Like wiping out the advanced research 24 reactors to take 513 million out of there end put it over 25 here.
jUl 701 A 1 c/a
5692.02.5-24 gsn 1
DR. SIESS: That's on the sheet we'll be getting.
2 DR. MARK: I an aware, and that's why r/m sort of 3
withdrawing my question. I think we'.ll want to look at that.
4 But it's s tily to go ahead and comment before looking at it.
5 DR. OKRENT: I have sort of a very broad questicn.
6 I think we're seeing in the country now a rather major 7
rethinking concerning what the national prcgram on energy 8
should be.
9 I wonder if there has oeen a major rethinkina about 10 the NRC research program following Three Mile I-
. or J1 whether one has continued along previous paths, saying how 12 should we augment this or augment that?
13 I can put it this way: Had I gcne to COE and asked 14 to be' introduced to the director and said, what do you p
\\
15 re co mme nd, I would have gotten one kind of recom :nda t io n 16 Just thinking along this line and it might have been a gecd 17 recommandation.
But they would not nece ssarily be the same 18 as if you sat back and tcok a broader look.
19 It's not clear to me whether or not we thin k that 20 has occurred or whether ECO has tried to do this.
And I don't 21 really kncw what role EDO plays, but they certainly do play 22 an important role in the sense that they act on the noney.
23 And in the end, that has som e e f f ect.
24 MR. GO SSICK : Well, I want tc make clear that I don't 25 sit and decide where the money goes he re or there just on the 36'l
' o ')
L/u
692.'02.6' 25 gsh basis of some in s ight that I personally have into the need.
2 The thing is it's a little bit different kind of 3
process..First of all, when we start t o p ut together a new 4
budget, or for that matter, make change to an existing one 5
like a supplemental, there has to be some sort of bas is for, 6
you know, such an action.
And w e a t t em t ed t o p ut together r
7 well, we've done this each year and it's been in diff ering 3
forms.
And I'd say some ' rg r ee, di ff e rent value.
9 Sut we've tried to put together a thing called our 10 budget assumptlons for planning guidance which the staff 11 uses to formulate its budget.
And we've put one out this 12 year.
It wa' I gue ss, prior to Three Mile Island by the 13 time we put_this document together and sent it out to t> e co mission.
14 m
k-15 de have had only one response from the commiscien, 16 one commissioner with regard to tne content of that.
Have 17 you seen it, oy the way, the document that went out that said, 18 this is the planning guidance which you will use in 19 formulating your '81 but get?
20 Did we get a copy of that?
I think you mignt be 21 interested in seeing what was said about the kind of future 22 that we're l ooking at or the assumotions to be made.
They're 23 not very profound or anything ifke that.
But it's a collect ion 24 or views and thoughts and the proce ssing of these kinds cf 25 considerations, aga in, in the context of our budget review 361 293
5692.02.7' 26 gsh I
group.
2 And I have aporoved it and sent it down to the 3
co mm i ss ion.
The basic guidance, however, that will end uo, 4
I gue ss, mos t directly affecting what we really sent to UMB 5
.this year in our budget request will be, of cc.cse, the most 6
current kind of insight one can have cased en things like 7
Thr ee Mile Island, the future of the nuclear ootion, the 3
views of your committee to the com lission, anc whate ve r else 9
influence that we get directly f r;m Congress.
10 As we do, there are certainly some rather nigh Ji interest items that we recognice Congress supports.
But I 12 think that -- I mentioned in the long-range plan a mcment 13 ago that we need to uodate.
I think we've got, you know, a 14 lot to do here with regard to planning ahead, particularly
(_
!5 in light of the rather uncertain nature of where we're going 16 in the nuclear basiness.
17 Right now, for example, the current budget for, I 13 celieve, ' 81, assumes no new a ppl ic a t io ns.
19 Is that right?
No nsw applications f or :ons truc tion 20 parmits in the '51 oudge t.
The resources provid ed for it.
21 So you could say that we're lccking presentiv at 22 a total lightwater reactor population of something lik 23 190 reactors and that's it. sith no t. ore to come, s'inc e this 24 year, who knows that will happen in the future.
25 Where this leads us with cagerd to gas and advanced 741 70 JUl L/
5692.'02.S' 27 gsh I
reactors, br eeders at the pre: ent is very difficult to say.
2 But this is, I think, certainly where you can be extremely 3
hs
'ul in giving your advice and thoughts and views to the 4
commission as they try to struggle over this and decide what 5
they're going to do.
6 DR. MARK: Can I make a point here?
7 No new applications -- does this relate specifically 8
to the research activity or the licensing?
9 MR. GO SSICK: That example tnat I cited had t-do 10 with licensing.
Ji DR. MARK: So if someone should come in and say. I 12 want to build a reactor in Albuquerque, you couldn't take it 13 up.
14 MR. GO.SSICK: What we're saying is that the forecast
(.
15 of new licensing workloads in lightwater reactors, or for 16 that ma.tter, any kind of power reactors, we do not base any 17 justification for people or dollars in the '81 budget on the IS fact that there will be new aoditional licensing workiced.
19 DR. MARK: And if there were, you couldn't take it 20 up.
21 MR. GOSSICK: If there we re and it came on as a 22 surprise, we'd have to program and do something about it, I',
23 sure, and not do something else that se'd planned on. This is 24 not unusual and can be handled as long as it's light water, 25 too.
But If there's suddenly a surge o f 50 that came in the cib
5692.02.9 28 gsh I
door, that would be difficult.
2 DR. MARK: Especially if one was in Calif ornia.
3 DR. CKRENT: Could I ask something that relates to i
the definition of confirmatory research?
5 I guess I've expressed my opinion in the past and 6
I didn't mean to have you take that definition and use it to 7
not do things he doesn't want to do or to in t er pre t it in a 8
way to include almost anything he wants to do.
9 I think if you were to 1ook right now at yo u r 10 current program on diff erent reactor types, you would fird
.11 very diff ering applications of the word.
12 I'm trying to understand, in fact, the zero whii'.
13 I see from the budget review group under, includes re actor 14 safety, zero/6 is the number shown for 1931 and 1/l.7 fo r
(-
15 1980.
16
.Is it felt that this is not confirmatory research?
17 And also, is there some thinking that this is a low priori:y 18 item?
19 MR. GO SSICK: Let me just remark generally on it.
20 First of all, we're in a real debate with CMS on who should 21 ce doing.this.
They have Taintained stoutly that tnis scrt 22 of work should be done 'cy DCE.
They coint to the fact that 23 Congre ss specifically included in the lan uage of our 24 authorization bill that they want c d us to do t his kind of work.
25 RES cut together a comurehensive plan for about
-t
>~
5692.02.10 29 gsh 1
$15 million over a three-year program.
That's bee n s ent to 2
Congress.
And I think I'll let them speak fcr themselves.
But 3
I suspect tnat :ne BRG recommendation in this area more or 4
less recognizes the fact that CM3 is very strongly against us 5
doing this and had prcmised us that they will see that the DOE 6
does it.
7 DR. SIESS: The letter we saw f rom CMS simply said 8
that you were not to do pnysical exp erimenta t io n.
Last vaar, 9
when they cut your request f rom S4.3 million to s !.0 million, 10 it didn't have 53.3 million of the physical experimentation in it.
12 So they must have something more than they said in 13 that letter from McIntire to Hendrie.
Even the s6 m'llion 14 doesn't have more than about a million that's related to s_
15 testing.
16
.MR. SMITH: This last, it's just a se t-as ide that 17 the commission should make a decision on.
la MR. GOSSICK: Do you want to explain the set-aside 19 busine ss ?
20 MR. ShITH: The set-aside doesn't necessarily mean 21 that the BRG thinks that the program is not worthwhile; it 22 means that the SRG thinks tne commission ought to be the one 23 to decide tnat.
24 DR. OKRENT2 Since yo u're st anding, Ray, could you 25 tell me why you think the priority for that or the amount of 361 296
5692.02.11 30 gsh I
money shown in 1980 -- let's take 1930, for example, where 2
it's proposed to increa se systems engineering.
3 In the latest cheet from SRG, I guess, 58 million 4
left, s2 million code development, s3-l /2 million.
But the 5
item called improved reactor saf ety hardly at all --
6 Now what is it that the BRO thinks is imcortant 7
about s.ystems engineering, LOFT and code development, and not 8
abo t improved re actor safe ty?
I'm rather c urio us.
u 9
MR. SMITH: I'm not sure we have a gcod rationale.
10
.This was beaten out in the heat of discussion in the SRG 11 panel.
12 DR. OKRENT You're the ones who make recommendations 13 to EDO.
And it seems to me if you're going to e xe rcise that 14 responsibility, you should be will.ing to state why you're
\\/
15 making the recommendation.
16
- I could have s een the recommendation f rca you going 17 quite the other way, saying research hasn't icoked hard 13 enough at approved reactor safety.
They ought to have s20 19 million there and take it out o f LGC A.
