ML19256A895

Transcript of 771205 Closed Meeting Re OMB Budget Markup in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-45

ML19256A895
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/05/1977
From:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7901170001
Download: ML19256A895 (45)

Text

4 4

o O

t S

2 f

• t e

1 2

'. }

mm 1

P g g C g E Q I g G'S i

s 2'

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, let us convcne the meeting 3

on the OMB budget.

(

4.

MR. GOSSICK:

'c.'e sent down to you on November 25th, 5

a paper that indicated what we had gotten back informally i

6' from the OMB with regard to our mark, our request.

l 7

Len has some papers that he has put in front of 8

y u and I think perhaps it might be best if we ask him to lead us through just exactly what has been done and where 9:

i we stand currently with regard to their mark of the budget.

10; COMMISSIONER GILI: S KY :

Let me ask, why are we

))

having this meeting?

So we can reclama or --

12:

i MR. GOSSICK:

To decide how much and to what extent 13,,

and so forth is reclama action required.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

We are going back to OMB at this point or --

MR. GOSSICK:

I think the next step would be for them to --

18' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I went over and talked to them 19 l Friday night and made a pitch for what seemed to me to be 20,

! the core essentials.

21 There is a substantial reduction over our request, 22' a very substantial reduction.

23 CO:r!ISSIONER GILINSKY: But we are in the mode of 2'

.soing back to OMB or writing a letter to t he President?

%.. - a.a e -., i-25 9

', ) ' '

3 1

m:n i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We are going to review the 2

situation and decide what to do.

3:

MR. BARRY:

We have license to go back to the i

4 President with an appeal letter and even an eyeball meeting if 5

you gentlemen choose to do so with the President.

6:

We, since our initial mark of about the 25th, have i

b 7

had some negotiations with them, and what I want to do is track 8

yu through what, in my judgment, they probably are going to 9 - permit us as their position, and then show you what the differenc e is between what their position is probably going to be and what 10!

we originally requested.

jj i

12; To give you a Jittle perspective of what that means in terms of comparing our '79 budget to the '78 budget, and 13 then solicit your comments as to how you feel about where we go from here in terns of, do we go back and make a formal i appeal or --

16' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let's see, the President has not yet signed of f?

21R. BARRY:

No, he has not.

He has seen the 19.

I I budget to some degree and -- I say to some degree.

The OMB 20; examiners did take our request to the President and discussed 21 '

it and came back with the initial mark that I presented to you 22:

or passed out to vou.

And that -- you know that's not a finite 23 thing.

I am sure they didn't talk to him in soecifics.

24 a:eaeo-v sep:ne s. oc,

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I understand.

25 h

't'.

4 mm 1

Is this the usual way of going about it?

?

2 MR. DARRY:

No. This year they have -- this is the 3: first time they have done this.

I 4

They went to the President in all cases first, 5

without coming back addressing their view with the agency 6 [ and going af ter that back to the President.

li 7[

This year they chose to take the mark over to the 8,

President, their recommendations to the President first, then 9: get back to the agencies, and then permit the agencies either 10, to agreement or a recourse of addressing a letter to the President.

j)

I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

So they are saying this is 12

(

13. something the President has seen --

[

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

)

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

-- and you ought to think 15l 16 ' about that.

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You are responding to us.

I i But he has not, in fact, approved?

Is that correct?

19:

e b

MR. BARRY:

That's correct.

20 i

21

~ seem to think that MR. GOSSICK:

At least they there is some oossibility of, you know, modifying what they 22:

initially came back to us on.

23 I don't think he nailed down any precise number.

24,

4: 4 ea a se w,... w MR. BARRY:

I think really --

25-i

'. i '.

5 i

mm 1,

CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

I think there is a tentative i

2 approval on that OMB mark barring a strong and well justified i

3

eclama.

I 4

MR. BARRY:

I think OMB has used this technique 5,

to permit them a little bit more leverage than they might i

6[ have otherwise thought they had.

I 7

CO!1MISSIONER GILINSKY:

But it has fuzzed the 8l system a little bit because it is not clear at this point i

9 whether you should be going back to OMB or whether you should i

10 be going to the President.

l MR. BARRY:

No. At this point I think OMB has 11 h

12[

a certain amount of flexibility in which they say they can speak for the President and approve what they think they

(

13 i

can approve.

Beyond that, if they -- if we and the OMB

)4 y have a disagreement, then the recourse is we go back to the 15 President.

g What I am saying is, I think if we reach an I

accommodation with OMB, we nor or or -- we neither have to 18i I

go back to the President, and I think that is the reason 19) i.

they followed the tactic they did this year.

20 I

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

At this point you are 21' talking about possible approaches to OMB, at this point?

22'

(

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

23 What I wanted to address at the bottom line is 24

u. 5.c-o' Reme i m what I think O'IB will accomnodate out of our request without 25 l

6 l

mm 1

having to go back to the President, and solicit your feelings, 2'

your views as to whether we should or should not.

3 CIIA3 RMAN IIENDRIE:

Ilave you had word from him this

(

4 morning?

5 MR. BARRY:

Yes.

6l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I notice the 610 went to 616, l

and the -- 610 went to 616, standards picked up to 5, I&E picked 7

8;, up vendor inspection program.

MR. BARRY:

With an " iffy." The iffy is, at the 9

i Mr. Cutler level, can get agreement out of Mr. Cutter and 10 Mr. McIntyre.

And we won' t know that until tomorrow.

So

))

i' that is not that for sure, yet.

12 f

[

Whereas I think the increases you see in the third I,

g[ column which exceed the second column, I think you know we are b

' 99 percent home on those.

But on the vendor thing I'd say it 15l 16 l is 50-50.

We don't know yet.

I CHAIRMAN liENDRIE:

Are you getting support from j the lower levels at this point, do you think?

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

19j l

You are referring to the vendor program?

20; i

l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

21 MR. BARRY:

And I think you turned Mr. Cutler i

around the other night.

But I think that the vendor program 23' was a subject of suf ficient concern on their oart in the 24 initial discussion they had at the Cutler-Cutter and McIntyre w e~ o F enone s m 25' I

It i

y i

mm

)

level and perhaps with the President.

And this we don't know.

7 That they have got to go back up to Cutter and McIntyre to get 3

a blessing, if we are to got one.

i

(

4l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, that begins to shape it a little better for me.

5 I

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Where is the performance 6

7 (Inaudible.) -- is that still out?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Would be pretty well zeroed out, 8

isn't it Ernie?

9 i

MR. VOLGENAU:

It

.s essentially out.

It is 10 certainly out in terms of a formal program that we had been jj f

ta2 king about.

It is so significantly reduced over what it g

b was in our original proposal.

{

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

At best it would turn out to be two or three -- well, a very small number of people.

15-i 16 li MR.VOLGENAU:

Yes.

I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Probably not of a size which would 17,m I

be able to constitute a team visit sart of operation, a i

18j resident inspector?

19i 20 [,

MR. VOLGENAU:

Well, I think we would still insist oa team visits.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :

You would still try that?

(

MF. VOLGENAU: They might very well be conducted 23 from the region --

24

%,. c'Reporen ic CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Staff them out of the region.

25 6

I e

8 l

mm 1

MR. VOLGCNAU:

-- in the same sense that they are I

2, today.

Well, we have reduced it from our original request by '

l 3-about 80 or 90 percent, I would say.

I 4

CliAIR'4AN llENDRIE :

Yes.

b 5

MR. BARRY:

I would like to track you quickly F

6' through the chart to kind of refresh your memories a little bit.

7, P

P 8 !

Y u recall our initial request we asked for just h

short of 3000 people, 349 million.

9 And OMB came back to us, as you can see, 2736 10 [

i

))[ spaces.

You can see the detail above that line, and with 318 I

• i1li "*

12 b

We had a series of negotiations with them, both in

(

13 [

h 14 !( catching some errors on their part, simply mathematical errors F where they simply priced out things wrong and so on; plus 15l l

debates on specific ac civities; in case of people, little things J

16',

I.

in their view, but big things in our view such as international 17;e I

j programs, state programs, auditor, standards.