20 I mean it's a po ssiole reco mmendat ion.
In fact, not 21 a far fetched one, in my opinion.
22 MR. SMITH You will find a rationale f er what we 23 did in that piece of pacer which I gave to Tom.
I don't have 24 ft now so I can't read it.
25 Is there anything in there that sheds light on why 361 297
5692.02.12 31 gsh I
we dio this, Tom?
2 MR. MC CRELESS: I sent it down to be Xeroxed.
3 MR. SMITH: In a thick sheet of paper, t he re is some 4
rationale for whatever we did to this item.
I don't remember 5
wha: it is.
6 DR. SIESS: On that sheet that was just given Js.
7 DR. BUDNITZ: We were asked to rank all of our 3
requests f rom one to two, three, four, five, six, and so on.
9 We ranked improved safety number one.
You ought to ce aware 10 o f tha t.
That was our ranking.
11 DR. SIESS: We know that.
12 CR. SUDNITZ: All around.
13 DR. SIESS: MCR.
14 DR. BUDNITZ: All around.
We're number one.
E' 15 Ray?
16 PROF. KERR: Excuse me.
Who is "we"?
17 DR. SIE SS: Research.
Could you please t ran sla t e 18 that top line.
3.8 plus 11. 8.
19 MR. SMITH:
The 11.3 is the set-aside.
20 DR. SIESS: Okay.
In waste management, three 21 supolements.
Does that belong over in the FY '50 column?
22 MR. SMITH: The SRG had a proclem with that kind of 23 a growth.
de're wondering why the research pecple didn't.
24 start their growth earlier in Fiscal '80, and we suggested 25 they do that.
That's why we're suggesting that they put the 361 298
5692,02.1.3 32 gsh 1
S3 million back there.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
.11 12 13 14 V
d 15
/
16 y
17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 361 299
5092.03 0.\\
33 sls 1
prr, ggpa: Mr. 7hairman, could I ask - you 2
mentioned tna t you se t aside items on '.thich the Corai ssion 3
should make a cecision.
In my naivete I woulo nave thought the Cornission made a cecision about each item.
Flha t 4
t ha 5
is peculiar accut :ne items on wnich the Commi ssion should 6
make a cecision in contrast to those items on which ERG 7
f eels it could make a recommendation?
5 MR. 00$5ICK:
Let me just say a word and then ask 9
Ray, pernaps, :o expand on it.
This is, I celieve, the 10 third year now tha t we' ve u sed this set aside t e c hn iq u e in il putting toge ther the budget.
Primarily it started out as a 12 means to call t,
the' Commission's a ttention a new program, 13 some t hing t ha t had been includea in the re search budge t 14 which was above a certain dollar amount, about $100,0C0 a 15 year or S2 million in total or some item on which there was 16 perhaps Ccngre ssional or CMS controwrsy over.
17 To make sure th at they specifically addre ssed tha:
la project in some detail as opposed to sort of just including 19 it in a bigge r e f f ort tha t Tayce the y didn' t lcck at in any 2C great ce: ail.
Isn't tha; generally the ground rule you used 21 tnis year?
?2 MR. SM:TH:
We just basic ally think that these are 23 things the Commi ssion should f ocus on and perha ps we don' t 24 feel the Comai ssion has expre ssed a policy in certain areas, 25 and that f as; breeder reac tors is a hignly political t.
1
,o
.Ul
..' l l u.
cova al 3,,
v.
sis I
question as to whe ther we should cont!nue this kind of 2
research.
We think the Commi ssion should be the basi c or,e 5 3
to make that decision.
4 PROF. KERR :
Does the set aside imply that there 5
is no consensus in my ceople who would normally make the c
recommendation.
7 MR. LEVINE:
The recommenda tion f rom RES is very 5
clear.
I can give you the basis for that re c omme nda tio n.
9 MR. GOSSICX:
I think I got to year ooint and I 10 think every case last y e a r -- w e ll, I won't say every case, 11 but ERG will specifically say whether the ERG supports this, 12 even though it is called a se t aside.
I am ding my 13 recommenda tions down.
14 If I have a disagreement with one of tne se t
\\-
15 asides saying, you know, I think it ought to be changed, lo that will be laid out in the recommcodo cions going to the 17 Commi ssion, f or the mos t part.
16 PROF. KERR:
Those comments are helpfu; t hank you.
19 CR. OKRENT:
Co uld I ask wi th regards to the user 20 requirement, the first question is coes anybody review the
?!
user request to see wne ther l'
makes sense, either in a 22 narron or broad sense?
23 MR. GOSSICK:
I think the first place that o ccurs 24 is probably wnen the research people engage in discussing 25 the requirements of the originating of fice.
36l d+i
. _ ~..
3692- 03 33 35 sis 1
Co yeu want to address that?
2 "R.
LEVINE:
- .iy ceople have the re s;cnsibli ty for 3
a sse ssing the te chnical me ri t of these requests and One 4
ability to re spond to them in a tec hni cal way.
Very often 5
in the prcce ss of this response the definition of this 6
requirement c hange s to some extent as the understanding of 7
both offices increases regarding the issue.
Then, of a
course, we have to be able to do what is neeced someplace.
DR. OKRENT:
Eut th 3 a different que stion in y
10 effect, your answer -- ?Ihat I'm interested in knowing is 11 whether within in f ac t NRR, ECO or somewhere somebody looks 12 at the user requests and sees whether in f act they are high 13 priority or whether there is too much emphasis in one area 14 when you pu t all these user requests together, and no N-15 sufficient in ano ther area wi th regard to user requests.
Is 16 there any such system?
17 MR. LEVINE:
That's done with an NRR.
15 MR. GOSSICK:
Each office has a central iv ccordination respcnsibili ty within NRR ?
2C MR. LEVINE:
That's Les Rubinstein.
21 MR. COSSICK:
Arc -- Paul, you handle t hi s 22 primarily?
23 DR. OKRENT:
Could I commen t?
I have a reason for 24 a sking the question.
I've heard people fica NRR come in 25 prier to Three Mile Island and explain how their needs or 361 302
5692'03 0'4 36 sis 1
for ge tting questions answerec that t' ey nad to face very 2
secn in t he licensing proce ss.
They couldn't afford to pu t 3
out user requests tha; we re long-term because they hed 4
immediate problems in hanc.
And I think I'm not mi ss ta ting 5
this insof ar as wha t we were told.
Af t e r Thr ee Id il e isl'nd 6
I've heard them say, "'aell, maybe some other things tha t 7
last year we weren't so keen on :c us this year or this 8
mon:h and so forth."
9 In f ac t, I hac the feeling then -- that is before 10 Three Mile I s land -- tha t they were taking much too short a 11 view.
In fact, they had little interest in, for example, a 12 program on research to improve reactor saf e ty.
T ha ; wa s too 13 far down the line.
They had operating reactors anc reactors 14 under construction.
In their opinion, this had no t
15 a ppl i c a* tie n.
Again they changed their point of vies there.
16 I still would like to know whether, withi.1 NRR 17 there is a mechanism f or taking a broad look and not a look le just at existing te c hni c a l se ts, because the way you've ga:
19 it se t up NRR exerts very strong influence on wnat research
,,zu can co.
21 Even if re search says, "?Iell, we'll 1.co k a: this 22 and try to shape this reques; into some :hing new," that's 1 am trying to lcok et the 23 not t he point I'm looking at.
24 general criority.
I ho pe that Research anc NRR elways ge t 25 together and do a usef ul thing.
That's a different i ssue g
~
s/ U l h
.h
5692 03 05 37 sls I
and not one t ha t we can get in vol ved wi th.
2 CR. SIESS:
Can I go back to the statement on the 3
set a side s wnere you said advancec reactor re search was 4
political, and the ref ore, it was a cecision left to the 5
Co mm i ssi o n.
6 I'll acmit that the Co =n i ss ion, I gue ss, is so 7
ccnstituted that it snould make the political ty pe 6
oecisiens, out i a ssumes tha t the converse of that i s tha t the staff is not politically involved, and if there is a 1C r e c o mme nd a tion, i t will be made on a technical basis that 11 poten tially af f ects the health and safety of the puo l i c.
12 Coesn't the s ta f f have an obligation to make tha t 13 recommendation outside the political arena and give the 14 Commission its best advice Cn it?
(_
15 MR. LEVINE:
I think we also have to include the 16 poli tical. considera tions in our own thinking.
17 DR. SIESS:
Well, if everyor.e starts wo rrying 15 about pc _ tical considerations, we are no: going to get li anywhere.
20 MR. uEVINE Just a minu te.
It is very impor:an 21 in tne breeder, because we know na : NPC is coming to a 22 close and we know that NPC is going to support the 23 development of breeder reac tors.
That is'why there
.s a cig 24 increase in our budget be tween '80 and '51.
That is cart of 25 i t.
So, we do nave to take in:o a ccoun t where f actora bf 7*U fj
5692'03 C6 38 sls 1
outside our agencies are leading us, and tha t's why
c 2
censiderad it. I don't know why the BRG cidn' t consider it.