18 [

I And as a result of our negotiations, including the 19i discussion that the Chairman had with Cutler on Friday night, 20 l

i I think we probably will have gained an additional 52 people 21 l I! and $13 mil?. ion over their initial mark.

221 h

In addition to that --

23 L I

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Now is that reflected in the 24 e.sen go, smwi in:.

current mark?

25-I.

o n

9 mm 1

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

2!

CHAIIO1AN HENDRIE:

OMB current mark.

3 MR. BARRY:

The current mark, which I nhould reallv 4

have titled " An Ass umed Current Mark, " that 2788 and the

$331 5

million, would reflect what I think they will accommodate.

6[

You will notice, for instance in I&E there are 715 i!

7p people.

In addition to perhaps givin g us 715 people for

'79, l

8L if they go along with the amended program, they will permit i

9l us to go in for the entire amount of inspectors in the --

i 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That 715 I note is exactly the fi-i 11l gure that the '78 was supplemental they would allow.

i MR. BARRY :

Yes.

12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

In other words what they are

(

13 doing is zeroing out any request for increase in I&E.

34 15 [

MR. BARRY:

Well what they are doing is permitting g l' us to go in for a '79 increase, if you will, in '78: permitting I

[ us to put it in and hiring those people in '78 r3ther than

'79.

8j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

But we were going to do that anyway, weren't we?

f MR. BARRY:

Only partially.

20 j, l

21l Well, yes -- what this is is buying f.he resident

! program at a reduced level, lower level.

22'

(

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Which is what we had proposed 23 to do in the first place, and we had proposed to do by requestinc u wayo' a.nonet in:

a supplemental.

25.

l

10 i

mm 1

MR. BARRY:

That is correct.

1 2

COM21ISSIONER KENNEDY:

So actually what they are 3

'oing is saying, yes, we agree with your supplemental which is 4

a '78 question, but as far as your '79 request, rae answer is f

5 zero.

6; MR. BARRY:

Not increasing the resident program 7

any more in

'79.

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

How much of the ven0;r 8;

9j program is in there?

10{

MR. BARRY:

35 spaces.

U

)) [

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Oh, so 35 spaces are included l-12 { in the 715.

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

(

13 ;,

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That was the critical number when 14l t

I we went up there in the last week.

Thev zeroed the vendor --

15 L L

j well, I don' t know if they can control that fact, but they 16;

! had, in ef fect recommended oroing that for

'79, transferring those spaces into the resident program, and that is what we 18 I

went back for to try to protect.

i L

MR. BARRY:

That is the difference between the 715 20; and the 680.

21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And how much of the resident 22; I

program is there in there?

23 MR. BARRY:

Well the way they measured it, they 24 have given us 75 additional spaces over our '78 baseline of a.s.serciRepore, in:

25 i

1

F 11 i

mm 1

640.

That is the way they would address that.

2' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes, but if you take out 35, 3

the vendor program -- or was that in the 640?

I 4

MR. BARRY:

That was in the 640.

5.

But you can get all fuzzed up with I&E numbers 6L because our original request for

'78, which they approved at 7

one time prior to our resident program, was 666.

Then they 8'

reduced us by 50 spaces, you recall in

'78, which in their --

pl they would say that took us down to 640 in I&E.

And then they are permitting us to go back with 75 10; jj addit.ional spaces from that base, from 640 resident.

So that 12[ is how we get back to the 715.

S in ef f et what they have done is taken out 134, 13 145 spaces from our original request for '79; and a portion of ja p e

that, of course, was resident, a portion of t7at was the full-gl!

acale performance appraisal.

And I guess, Ernie, that was just about -- between l

those two, that really --

g MR. VOLGENAU:

Actually "-

19l MR. BARRY:

Then training, yes, the pipeline reduces

[ some. Lesser number of inspectors in total.

e MR. VOLGENAU: Their initial mark, they cancelled 22i I

! the vendor program, they took residents out of everything before 23' preoperational testing. We would have no resident inspectors on e aws new t,

• site prior to preop, the final two years.