3 CR. SIE55: It seems to me that waste management is 4
at nuch at 11mco as f as t breeders, one by fiat anc the other 5
by inaction.
Sut '/ou still have a lot in there for waste 6
management.
OR. OKRENT:
Dr. Budnitz.
S CR. BUCNITZ:
I think the questien is very well 9
p hra s e c' It goes to the heart of how we pu c thi s toge ther.
10 Of course, we ha ve to base our bucget request and our il formulation and our program en technical issues, but of 12 course we'd be less than comple tely re sponsible if we 13 weren't cognizant of what's going on.
'de don' t have a S20 la million program in gas reactors because General Atomics did 15 not succeed in selling any of them.
And that's an 16 externali-ty which of course drive s e verything.
17 DR. SIESS:
And if they do succeed in selling t hem 15 you've got a fairly good headstar.
19 OR. EUTNITZ:
You cet.
Ncw, in tne LMF5R area 20 tnere is nc douct that that question transcencs purely 21 t e c hnic al issues.
So, of course what we dic, Levine and I 22 and Tom Murley and Charlie Kelver and cur staff, what we 23 trisc to cc is put together our be st judgment, :aking into 24 a ccount technical anc nontechnical issues, and we ha ve 25 wri tten tha t down.
E o
m
5692 03 37 39 sls i
We e x pe c t tnat ultimately the Comm. ssion will view 2
these arguments and come to i ts own cecision.
That's wnat 3
it nas got to co, too.
But I do r,' t think it would have been 4
responsicle f or us to have ducked it, so we didn't duck it.
5 We wrote it down.
6 DR. SIESS:
I'm not really talkinc to research, I 7
am talking to bucget review.
t he y' re the one s tha t put tne 5
set a sice s.
9 DR. E'J DNITZ :
Okay.
I think I can state my 10 cersonal view.
But I sure wish they hedn't ducked it.
11 MR. GOSSICK:
- me just mention something that's 12 a reality here. It would be very easy for us to pu t the 13 budget together if we could recognize everything that we 19 think neecs to be done and include it.
Unfortunately, we've s_
15 got very strong guidance.
Whether it can be overcome or not to I don't k,now, but there is an automatic and natural task 17 that the ERG has to addre ss.
Not what more should be in 18 here, but now do we get this aucget down to a manageacle 19 size?
If one argues that cur bucget should be coucleu, or 2C 50 percent more than w ha t it is, and can make that case, 2:
that's one t.11 n g.
But unf ortuna tely, OM5 anc Congress has 22 not generally gone along with that.
I t's a slow end gradual 22 grow th and it
- s a ma tter of trying to establish priorities 24 or what we can a ccommoda te.
d 25 DR. SIESS:
Would i t be ina ccro cri a te cc ask who
'b 6 l 7r
- l) )
5692 03 C8 40 sls I
constitutes the SRG?
I t's no t a star chamber I am sure.
2 MR. GCSSICK:
Certainly.
- Normally, it's. chaired 3
cy the De puty Execu tive ECO.
This year it would have been a
Kevin Cornell.
He's been pulleo off under tne Three Mile 5
I slanc inquiry.
Tom I ngl e ha r t, who is tre Cecu"y to Howarc o
Shapar has been chairing it.
Cn it are oeople like Ray 7
Smith f rom Standard. : form Hallack, who is not he re this 5
7.o rn i n g, Len Barry, the controller, Dan Conahue, Director of i
Acministration.
There are then panel direc tors who are made 10 up f rom all of the appropriate offices who have a ssisted 11 with the proce ss.
12 MR. SMITH:
You've got the full SRG.
Each member 13 of the BRG has a subgroup consisting of a number of various 14 people pulled f rom the staf f who do this review.
s" 15 CR. 0.;REUT:
Tha t's not e highly technical group.
16 It's acministrativ91y orien ted.
17 MR. GOSSICK:
That's rignt.
15 DR. OKR EN1:
Co uld I ask a slightly different 19 question?
I've heard it said t ha t i t's becoming 20 increasingly cifficult f o r re searc h,
-he research office, to 21 provide. I gue ss j;u mignt say flexibility for research 22 ccntrac ts wi th universi ty groups, in part because the R.:?
22 group is T.cre atuned, I gue ss, to the national labs or 24 pri va te companies and so forth.
I am not sure this is tne 25 case.
I have t he imcression that it is.
.o.
al
- ove v _,
's.y m
sl s MR. GOSSICK:
Wha kind of flexibility?
2 D R.
O.< R ENT :
I can' ceal with the NRC researcn 3
peopla cirectly, so this is wha I hear in oiscussions 4
arcund; okay?
I wcncer if you have ycurself icoked at all 5
to any relationships be tween the NRC r esearch program and 6
the potential contricution versus the actual contricu tion of 7
various university source s.
5 MR. GOSSICK:
Well, no, I personally nave not 9
go tten tco dee ply involvec in tnis, c ner than one or two 10 con tracts whe re some ra ther spe cific greblcus were 11 involvoc. The general seling I think. not only in research, 12 but in some of our other offices that..crk cn wha t we call
'3 technical a ssistance has been 'o er.:nurage and to do 14 additional wc rk in the universities and cther than field lab y
15 agencies.
10
-I thought perhaps you mignt have been hearing 17 about the troolem we've ceen having in cutting down on the 15 number or sole source con trac ts which we've been heavily 19 critici:ec for, pernaps dcing tco muc n of that.
.utting 2C work out for oids.
That isn't, I think, so much in the 21 research areas.
22 MR. LF/INE:
I
's a proclem.
Our ccn:racts co no:
23 dif f erentia te always caref ully be tween sole source and 24 unsolicited propcsals.
There's a growing identity :-
cr eo 25 unsolicit-d proposals as sole source contracts.
And s ma V/
~~-
.. _.i () O _
5692 03 1C 42 sls I
makes life very difficult in regard to universities.
2 "R.
COS5TCK:
,1 e ' v e got on the one hand a GAO wno 3
ere being very critical on the matter of unsolicited 4
p ro po sa l s.
T he re is another -- what was it -- an OMB 5
circular that call.d e verycody to task f or not using 6
unsolici d proposals to the e x te n t that they should 7
be. Tha t's probably the are a.
O CR. OKRENT:
It would seem to me tnat if one wants 9
to try to broaden the case of thich ioeas are generateo, if 10 ne wants to do some exploratory re search which, in fact, 11 might point out things that the NRC has f orgo tten about and 12 the incustry ha s f o; go tten abou t, that you would want to 13 have a contractual mechanism that enables unsolicited 14 proposals -- I guess that's probably a good word -- enables
)
15 them to receive a pro per te chnical review and. enables them 16 to be supported if there is technical merit anc in fact t ha t 17 they need not then go back ou t en some RF? and they need not la nece ssarily get a user frca NRR.
19 My own experience witn unsolicitec pro posals is 2C f rom universities.
Iney are u sua?.ly Lcoking quite e bit 21 aneac and scmebecy is trying to solve tomo rrow's proclems.
22 He's nct likely to be interested, but I can think of a lot 23 of things t ha t have been de veloped in the saf ety area tha t 24 weren't part of the pre sc ribe d ta sk in :ne cid AEC or the 25 NRC now.
,, ty p
5692 03 11 43 sls 1
I would myself suggest that we 1cck sort of 2
sericusly to see if ne legal people will provide 3
flexibility.
One coe sn' t want to have a thing like this 11 4
it isn't usec.
I recognite the need to nave some checks ; '
5 balances.
6
..(R. GO SS ICK :
That's always the fine line t ha t you 7
have to search f or.
It is complete flexibility versus 6
abuse, anc we do have the mec hanism to do what you've 9
inoicated except pernaps in the explora tory develo omen t 10 category.
I am not sure that's not in anybody's bill yet,to 11 take on exploratory development?
12 DR. OKRENT:
Explora tory ra search.
So, you've 13 used this term confirmatory.
14 MR. GOSSICK:
I t's no t my term.
(s 15 DR. OKRENT:
I know i t's no t ycurs, but I'm saying 16 t ha t I can take those s6me wo rds, and if I wanted to I could 17 go through your program ano say half of it doesn' t fi t under la these terms.
Or I could take many things that people say, lv "On, that's not confirmatory," and say, " Lock, it's no 20 different than what you are alreaoy a pproving.
Ycu neec it 21 to develop standards."
The standards people can't really 22 develop standaros withcut having more inf ormation than they 23 currently have.
If tney want a stencard on something that 24 dcesn't exist, then how in the hell are they going to co it?
25 You have to have some research.
~
.J
2 y--d
,, Ia 44 sv sls 1
There's a problem area in wnich they mign be 2
interestec in a new ciagnostic instrument that hasn't oeen 3
wa r.< e d out.
(cu want to know can it ce cevelcpea ? 't!hatever 4
it is, there are many aifterent ways in which thi s te ra 5
explola:Ory ii;s in the NRC role.