25'

12 i

mm 1

If you consider the time between construcdtion permit

.\\

2: until operating license is eight years, they would have no 3

residents there for six ynars in their initial mark.

i I

4 And they do not even concede this in heir final 5

mark, though we very strongly feel that there should be resident 6 ! inspectors present at a site, even before preoperational testing, 1

7l and we intend to put them there, too, with Commission approval.

I' 8

Within this budgetary mark that they are giving us --

9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let me understand; they are L

10 claiming that t h ey are putting inspectors for the last two I

11{ years of a construction phase?

h 12 MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I thought preoperational

(

13 testing starts later than that.

)4 l

MR. VOLGENAU:

Well, the general figures we use are 15 about two years, maybe 18.

16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Two years before operations.

j7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You may get a few isolated

)g i system checks that far before -- (Inaudible.)

l 20 [

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But most of it is just before l

operation.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, the heavy stuff comes in 22 h I

f starts maybe six to nine months before fueling.

23 MR. VOLGENAU:

Well, we had pretty extensive tests, for example at North Anna -- that may not be a good case -- and 25l

i 13 1

mm

),

they have just loaded fuel there now, and those tests began 2;

about a year ago.

3 COM:1ISSIONER GILINSKY:

How much further would you t

4; push this back, the requirement for onsite inspectors?

MR. VOLGENAU:

We would push it back an additional 5

I i three years, during which time for a typical reactor there 6b would be about 1000 construction workers for a single-unit site.

7 8[

In other words we have conceded to them not to have 9'

any inspectors present for the first three years of construction COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

In eight years a typical 10 time.

))

MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes, it is our best estimate, 12 j

Whereas we were going to have inspectors there i

for nearly all of the eight years, we have now conceded that l

we would not put them there for the first three years, only

! the last five.

16 '.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

So that is when you are starting to put in piping and wiring and co on.

L i

MR. VOLGENAU:

Right.

We are well along into those 19 o

/ periods at that time.

20!

j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

All the concrete has been 21' poured.

22l i

MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes, essentia]ly all of it.

23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Putting the vessel in by this 24 eu e.5,wo' Reoortert iac time, are you?

25'

14 l

mm 1

MR. VOLGENAU:

Probabiy not yet.

Not in the fifth 2; year, but it is close to it.

3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

About the fifth, you say?

I 4

MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes.

i 5

CIIAI RMAN IIENDRIE :

But at the staffing IcVels this 6 ;: inspection program continues to have the same, about the same h

b 7L ratio of regional visits as there are now?

g:

MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes.

For those sites where they are 9l not residents, i

10l CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

So that it should be clear that

)).

this does not contemplate a backing away from present inspection f

levels, but rather maintenance of those insoection levels.

12 [l 33 Then, supplementing those inspection levels at least 34 [ two years before operation,and depending on the rate at which plan a come to that stage versus the estimates and the hiring 15 rates and other things, why you may or may not be able to g;

' improve on it, provided the Commission decides on balance to do

! that -- go with the resident inspector from there on.

18,

i i-COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Could you go over again on 19, f

j the plan for resident inspectors at operating reactors under

,0:

!I this plan?

MR. VOLGLNAU:

Under this plan we would have inspec-8 tors at every opera ting resident site.

If there are two plants 23:

at a site, we would still have one inspector.

If there are 24 o s

n. r a. " '"'

more than two, we would have more than one inspector.

25

I 15 l

mm 1

If we do not get the vendor program, the 35 spaces 2.

for the vendor program, we feel quite strongly that we will 3

have to conduct the vendor program in any case.

And we would

(

4, then begin to back off from operating sites.

We would not put 5:

inspectors at every operating site.

t 6

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But suppose you do get the i

7L vendor program.

You would have enough additional inspectors 8 l to cover all the operating plants?

9 MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And you think this does give 10, jj you inspectors to cover the last two years of construction?

r MR.VOLGENAU:

Yes.