6 7
C Y
10 ii 12 13 14 k
m Ia-16 e
17 1b 1y 2C 21 22 23 24 25 bbI T' i ;
-I
5692.04.!-
45 gsh MR. LEVINE At the time Ccngre ss was considering 2
legislation to chcnge our charter from the purely 3
confirmatory to improve safety research, there was considera'le o
4 discussion in the AEC and the then general counsel of the 5
AEC generated an opinion saying that under the t he n-e x is t in g 6
charter of the NRC, that he woulo have said exploratory could 7
be done.
8 That's my own opinion.
9 DR. SIESS: Do you consider improved safety researcn 10 di f f e rent frcm confirma tory?
11 MR. LEVINE: I think th' Congre ss considers it 12 different.
I find it hard to diff erentiate.
13 DR. SIESS: I noticed in Lee's written statement he 14 said Congrassf concept of confirmatory research also has 15 e xp a nd e d.
And that it mentioned the improved safety system.
16 I don't think it expanded; I think it changed. I 17 consider the improved safe ty 3 ystems in addition to 13 confirmatory.
19 MR. GO SSICK: yes.
20 DR. SIESS: And not just an expansion o f the 21 definition of confirmatory.
22 MR. LEVINE: No, no.
It's an expansion of the 23 charter.
24 MR. GOSSICK: They're adding in tnere an additional 25 category of work for us to do.
Let me ask Saul, does the g.
)
/
$ 9 2.,0 4. 2,
46 gsn I
definition of confirmatory really mean very much?
2 I don't tnink it's r il that much of a problem.
a 3
DR. SIESS: I'm not sure 1: tells you what you can 4
do.
5 MR. LEVINE: I tnink that the major proclem that we 6
have really is the difference between the shorter term view 7
of the licen sing viev: and the longer term view of the researuh O
people.
9 That's the principal problem.
The v:ards really 10 aren't in the way very much.
11 DR SIESS: Saul, I've heard two quite di f f cent --
12 I think they're quite di f f e rent -- de fin it ions o f wha t is meant 13 by conf irmatory re se arch.
One says it's research to confirm la that rea,ctors are safe.
The other says.it's to confirm what 15 tne applicant claims, or what the applicant's research, the 16 a pp l i c a n t.'s tests have shown.
17 MR. LEVINE : It's easier to state it in the negative.
13 DR. SIESS: If you do both kinds --
19 VR. LEVINE : I think it's easier to state tnis in the 20 negative.
And in terms of my impress ion o f what the Congress 21 meant whan they coined tnat term, they really did not want us 22 to go out and to de sign reac tors, is what tnev rea lly meant.
23 DR. OKEENT: A new reactor.
24 MR. LEVINE: Right.
They want us to build 25 la bo ra to r ie s.
They didn't want us to build big facilities.
t 1
l
) )
5692.C4.3 47 gsh 1
They didn't want us to design re actors.
They felt tha t it was 2
at that time ERDA's job.
3 CR. SIESS: The s t a f f in the licensing proce ss 4
does an tvful Jot of designing.
5 MR. LEVINE: Of course it does, always has.
6 DR. SIESS: And some of that des ign is being done 7
without the benefit of research.
8 DR. SUDNITZ: Chet, fou made two po ints on the 9
word "confirmato ry,"
and I think I'd phrase it a l iit l e 10 differently, 11 One you said was to confirm the adequacy of the 12 applicant's application.
The o the r was to say --
13 DR. SIESS: The applicant's application and his 14 supporting r; search.
15 DL, SUDNITZ: Right, his applica t ion, which includes 16 the supporting documentation.
The second was to confirm the 17 reactors are safe.
IS No w let me phrase that second one a li.tt l e 19 differently.
What we see as our charter, in T.y view, is to 20 confirm the adequacy of the NRC's regula tory cctivities.
21 Let's say that again -- to confirm the adequacy cf tne NRC's 22 regulatory activities.
Or if tney're inadecuate, to do 23 research to make them adequate.
24 DR. SIESS: That's not very gcod because the only way 25 you find it's inadequate is when Three Mile Island comes up.
361 3l4
5692,04.4 48 gsh 1
DR. BUC:lITZ: No, no, no, no.
You find it's 2
inadequate by de veloping computer codes and experiments 3
which can give detailed numoers to colster or not judgments 4
made in the absence of those qumoers.
5 Many judgnents have been made in the l ic e ns ing 6
?rocess over the last 25 years for which engineering judgment 7
did not have the foundation of sound science and engineering.
3 You know measurements and codes -- we all know that.
9 The notion of the research program is partially to confirm 10 those judgments, are adequate for us to do our mission, or 11 to find that they're perhaps no t.
~
12 DR. SIESS: But much of that re search is intended to 13 provide you with the bas is for knowing whether you're ge.tting 14 good answers to the questions you're asking.
And very little 15 of it is. devoted to finding out whether you are asking the s.
16 right ques tions.
17 MR. LEVINE: Jus t a minute.
In risk a -:.e ssment, the 13 WASH-14CO pointed out years ago that the biggest contributors 19 to reac tor a ccidents were cransients and sma.ll LCCAs.
That's 20 been on the table in front of a lot or people for a long 21 time. It's been in front of tnis committee.
This committee 22 has recomaended to the NRC that it pay more e ttention to this, 23 and it has not.
24 DR. SIESS: At the same time, it's recommend ed that you pay less attention to the large LCCA.
And that hasn't 25
-ib
5 ?2.04.5 49 gsh 1
been followed, either.
8 2
__ _ ]. LEVINE: My point is very simple..
2 DR. SIESS: Ma ybe they're 1 elated.
(
4 MR. LEVINE: My point is that people tend to plow the 5
same furrows they've always plewed.
This is human behavior.
6 They tend to ignore new evi dence.
7[
Now I think what we have to do is find some way to 8
overcome these kinds of. things and definitions of words and 9
the like aren't going to do that. You have to have pecple 10 who have open minds and are not d.irectly involved e very day J1 in licensing reactors because they tend to 1cok at problems on 12 a day to day basis and not on a longer term basis.
13 PROF. KERR I t seems tc me, howe ver, that you're 14 defining confirmatory research.
And Bob Budnitz's definition 15 gives one the kind of flexibility that one would like to hava 16 if you were running a research organizat'ioit.
17 DR. BUDNITZ: That's what I said -- to c.onfirm the 18 adequacy of our regulatory approach.
19 No w -
20 MR. LEvINE: And our problem is that our research 21 program is bound, hamstrung, tied by the regulators.
22 DR. SUDNITZ:
In fact. I was going to elaborate on 23--- that by saying the following:
Suppose that a man had built 24 a house and he hired somebody else to help him ecnfirm the
(
25 adequacy of his design after it was built.
And rather than 361 316
692.'04.6' 50 gsh I
hire a person to do some.indeoendent work, he hired someone --
2 he s'id, I want you to look at this and this and this and 3
this.
And t he g u y s a ys. wall, I want to look at this.
- dell, 4
we don't want to look at that.
That's low p r io r ity.
You 5
won't get tne independence from that that you would if you 6
turn somebody loose.
7 The problem with turning somebody loose is that they S
might run off end be irrespons ible and unresponsive.
And 7
of course this analogy, this metaphor is right for the 10 agency.
The line that has to oe thought about 15 tne extent 12 to which. the research program has the independence of view in 13 a real sense to check on what NRR or NMSS standards are 14 doingt that is, to look over their shoulder, which can be b-15 both a help and a threat.
16
.The other side of it is that you just can't turn the 17 research program completely loose.
It's not responsible.
la And we're all aware of that tension all the t #ms.
19 DR. SIESS: I had a very simple defini tion of the 20 kind of research I chought a regulatory agency ought to oe 21 doing.. This was be fore the word " conf irmatory re se arch" was 22 developed.
It was back when we were arguing with Mr.
23 Schlesinger about ge tting the researcr. out frca on the shelf.
24 I said I thought the research should be to tell us 25 what questions we should be asking and to know when we're 1
j,/
,Ul
.' t-l
5692.04.7.
51 gsh I
ge tting the right answers.
2 I think that an awful lot of what we're doing is 3
knowing whether we're ge tting the right answers and there's not 4
as much emphasis on what questions we should be asking 5
b ecause rignt now, the questions are b31ng asked by licensing 6
people.
7 I see those questions ge tting mo re and more detailed.
3 They're ge tting right down to ti.e very fine s.ructure of 9
design and ccnstruction and they're overlooking the oig 10 questions that we should have been asking far the Three Mile 11 type of thing.
12 Now the ACRS has been asking some of those big 13 questions in very broad terms, and sometimes too broad.
And 14 people haven't understood what we're talking about.
\\-
15 I think instrumentation to follow the course of an 16 accident was that. Maybe we haver't nede ourselves clear. I 17 don't know.
But by the time the staff got through with it, 13 they were de signing tnose instruments, practically.