12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And what would you need to

(

13 cover another three years?

ja I

MR. VOLGENAU:

This will do it, too.

5 COM.'1ISSIONER GILINSKY:

This will do it, too.

I L

MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes.

17, If y u believe the latest workload projections 8

which OMB did not use in their computations, this will prcvide i

20l us enough resident inspectors for the last five years of IL construction, providing, of course, that you slim down signifi-21

!.i cantly in the ways that I have indicated.

Very minimal perfor-(

mance appraisal, for example.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right.

u..rea.re: Emnes m MR. VOLGENAU:

And no inspectors there for the first 25, l*

16 I

mm l'

three years of construction.

2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Okay.

3 So you are basically expecting to have a somewhat

(

4 less workload, a smaller number of inspectors at operating 5

pla nt s, in effect?

I 6

MR. VOLGENAU:

A little bit less than our i'

7 commission at present.

g, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But presumably there won' t 9

be as many in those construction phases as was expected?

10l MR. VOLGENAU:

That's correct.

h 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

So stuff is getting pushed h

12 through the pipeline a little more slowly?

13 l MR. VOLGENAU:

Yes.

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

The forecast we use, you know, 34 hh which we developed last April for the budget, there has been 15' l'

[ slippages already and they are, we know, forecasting more 1

slippages both in the construction phase and operating 7

I rSaCtors Coming on line.

And if they come to pass, particularly the joint FEA-NRC-ERDA forecasts, if that turns out to be pretty I

accurate along with the slippages that have already occurred, 21 j

22 [

that has bought us some additional --

r i

COMNIISSIONE GILINSKY:

Let me understand.

23';

Are we talking about the quote, official numbers, 24 eer ce,d N o"e" m,

official as they get, have been brought down to something like e

25; L

I i

. mm 17 1

110,000 megawatts in 1985.

2i Are we talking about numbers below that?

I 3

We are using that as a kind of a peg point?

(

4l MR. BARRY:

We are talking about using that forecast, 5 ( that joint forecast rather than the one we used back in April, l

6 when we put our budget out, which was more liberal.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That in the one Ernie is 8n talking about?

9 f.

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

10 COMMISSIONElGILINSKY:

I see. Well that is an NRC-jjhERDA-FEAforecast.

MR. BARRY :

Yes.

12 l

)

And we used a higher forecast in our budget process.

[

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And in fact it is somewhat j4 i

1, higher than our own forecast.

Mcdonald's forecast was even 15 lower than that.

f MR. BARRY:

That's bought us a little slack here.

17j CH A IRMAN HENDRIE: We need to close this deal before the word of the forecasts propagates.

1 20 ;[

(Laughter.)

I MD.

BARRY:

You can see the major reduction from 21

j. our original request was, in fact,the inspection function.

22 j'

/?

i

(

l The next two were /dmin and NRR.

As an example, 67 NRR, we had asked for 25 spaces and they permitted us 6.

And 24 e.,c s eeero: Repoe m iec~,

the 6 are for the --

25i I

l

18 l

i mm 1

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Six people -- I think I dropped 2

a half million dollars. Time ran out.

Like the Redskins, it 3

wasn ' t that we lost, it was just that there wasn't time

(

4 enough to win.

5 (Laugh ter. )

1 MR. BARRY:

The 6 people are for the rereview of 6

i 7

the operating reactors, the 8 level.

8[

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What is the effect upon the generic issues question?

9 MR. CASE: Well, it depends on the number of reactors 10, D

jj[ coming in.

li If w take the low Mcdonald type forecast --

12 i

f COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What is your impression?

g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

He is not forecasting incoming reactors, he is forecasting construction basically of reactors i that already have CP.

16[

t MR. CASE:

But that af fects mv OL work and the number i

17' of operating reactors, l'

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes.

19 h MR. CASE:

So if I take those Mcdonald numbers --

20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Is that going to affect your 21 OL work in 1979?

22l

(

C MR. CASE:

The number of operating reactors will.

23!