19 And it's that kind of detail that I th ink we're 20 getting involved in.
I still think that what questions se 21 should be asking and how do we know enough knowledge to krow 22 what we're getting the right answers to.
23 Sut the emphasis needs to be on the first one.
24 I don' t c a ll it confirmatory or anything else.
25 regulatory research or whatever.
=
5592,04.S.
52 gsh 1
MR. LEVINE:
That's wnat our name is.
2 DR. OKRENT: Is there anything that you think that 3
the ACRS should look at with regard to the relationship a
be t " ee n technical assistance and research?
Or does that 5
seem to be flowing smcothly?
6 MR. GCSSICK: I think I'm sure that we've got some 7
work being done as technical 3ss.istance that really is research 3
and vice versa.
9 DR. OKRENT: That may not ce bad.
13 MR. GO SSICK: Yeah.
So t he r e, of course, is a very s izable amount of money in the technical assistance areas.
12 And hopefully, the BRG will not scrub that as hard as they 13 have the research program.
14 I don't know of any particular area.
Does anyone
\\_
15 have anything to suggest on this suoject?
i6
.MR. SMITH: I think in general there is much of 17 that going on.
The one possibility that may arise is in the 13 waste management area.
The re's a tr emendous increase in the 19 budget, both NMSS and research.
20 I don't think it's as clear as it could be at this 21 mcment if there's any overlap on the bounds.
But I think it 22 will be vorked out.
23 UR. SIESS: I have a questien that really relates to 2-what kinc' of advice we give to the commission.
How f ar down 25 in line items does the commission icok at this budget?
bbi
)
5692.04.9 53 gsn i
Fo r e xampl e, in research, will they Loo k in this t
2 much detail?
3 MR. LEVINE: I don't know what the y loo k at, but they 4
get mucn more detailed than that.
5 DR. SIESS: Selow those dec ision units, If a decision 5
unit is cut in half, are they interested in which three of 7
six projects you leave out?
Are they going to leave that up a
to you?
9 MR. LEVINE: In our presentation to them, we give 10 them a breakcown ol what's within each line item there. It's
.11 a decision unit, not nece ssarily by pro jects but b, work 12 areas.
And when there are cuts, we t e ll the.. what that would 13 involve.
14 But there are just too many projects.
A' 15 MR. SMITH: There is a f urther breakdown in this 16 piece of paper.
By the way --
17 MR. GOSSICK:
They'll lcok at it.
Some of them 18 will.
As we sit around this same teole and go through the 17
- budget, it proba'ly won't be in that detail.
c 20 MR. SMITH: Let me, while I've got the ficor, 21 apologize for this piece of paper.
I didn't intend to nand 22 it out.
The re are inaccuracies in it.
Th is improved reactor 23 safety, for instance, is an earlier version.
This is the 24 version that you ought to take as gospel.
25 This 1/l.7 is back a week ago data when we were 361 320
-m eNo.--+
m
%w.
cm e
692.'34.10 54 arguing about whether there was some duolication of numan g3h 2
inte rac tio ns with some other part of the budget.
3 MR. GOSSICK: The July 6th thing supercede; all 4
else, right?
5 MR. SMITH: This supercedes it and lets aside, 6
bas ica lly, the entire amount they requested.
7 DR. SIESS: Thank you.
3 DR. OKRENT: Dr. Budnitz?
9 DR. SUCNITZ: I would lik 3 to emphasize for your 10 co'aideration a verf important point that I have observed;
' na t is, that therc are maiy people in the licensing offices --
12 I45, S tandards, NRR, and NMSS -- for whom the research program 13 is seen as something t.'at they would just as soon have go 14 away.
k-13 That's pre tty strong language, but I celieve it.
16 People have told me that and their cctions say that, t.co.
17 They do not generally get their way, but their actions, in 13 small and in large measure, substantially affect the 19 viability of some of the areas in which we work.
20 For example, there are some groups who f ail to 21 endorse or fail to initiate project areas because the 22 project area s would scrutiniac the very way that tney do 23 busine ss, which the very way tha'. they do busine ss is seen as 24 something worth de f e nding ra ther than scrutinizing.
25 Now there's some human nature on that, and there are 361 771
-m 4
5672.04.11 55 gsh 1
a lot of people who don't want anybody snoop.ng around their 2
house.
3 But I feel in my bones that at least some o f the 4
problem that we have in interacting with the other of fices is 5
that we take our confirmatory mission as more exploratory and 6
some of the other staff members o f the agency see this as a 7
threat to the status quo or to the way they have been B
licensing all along, or mak.ing judgments.
9 Inis, then, leads to at least some are as whe re the 10 user requests that we get or the endorsements we get of 11 projects we develco are formulated incompletely or poorly. The 12 long range, short range balance is, in cur view, inappropriate 13 and several other things that have to do with staffing and 14 administrative control and everything.
15 And a good deal of that could be r'emedied with more 16 fle xibility.
Un fo rtuna t el y, it can't all be remedied.
17 For example, the re are some areas in which our la "in" box of user reques ts is two or three years' deep.
In 19 other words, projects we are now beginning to underta ke,
20 reactor environmental, for example, w3re initatiated in 1973.
21 And we may be able to begin some of them next year because 22 we don't have ecough f unds in that environment.
23 Some of. the important work isn't even given to us 24 as a user request.
It is, instead, undertaken under technical 25 assistance, which is the only vay to get it done.
b'O I 32d
6 G 2.,0 4.12 56 gsh Then, that being so, we can't get the money next 2
year.
3 So there's kind of a f unny process which I think is 4
not overwhelming in this whole system, but it's certainly not 5
negligible.
It's quite signific ant in some areas.
5 And you should be aware of several things.
- First, 7
you should be aware that I feel that. I just said that.
Sut 8
you should also be aware that this is an important view within 7
important parts of the office of research within our staff.
10 Members of our staff believe what I've said and
.! I concur with me in this.
I'n not sure how to fix the thing, 12 but it's an institutional i ssue that is a major problem to us.
13 PROF. KERR: Bob, I think it's an extremely important 14 point.
And I would get the impr2ssion f rom what you have q_.
15 said that research are the good guys and the people who don't 16 appreciat.e research are the bad guys.
17 DR. BUDNITZ: No t always.
13 MR. LEVINE: We're f allible.
19 DR. BUDNITZ: Sure, of course.
It's an Interac tion, 20 Bill, and in all interac tions, there's some problem on all 21 sides, of course.
22 MR. LEVINE:
Let me state it d if f e rent ly.
I don't 23 feel that the NRC has enaoled me to fulfill my statutory 24 respcnsibility in the right way.
My statutory responsiciliti 25 ls outlined in Lee's paper.
~
56,i 325
5692.04.13 57 gsn i
I think wnen you look at the pyramid of reviews and 2
c ross-checks and counter-balances that we' ve es tabl ished, that 3
my ideas are very much less impo r t an t in my budget than anyone 4
else's.
5 That's wha t's happen ing in our agency.
6 PROF. KERR: It seems to me that the principal 7
responsibility of the NRC, or a principal responsibility is 3
to get reactors licensed in such a way that they are safe.
9 If I can simplify it, the principal responsibility 10 is not to do research.
That may be difficult for people to accept who are dedicated to research.
But it does put an 12 extra burden on you to -- I am reluctant to use the word, but 13 you have to sell your services.
,14 In the first place, tney have to be useful and they 15 have to be meaningful.
And in the~se place, you have to 16 convince people that that is the case.
That may strike you
(;
17 as being trivial or unnecessary in a lot of situations, but IS it seems to me that you have to do it.
19 MR. LEVINE I have no quarrel with that.
All I'm 20 saying is that the ques tion of balance -- the balance s that 21 the commission has delegated to so many different cedies, tne 22 review of my program, that I have almost no control o f it,
23 of fornulating it.
24 25 1
4 a
l J
e
_ _~.
5c92 05 01 56 kap i
DR. OKRENTr Lee, earlfer in tne introcuctory I
2 comments you mentionea tnat the ACES wa s a body whose 3
comments were considered.
I can't quite recall whe ther you 4
used the term t ha t the ACRS was a " user,"
but can the ACRS 5
be a user f rom yc ur coin t of view?
o In othe r words, if they ini cia te a request, would 7
t ha t provide suf f ici en t justificaticn that research woula e
not nave to go, tnen, to NRR or one of the other groups for v
concurrence?
10 MR. GOSSICK:
I think tha t's right ;
let me just refresh my memory.
I believe the language is in the 12 Commission paper tha t defines the u se r.
13 MR. LEVINe:
It's not covered in our user 14 requirement procedure.
s_
15 MR. GOSSICK:
' think it is.
16 MR. LEVINE:
I don't think so.
17 MR. B AK ER :
SECY 77-1308 specifically states the is o tr.er f our of fice s es sponsoring user of fices.
However, as ly you pcintec out eerlier, it also mentions tnat Saul can 20 sponsor acr.< tco, wnica ne ge ts, and thus himself on :ne 21 basis of suggestions by other groups including the ACRS.
22 MR. LEVINE:
I have no autnority to sponsor i t.
23 CR. SIESS:
It says tha t research is the sponsor 24 office anc must have the endorsemen t of the user office.
25 MR. LEVINE:
If you want some thing done, I have to 361 325
Oc9e Go-ue av kap i
sell it to the user o f fice is t he wt / it work s ou t.
2 MR. GOSSICK:
I swear I dion't dig that out of tne 3
air.
If it's not in 13C3 i t's in 130A, wnicn is not 4
nece ssarily comoletely overwri tten by the later version.
5 Recommendations for conrirmatory researen may be made by eny e
of the following:
NRC program and staff offices, the ACRS, 7
the ASi_E, the ALAS, Ccngre ss, t he tecnnical community and o
the public.
That's in a memorandum from Sam Chilk to Lee 9
Go ssick on May 19, 1977.
10 CR. CKR E.'IT :
De s s that make the public a user?
In
.Il other woros, if Jonn Coe writes in and recommends research 12 on pa ssive containment, does that mean hat Levine's office 13 is free to say, I have a user?
14 MR. GOSSI CK :
I think not.
!5 DR.
O.< RENT:
So the ACRS and John Doe are lumped 16 to ge t he r.'
17 MR. LEV INE:
Yes.
IS (Laugnter.)
I>
MR. 00SSICK:
Ycu're in the same fix, T guess, and 2C in fact, the saca piece of reoer goes on anc says, "in 21 general, r.o re searc h pro j e ct shall be aporovec wi thou t a 22 researcn request pre pared cy a sp n scring o f fi ce," anc the 23 spon soring of fice, in thi s pa.ce r, they specif y the NRR, NMSS 24 anc I&E.
I would take issue with that.
I wculd include SD
'3 in dare.
e 561 326
5092,C5 03 f0
.<ep 1
CR. SIESS:
Sut if tney sconsor him, t hey've go t i
2 to get concurrence witn semecocy else, toe user.
- c, if they can't get it --
4 CR. SIESS:
Or frca you.
5 MR. GOSSICK:
Or from me, right.
6 CR. OK R E.'iT :
Ac tua lly, I'll give you a general 7
im cre ssion.
Ir. my ocinion, t he reccmmendations that the e
ACR5 have oeen giving in the research area in the pa s t few v
years are increasingly le ss f ollowed by One.'IRC, tnan in 10 fact, they may have oeen when Shaw was the head of ll r e se arc h.
There are some areas he wouldn' t do, ou t many 12 areas, in fact, he'd follow tne recommencations of /.CRS.
I 13 con't c'.nd a terrioly strong correlation -- and I've read 14 the response of the research of fice to t,he letters of last 15 year and the year before -- and I see sort of general kinds s.
16 o f statemen ts, ' u t I think in specific areas I can' t see a o
17 s trong correlation.
Maybe if ne ACRS were a user with some IS
-- I guess you might call it legal s ta tu s -- like o thr 19 cffices, it would have some effect.
I don't know.
I t's an 20 ooservaticn.
I may oe wrong.
21 3 R0.. KERE:
Mayce ACRS recommencations are 22 ge tting wcrse.
23 CR. OKREht:
that al sc po ssible.
24 CR. SIESS:
They're ge tting le ss soecific.
25 CR. OKREhts iney could ce scecific.
Are tnere 26 b
? ")
- m,7
5cy2 05 CA 61 kap i
any o ther topics tnat memoers would like to raise with 2
Mr. Go ssick or the group who are here, with regard to eda s.
3 I can't think it's fair to tak e up Mr. Go ss i ck's time with 4
things that woulc be specific to one of the offices.
5
(?!o re sponse. )
o CR. 0(,R E;IT :
Let me ask a question that gets cack 7
to the first one I sort of raised, acout whether there was a S
way of coing major rethinking on the safety researcn V
program.
If that were to be done within the NRC, is that 10 something cha t would be initiated in a grass rcots way or is 11 it sometning that would oe initia ted at your of cice, saying,
~
12 "have we really sat back and looked?"
How wculd that come 13 to pa ss?
It may not be worth doing.
14 MR. GOSSICK:
Could you be a little more specific ss 15 about the dimensicns of this re tninking of our sarety 16 re searc n. program, as I uncerstcod you to pu t it?
Are you 17 talking acout a comple te backing off, and then considering a la new cirection, or c new category of work?
Perhaps new 19 priorities?
There's a lot of momen tum tha t you're faced 20 with, I mean, you've got a _3.:T thing that,cu've s pen t half 21 a million dollars, nearly, en, anc you're no t going to jus:
22 turn that around and go scmewhere else overnight.
23 I gue ss -- I can't know w ha t percentage of your
~
24 budget would you say you had, Saul?
Are ycu in a mortgage 25 concition thar vcu coulcn' t just wolk away frcm it?
}
l' ' O J
U
5cv2.05 Q5 62 kap i
CR. SIE55:
Some of that goes back to AEC.
I 2
MR. G0 55 I C.; :
Tha t's right.
5ut I think if I 3
unoerstana yo ur question, t na t is no me tning that is likely to ha pcen in tne more or less normal year-to-year 5
formulation of tne ra search budget.
Ycu know, some flasn of 6
inspiration, we say, Hey, i t' s t.4, m e to back off and take a 7
new approach to our office.
I nink it prooably evolves witn the views and recommencationc tha t you can provice to the Commission.
And y,
10 it comes to us, I'm sure f rca o ther outside influences, such 11 a s opera ting experience, Three Mile Island, to be exact, as 12 an e xample.
13 A
hole host of inputs that are not just trening 14 90 degrees to tne right, but certainly a change over some 15 perfod of ti. 3 from the direction we're going.
One of the s.
16 proolems tha staff and Commission have struggled with is 17 this basis for planning tne a ssumptions on which we can go la ahead and put togetner a oudge t each year.
And I think, Iv CPuck, let's ma.<e sure nat the Commis; ion gets a copy of 20 hat planning guide.
21 V0: CE:
Ye_.
si r, I got a cc.cy frcm tne 22 se c r e ta r i e s.
SECY caper 79-2C5.
Mr..raley has it for tn e 23 members' us:t newever, I tnink the se cre tary ha s to do some 24 otner cnecking with the ccrcissioners before he can make it 25 a public cocument.
It's rat a cublic documen t yet, so tney 20 now b
5cV2. C5 J6 63 kap i
now na v e i t f'
2 DR. OKRENT:
I'n going to try to provide an answer 3
to tne question.
I could s pe c u l a t e, but I'c ratner no t, at 4
the moment.
I think it's not an idle c.uestion, then, ano I 5
don't accept as irrevocable the existence.of a mor*. gage or that ties f unds up o
wha te ve r -- howe ve r you want to put it 7
and so forth.
I mean, tha t's my own point of vi ew.
I've 6
always saic in the saf ety area you have to te relatively 9
flexiole in w na t you choose ro co.
10 MR. 00SSICK:
I tnink that's right.
On t he o the r 11 hand, let's rememoer that the only way we can do this ki" 12 of work is ge tting money f rom Congre ss, a pcro cria te the 13 funds to co it.
I think tco many, you know, sudden changes 14 of direction are going to cause peo pl e to say that they 13 really can't know what they're doing, and if they have an to ability to look aheac far enougn, to make sure that the 17 money level ceing authori ted i s proper and well-spent -- I le dcn't cisagree wi th you com ple tely, thougn.
In fact, if 19 I'll ever recognite something t na t is, you know, no longer 20 of any useful purpose or be cause simply of priorities, we 21 find t ha t we may have to fore close on these mortgages.
22 There's no need f or it; we can't afforc it for 23 some thing else needs to' be done more urgently.
That can be 24 e x pl a ine d, I t hi nk.
25 CR. OKRENT:
Le t me ask just one small question.
26 I
7~q 6
J
.s
-n
-n--._,-.
56x2 05 07 64 kap I
things that nad 'ceen cone in that area or are being cone.
I 2
they have very great value to us.
I t's hard to judge 3
legally, yes, we're required, I guess it's spelled ou in 4
the Act, that we will co work in these areas.
The firs t 5
year's funcing that got this started was really an arbitrary 6
numoer tha was imposeo on us.
Each year 1: tends to 7
narrow, at least there are more ren,uirements tha; can be 6
satisfied.
And I thirik primarily cased on, agau, user 9
requirements, it's well-su poor ted by user requirements.
10 Nere we not funcec by the agency.
11 MR. C)SSICK:
Yes, right, but one of tne ereas --
12 now, it's not excetly an area, out the same division.
The 13 safeguards work.
Of course, as a program where we've hac to 14 defend it to Congress in ver/, very deteiled f ashion.
15 That's sort of leveled of f and come down now.
s_
16
. Saul, do you have any o;her thoughts in this area?
17 MR. LEVINE:
I think Cave is right, in terms of ic the po t en tia l impect on public health and safety.
Thr ee 19 Mile Island transcends general environmental 20 considerations.