The number of reactors actually in operation affects my operating 24

-: sewe: S epo,-

reactor workload.

25 l-l

i I

19 I

mm 1

COMMILSIONER KENNEDY:

Yes.

2j MR. CASE:

And then the pipeline affects my CP-OL 3

work.

(

4f COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Yes.

n I.

S' MR. CASE:

And they have discounted for and accounted 6p for these.

And beyond that they took 5 people, I believe the l

70 number is, for generic activities.

h 8,

So 5 people will hr '

But that is why -- the 1

4 9 [ Chairman wanted to get some money to recompense for the 5 people 10; that we need at that time.

'l 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Do you believe the Mcdonald 12 forecast is going to be the one that will hold?

MR. CASE:

Well, it was probably a better forecast

(

13 than the budget forecast because that is what history shows.

34,

Y u have to go with history.

What were we, 27 percent low last 15 Y ##*

16 I:

l' MR. GOSSICK:

38.

Experience will tell us that it h

is m re likely to be less than the Mcdonald forecast than 18 more right now, if the past is any lesson.

9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

You sound like stockmarket forecasters.

21i; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it has gone up and 22i!

(

I down over the years.

23 h COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

If it is down, 6e chances are s

e e m coe,o'n penen, uc.'s better that it will continue down than going up?

25 L b

20 mm 1

Only when it starts up, is ~t he chance better that 2;

it will continue to go up than to go down.

3

'. Laugh ter. )

i i

4, CO:1MISSIONER GILINSKY:

There, you've got it.

5,

( Lc.ug h te r. )

6[

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Don't say another word.

1 7!

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

How many people every year.

8' go bankrupt with that theory; the people that aren't ready 1

9 for the turn cause the trouble.

i 10, (Laughter.)

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Put a terminal in his of fice I.

12 so he can plug in.

I:

MR. CASE:

I would like some more generic activity.

(

13 I don' t believe it is in the cards.

)4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, let's see.

I think 15 it isn't.

In the Mcdonald forecast,the number which is even 16 p

lower than this jointly-agreed-upon number of the three agencies, 37 and which apparently is being used here. There is a difference 18 of about 10 percent.

So there is a bit of a pad there.

19 ;,

MR. CASE:

But I would like to do as well as I 20;

! said I would on generic activities.

This will make it a little 21; bit less.

22l

(

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

In other words, you are saying I

it will be less?

24 Ar*Jed.m'Eepode%

t" MR. CASE:

Yes.

25 i

l'

i 21 i

i mm 1

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :

By a factor of what?

2 MR. CASE:

O h, less than 10 percent; 5 percent; 3

something like that.

5 to 10 percent less that we would get

(

4 resolved than we said we would.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: How could you tell the 6hdifference?

E 7[

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I was going to say that.

If it is that order, I am not sure I would know the 8

difference at the end.

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I expect a thing that may have 10

)j[asmuchinfluenceon&teproductivityofthegenericworkarea I

12 h as anything else, is how many petitions and other other panic l!

j s we get.

(

13 MR. CASE:

Yes.

)4

[

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And if that is a large number it h[ occupies the attention of senior people, and then inevitably h

some of this other stuf f doesn' t move as briskly.

17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Given recent history can't

. we make some reasonable presumptions in this regard?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Could we put in 100 people for 20 [

!E hearings?

21 P p

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: For normal day-to-day letter 22 L 2a, l answering and petition responding.

(

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is a serious -- it is a very 24,

e 42-o' senem s:

difficult piece of workload to predict, and it is one which 25 Ie i.

22 mm 1

tends to have an effect, a very large effect, because these

.i 2: things do come through and they do occupy senior people, does 3

consume them.

And tha. r< ducos--tha t has a strong effect then

(

4 on the productivity of the rest of the shop's division of 5

hearings.

i 6

MR. CASE: Well, our sending things to the boards P

7j are going to be increased.

Everything we do increases the 1

8 workload.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What is the rough number of 9;

i 10 ! applications we have inhouse for the CP?

))

MR. CASE:

We have about 40 active applications, 12j including CP and OL.