That doe sn' t mean that you have to trace 21 one before :ne o ther.
,,3..-
R.
,u,An t u :
As long as you have enougn re scur:es.
23 MR. LEVINE:
I think it's time One Commission -as 24 to stanc up ana say it neecs the re sources.
I :nink
.at's 25 the message that comes to m.e f rom Three Mile Island.
36/
a51 7~
.-oc 5cx2-u-p us n
kap i
DR. 5UCHITZ:
Tne bucget for reactor-reia:ec 2
environmental work is only a f ew cer
'nt of the safety 3
b udge t.
'r e we are c on s tan :ly :ald by the pecole in NRR and 4
the civision of 53E, safe:y and environmental, tna: :ney 3
cannot perf orm their site saf ety reviews acequately in th i s o
area without this work.
7 In fact, I was acquainted last week with the fact 6
-- I was told the fact; I'm not sure it's a fac
-- t h a t 9
- ne las: hearing boarcs nave been hung up on environmen tal, 10 not on safety issues as :he main part of their hearing 11 ocard, adjudicatory cifficulties.
12 Therefore, chere is surely need f or some work in 13 the se areas.
Wne the r, you know, it's too high by a f ac tor 14 of two or too low, it depends on looking at the individual 15 projects.
16
- MR. LEVINE:
ine wnole area doesn't have enough 17 money to change a reactor experience.
he rf
,v0 budget is going to 'ce le-an. ou.Cu t tu. 7 a
n, t
19 accu: :nree percent of the en tire re search cucge; for tnat 20 area.
Accut hr ee perc en t.
21 OR. OsRENT:
My proolem is, you told me 22 three-quarters o f tne budge :.s locked in, so I only have 25
~
23 percent to work with.
Th at's eight three cercent items.
24 DR. 5UCNITZ:
No.
That's really no t f air.
Fo r 25 example, in a sense LOFT is locked in 'out the e xpe rim en ta l 6,l
,,9 6
/
w L
56V2 05 09 66 kep 1
program at L '?T ne x t year will be very alfferent t han w e had 2
thougnt last Cecemcer.
LOFT is going to be coing a numcer 3
of tests over tne next year or two, different from the a
program we had planneo, so although the facility costs are E
in a major way locked in, the program anc the answers tnat o
we seek are as flexible a s we can make then consistent with 7
the f ac t that tne facility has a certain site and a certain c
numoer of constraints. Semi scale, the same way, P5F, all of V
these things are " locked in."
10 DR. OKRENT:
Unfortunately, my 1.n tui tion te lls me 11 that tha t's no t where we're going to learn the things of 12 most he l p.
13 CR. BUCNITZ:
T he risk assessment work, the code la work, is being redirected substantially to work on codes for 15 the transients and small LOCAs.
We're working as hard as we 16 c an withLn the se constraints.
As Lee Jays, you don't turn 17 90 degrees in three weeks.
Ic MR. LEVINE:
Part of the acditional money we've 19 askeo f or re sulting f rom -- we've asked for about 30 million 20 dollars more from Three Mile Islanc research, and part of 2'
that money is, in fact, to de velo p snort, fast running code 22 whic h may no t be a ccurate enougn to sa tisf y everyone, but 23 f rom which we ougn to learn a goca deal about tne system.
24
~
DR. BUCNITZ:
Part of it.s for risk assessment.
25 MR. LEVINE:
Tha t would be the same purpose, a
b
>Jj
56v2 C5 i.O 67
<ap i
DR. MARr;:
Coula I ask -- y o u just nentioned,
(
2 3aul, S30 million is caing asked for.
Do you knew what 3
recep; ion it's given?
.42. LEVINE:
Tne BRG has approvec most of them.
4 5
DR. MARK:
The ERG, but they don' t have 530 6
million.
7 MR. LEVINE:
They what?
6 DR. MA.C.K:
They don't ha ve 330 millioni co ney?
9 MR. LE' SINE:
It's part of our budge t process.
I 10 goes to the --
11 CR. MARK:
But is i t not Congress that ha s to 12
.cprove it?
13 MR. LEVINE:
'e s, that's our whole budge.
14 CR. MARK:
I'm asking what reception we can 15 expect.
16
- MR. LEV INE :
I don't know.
It's hard to tell.
I 17 talked to UM3 anc they say they have an open mind acout i t.
16 DR. MARK:
/Inen will that get talked to?
Iv MR. GOSSICK:
Tne su r.cl e.,en tal will go to OME 20 along with tne regu ar '31 cudget.
Is has to ce over there 21 by ;ne first of September.
the supplemental, hcdever, will 22 gc on cirec tly to Congress, af ter a very minimal kind of 23 rev_ew or a short review, and t hen, the cudget won't go over 24 until after arounc the first of the year.
25 So we would hope tha
- ne supplemental ac tion will
- A,
,,l 5 /
Ul JJr
sos 2 C5 11 65 kap I
recur, 1: Congress is interestec and we can well defend t.
2 MR. LEV I:J E By mia fiscal year --
3 MR. G0 55 I Ct. :
Before the enc of the C31encar year, 4
before tney go out for Christmas.
5
- 09. MARK:
And you don't at this mcment nave o
strong incica tions a s to the reception?
7 MR. GC S S I C,< :
The re are scme indications in some 3
quarters that tnere is a very favorable reception 9
an ti c i pa ted there.
I'm sure it will be scme other areas, or 10 other parts of Congre ss tha t won't be so inclinea.
Il 12 13 14
/
vi 1-3
~
10 17 18 19 2C 21 23 24 25
}'1 r, --
5692.06 Gi 69 kap i
MR. MURLEY:
In the me antime, though, our regular
(
2 fiscal '50 requet has been cut by about 510 million, in 3
fact, by the Appropriations Co mmi ttee.
4 MR. GOSSICK:
The same committee that is talking 5
about acding onto our 'a0 budge t on the ficor has alsc been 6
active in cutting it in commi ttee.
7 CR. MARK:
That's s l o million cu t in respec t to o
those numbers we have in front of us.
Well, your '80 budget, does it show 10 Ccngressional action?
tl MR. SMITH:
No.
12 MR. GOSSICK:
No.
13 MR. LEVINE:
The pre sen t request, that's what we 14 requested.
Not what the Congre ss gave to us.
15 DR. MARK:
You requested and they have s te pped 16 back $10 million f rom tha t request.
17 MR. LEVINE:
Exce pt it's no t a final action.
1o DR. MARK:
Not a final action?
Are they doing 19 this across the coard or en detailed items?
20 MR. SCOGGINS:
Ce ta il s, to a certain cegree, most 2!
of them are cetails.
22 GR. MARK:
What things annoy them tne mcst?
23 MR. SCOGGINS:
For example, they gave a very minor 24 cut to the l'ght water reactor area.
They, in effect, told 25 us to put money back into the gas reactors for wnicn we have 7<1 774 JDl J J'J
5692.06 02 70 kap 1
no money in the President's oudget, as you well know.
So lh 2
t he r e f o re, that's Jike an effective cut, and we'll ha v e to 3
eat it within tne total.
4 The reduced grcu pings mostly in the reactor 5
environmental, risk, seismic, e t ca tera.
I t's wnere they o
tcok the ma jority or the remainder of the S6-1/2, S7 million 7
cut in safeguards, s pe c i f ica lly.
They recommended a 6
reduction of abo u t, I believe. 40 cercent in the safeguards 9
area.
10 CR. MARK:
40 percent is noticeable in anybody's 11 b ud ge ts.
12 MR. SCHGGINS:
Tha t's co rrec t.
13 DR. PLESSET:
Maybe Tom Murley could help me to 14 try to relate a ce tailed breakcown of the FY '80 su pplement 15 with what's in this thing.
I couldn' t get them to fit.
The 16 numbers you mentioned seemed to be right.
You recall what 17 I'm ge tting a t.
18 MR. MURLEY:
In the presentation that I made to 19 ycur succommittee?
20 DR. PLESSET:
Yes.
21 MR. MuF. LEY:
Yes.
I think I gave to Tom a list of 22 those research items, whicn were by topic and not by budget 23 group, anc by topic it snowed wnich budge t group they went 22 into, so there is a Rosetta Stone t ha t will relate them, and gets that?
25 Tom, can you make sure
.~
5092 Co G3 71 kao I
MR. MC CRELESS:
Yes, I will.
t uR. P L.- -._ cati:
O, r a y.
inanxs.
e 3
DR. OKR E.NT :
I have a f eeling it's getting iete 4
f or ar. Go ssick, so I'd like to thank him very much f or 5
coming ocwn.
This morning has been interesting.
6 MR. MC CRELESS:
I would like to say one thing, 7
if I may.
I attanded the budget review group meeting, three c
o f them, last week, that pertains to the re search bucge t, 9
and I found t ha t they were very prof e ssional in the way that 13 they cic it.