I-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do you know how that breaks

(

13 !

i 34[down?

M A

re OLs than cps.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

More OLs than cps?

And presumably there aren' t too many cps coming in --

)7 (Inaudible.)

MR. CASE:

That's true.

19j ii CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So we are losing CP workload, 20 21 l pre-CP workload.

[

MR. BARRY: Well, we have about 20 cps, 4 to be 22!

I tendered this year, and 15 to be issued.

23

[

And there are quite a few more than that that are A&5wuo' Rwwe, ' " '

tendenad or have been tendered, but are not going to be issued.

25'

?

i

23 mm 1

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: After that we have got to 2,

pray for petitions.

3 MR.BARRY:

When you get into

9, it starts to --

(

4 because you have issued a fair number in '78, you get into

'79 and it starts to get some little numbers.

5:

i 6l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

One division can petition another I7l division.

Self starters.

8h (Laughter.)

MR. BARRY:

If you look at the dollar reductions, 9

10 you will see the two largest are in research and I&E.

The

-i C

1.f>4millionshown, the reduction of 4 million in I&E,43 1/2

' {) ) )

g 4

! milli n f that is associated with a recution of 145 people 12 i and the travel and suppoit that go along with that.

The

(

13 other half million is program support.

ja In r search it is by and large all program support.

15 p

I.

W did go back and reclama 10 million, and have gotten ini i c;.io ts 4

f '

16 I C

hp

~

they will probably go along with 7 of the 10.{ And that l

that 4

i Would then take research up to a total of,168 million that you see in front of you on:the chart, exclusive of the outyear 19; funding for the EBTF, which they have approved.

y

)

/

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How come the outyear funding is 2I,

[

j only 22 6?

22, 4

Al i

(

MR. BARRY: Well, because we have 8.8 in '79.

23 '

4 4

i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

How did you arrive at this 24 '

cce;eaco' wone s inc.

number in the first place?

I thought we were getting some 25' i

i I

I 24 l

mm 1

numbers based on --

A i

2 CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

Based on 35.

4 T3 It was based on the 35,/lthat we sent in MR. BARRY:

i 4

as a bogie number.

i 5 f.

CO>D1ISSIONER KENNEDY:

But I thought we had not i

6, agreed to t hat number.

M That was 22 and 8.b i

7; CO>D1ISSIONER GILINSKY:

i 1 4 44 g !-

MR. LEVINE:

'78.

COSD1ISSIONER KENNEDY:

When we are working on this 9

10 l: project, it always does, always has.

j:

CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

We have got a little money in j j j.

u 12 h the till now, you have got the

'78, you have got another what?

lI i

MR. BARRY:

Almost another 3 million in

'78, and

{

13 0

8.8 n '79 --

14, g b; k\\

g CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

And then t e 22 --

15 A

1 I

NIR. BARRY:

Comes up to about 34 million.

16 l-4 o

CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.

17; 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I thought we said we would d ask OMB to go with the number -- I mean, we would ask OMB to go 20i ahead with the project, recognizing that we weren't sure or i

comfortable with the number, and we were going to get a number 22i

(

l and come back to them.

23 In the meantime, they could plug in the number 24 4

ee4 0- e: newem ia:

thev had chosen which was the 35 25 4

4

i 25 mm 1

MR. BARRY:

This reflects their plug-in number.

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Okay.

3 When are we going to get this number?

(

4 MR. LEVINE: We promised it to you by the 16th.

I 5

hope to have some preliminary information this week.

We will i'

6 h pass up the preliminary information --

7' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The DOE construction pencil 6-sharpeners are digging away?

9[

MR. LEVINE: They are working on this.

I 10l There was a meeting in Idaho last week, we were 11l there, they were there.

s l

MR. BARRY:

If our number turns out to be higher 12 [I than this, I think OMB will permit us the increase.

i

(

13 If it turns out to be lower than this, I think OMB ja i:

kwill tay wi th this number.

15 So that is a lucrative situation we have.

g

.s 5

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's see, who wanted to talk about reviews?