11 You mentioned earlier that the men did not have 12 muc h te c hnical ex.certise but they seemeo to have an awful 13 lot of ; xpe r ti se in pre senting inf ormation to OMS and to 14 Congress,_and I think that they helped RES by focusing their
(-
15 a ttention on areas that they needed to strengthen their 16 arguments.
Tom, I really appreciate your 15 ccament on that because you toten on an extremely important 19 part of this buogetary process.
We can oafend it, our 20 people can defend it te chnically to yourselves or o tr.ers, 21 yc's know, all day long, out it's the very critical process 22 of being able to present the prcgram in a way that the 23 ncn-tec Pnical peo ple, for the most part in OMB and for a' 24 ery ceciced por tion of the Congressional co mmi t t ee s t ha t we 25 nave to go to and convince them tha t, you know, it's 361 338
~o v2 - CC C4 72 kap i
i mpo r tan; to p:
on grounds that are salaole
.n those 2
arenas, not jus; to ourselves or to o ther technical peers 3
who woula pa ss jucgemen t.
4 Thank you.
5 CR. OKRENT:
Thank you.
Le t's take a 10 atinute o
creak and reconvene.
7 (Rece ss. )
o (Whereupon, a; 10:55 c,m.,
tne hearing was adjourned, to go 9
into executive session.)
10 11 12 l3 14 g
15 g
16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 h
7 7
(
~]
~.-
q
\\
V p5,
- ,L N
\\.
!5n p._ _._
m
- .=.
o
}
&C
' ~
o 2, C
O t, 5o
.9 H
- ; 2.m m e
o m
2 c = =5.e $
'C ;:5 0 D
=a
- C22o55 O
m e m-m LU w E *.22 OO C-o w
=E ops C5.= ? g o.o s c X
Ca
,d z E 5 C = :s @
---~
Z o
O oZooZOOw (f)
U oe e e *
~ _ ' _
g
=
.e
===.
2 g
O O
e h<
J 2
D 2
O
==
ZY^.~.
O o
u S
p W
e 2
.C U
O a
m O
m D
2 z
Z J
O O
O o
C ~o c o =o q
c
-.a G
z *- oE Q.
C" O
cn o
C w
woc
~
C U) =.
f W
f.
O L1.
iZ u
f"-
O
__..EE
- =..
- 5==
E.T *'..
w::=.. :
.......C'..
~~ ~ -.... _ _. _.
_ _ _ _ _ - ~ ~ ~
.._..~.C*C~."'l.:'~-**:.M"~':.".--
~
.. -.. _ ~.. -.. ~.. - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~
. ~ _.
5._
[
2:".'~T.*-
~":::.
.C.
Ob
=_
- ==
y.
to W
O o
O C
~
~
~
L
~
o o'
h W
O F~~=
l
~
g H
W Q
U 2
W o
=_._...._..:.
y m
3 o
.5 O
x W
~
5 E
1 5%
e g
g xx:
O
-E u
O O
ii
/
t; i
a=
H W
e c;0 y
c3 7
5 0
0 2
a 0
C
>COS C
C" W
o
- O "5 o
O M
2 oC C
-~
C
[
5 g,3 -
._ og Z
=
g o
o s e E f2
,F e
t-O 2
o oEc-o C.
O U..o"g U
- iB
~
u m
o e c
$ 3 C" C. Ej O w < g E = @.- e o e O
E w-H CO N DOO
[3@gUC5CWO gy o c:........
C
.__.=i r
- =:-
= = =.
L~Q.
...:45.~
..O...
-.... -.. - - -. - -.. -. ~ ~ ~ -
L...----
.. ~
^ ~~-
I t
$ /^
N
/
1 9
F
/
3 1
7
/
6
/
1 9
'D o
L 0
5 w;
/
1 4 9
2-o 3
2
/
P sn 6
7
/
3 S n
?
/
1 2 3 1
l M. 9 i
2
/
3 l
1 1
? J%5 K0 9 n 2 9 / /
i 1
f )7 2 J
I' &3 8
0 n 3
5 2 5 3 7 1
1 3 4 1 2 2 1 4
1 1
3 3 2 5 J4 9 1 9 3
8 9 9 7 6 6 8
I 5 9 5 8 5 3 9 2 3 9
9 5 5 6 2 6 6
I 1
1 5
N 1 2 1 5 1 2 9
2 K(
1 4
8 1
1 N #
5 3 f.
7 7 6 0 1 9 6
8 9 9 7,
2 7 1
/
f 2
i 8
9 5 5 6 1 4 5
I 3_
9 1
1 2
8 4 4 8 2 H
8 8 i
4
'l 2 1 5 1 2 LI/
1 1
1 1
F 1
5 3 0 0 9 7 9 1 7
8 3 2 3 3 d7 8
-0 2
9 1_
9 3 4 1 4 9 2 3 2 8
7 5 7 5 7 8,d l
1 Yd'u 1
3 4 1 2 2 1 2 5
i 1
t 1
F 1 7 7 1
1 1
6 1
1
-1 3 2 3 6 5 6 1 2
0 l 2 4 9 3 6 5 2 2 0
5 4 4 6 1 6
i i
l l
7 i 3 4 2
1 1 2 5
1 1
1 t
3
!C 1
2 R
7 9
A
/1 E
d6 S T
)
E R
)
0 2
P N 3 9 1
7 6 9 0 7 6
5 8 7 0 0 R O S
1 9
E 0
3 6 5 9 1 1
Y P O
1 R 1 4 2 8 9 6 2 3 2
1 R U i.
l 1
4 1 2 3 1 1 6
I l
O S u
_ 1 1
~
-. 2 5 8 7 2 0 1
8 T
1 i
1 A N 0l 9 9 l.
7 6 5 0 7 i
I 0
7 3 6 5 9 4_
l i
1 i
u R 8f 2
2 8 9 8 2 3 1
9 1
9M 4 1 2 3 1 1 6
1 6 G n
1 l
1 1
E O 1
l i
R R
(
A $
P Y
7 Q 0,
A G
8 9 9 1 6 3 0 7 0,
8 8 7 0 R
F 0
0 2 8 3 8 8 0 3 2
3 3 6 E 5 1 8
l F
6 f
1 C
C 3 4 2
1 1 1 4
1 1
l 1
1 0
l i
0 1
8 6
1 1
0 3 8
9 1
n, 8
5 0 8
2 0 9
1 1
1 1
7 3
0_
1 1
0 5 3 5
2 9
1 7 8 2 1
i 8_
1 2 3 9 3 2
'1 9
1 3 2 2
1 Y
F Y
T S
E Y R R
F R T O S S A L G
H E T R R S A N
L F C O C R T
T A A T L T.
T l
I R E N
N L S E C A N
T R O i
A R A T E
N O T E O D
)
A E E
I i
)
R T
C E i i
O G R R T E
V G
S A S
l P 0 y-I E G O
1 S T E A s S E Bn l
E E A S F
V B L H a E R R N L V Y F
N C A R SA S l
i Y
V T S E aY C 8 O R Y t
B C O C U A V D
W H
T E G O
l I
i D b E
C L T E K R a.
MI T E L t
S T S V A E S F S P 1
I Y O O U R E A D E U A A S S F D E i I
f R S L C F P S F A R F W S R I
.~.
=
liUCLEAR REGULATORY C0mlSS10li 7/5/79 PERS0tifiEL LWR SAFETY RESEARCil
[D1 b BRG
[IDI LUR b
Idlb
'~
p S Y S T Ells E llG ill E E R ill G 18 18 21 20 18 19 24 24
- [ '8 Q 8
9 11 9
10 10 11 31 10 LOFT CODE DEVELOPielT 8
8 11 9
8 10 11 11 9
0 FUEL BEllAVIOR 8
8 10 9
8 9
10 10 '
9 l
PRIMRY SYS, litT.
_Z l
3 3
3 3
11 11
.g1 g
TOTAL LWR 49 51 61 55 52 57 67 67 53 m
SEISMIC EllG. SAFETY 18 19 20 19 20 21 23 23 49/'T FAST BREEDER REACTORS 11 11 11 11 15 15 15 15 0/15 ADV. 00fiV. REACTORS 3
_D.
_D.
3
_fl
_Il
_1 3
0/ 3 TOTAL RSR 81 81 92 85 87 93 108 108 68/86 REACTOR EllV.
6 6
7-6 7
19 11 11 7
FUEL CYCLE 6
6 6
6 7
q 9
9 7
~
WASTE iWIAGEtal 8
10 10 10 9
12 20 20
-200'l/r SAFEGUARDS 11 l
l 3
l
?
9 9
3 TOTAL SAFER 31 30 31 30 31 30 49 49 4z RISK ASSESSMEllT 22 23 30 27 25 28 33 33 8 z' litP. REACTOR SAFETY 1
1 3
1/2
,1,
,q q
0/79
> Pi10G. DIR. & SUPPORT
_2'1
_7J1
_2't
_2fi
_2't.
_2fi
_2R
_28.
2f1 t
TOTAL RES 159 ISS 180 167/169 168 g,
222 299 F9/180 L?
L)