The Iranians, I know. But somebody else 1

recently?

9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

The Egyptians?

MR. LEVINE: The Iranians want hela very much.

At 21, least informally they have asked for help.

(

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

When the cps drop we will put 23 a sign out front, Reviews, we aren't cheap, but we do nice work.

A s co.ro; w "'" k Something like that.

25'

~

26 l'

(Laughter.)

mm i

2 Run a few spot ads on TV, and I'm sure the workload" 3

MR. C AS E :

I have got enough generic activities to

(

4.

keep me going for two, three years.

5 f1R. BARRY:

As I indicated, the major portion of our i

6j reduction from our request is the 9 million that you see here 7 I in research and --

gl COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What is it?

MR. BARRY:

I was going to say you might want to 9

l 10l address that with Mr. Levine.O CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

-Sol, what is the 9 for?

3) h 12[

MR.LEVINE:

Well, you know it wasn't clear on the I

j3 l basis on which OMB gave us the $7 million wh.ich we clamored for, t

gfsowehavemadeanallocationhowwewouldtakethe$91/2 f

II million cut as opposed to the 16 1/2 million.

15 4

M V

16 :.

We are taking 3.2 out of systems engineering, and 4

A f

I

~

that would defer some planned acceirations we had of the semi-scale project in terms of converting to MOD to semi-18, i

scale.

It is too identical -- (Inaudible.) -- get better data

! on reflood so we had more data for our codes.

20i

[

We also had involved in systems engineering the 21' t

construction of an instrument to calibrate this very exotic 22'

(

instrumentation we built to make a two phase flow.

We are 23 ;,

! going to try to do that without building a loop, use loops --

cme.2i Reoo-te s. incj B&W has a Navy loop that we think we can get into.

We will try a

25; h

11

27 l

mm 1

to do the same thing without building a loop.

2 The risk we are taking here is that we may get kicked 3'

out of those loops, or not get as much as we want and then we

(

4 would do it more slowly than we would otherwise have done.

We are 'aking 1.3 million out of LOPT, which is

(

j 6 [ mostly to defer procurement of LOFT second replacement core, b We have one replacement core already plus some spare fuel 7[

8!

ssemblies for the central portion of the core.

And we plan 9l to start procurement in '79 of the second replacement core.

10; This will just proceed, but at a s]ower pace.

We will take 600,000 out of --

)

p)

I

\\

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Whu; will that do to the 12 "9~

• P # *"

9

(

13 i

MR. LEVINE:

It is hard to tell.

It depends on I,

I the rate on which fuel fails in these blowdowns we have when the fuel is really up to design power level.

16.

I F

If we have a lot of failures we may be sitting there 17 c 18 liwithout replacement fuel.

If we don't have a lot of failures i

we will get through this all right.

I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What is the risk that you will 20' t! wind up with a machine that you can't operate for lack of fuel?

21:

f MR. LEVINE:

I really can't give you an estimate.

22:

(

I will know better--

23' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: High, low, medium?

24 Acceeoere: s ece- - i 'nc MR.LEVINE:

I would say medium.

25 I

t.

I

i mm 28 1

COM:!ISSIONER KENNEDY:

That much?

A 2;

MR. LEVINE:

Yes.

3, COMMISSIONER KENNE9Y:

That is how many million-(

4 dollar investment up to that point?

l' 5l MR. LEVINE:

Oh, the whole program is in the i

i 6: neighborhood of $400 million 7

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We have a $400 million program 8,

and we would be taking a medium-level risk that we might be L

9l sitting there with a $400 million program unusable for a period 10, f time because we haven't been able to order $1 million worth I

111' of fuel, b

12 h MR. LEVINE:

We will be cutting it --

l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That doesn't sound very cost

{

13 34 j effective to me.

I MR. LEVILE:

It seems to me it is one of the places 15 that we can most reasonably take this kind of a cut. There are g

" other places that will hurt badly, too.

17:

t COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, I guess I could understanc 18' all those tradeoffs, but I'm talking about a tradeoff of a $400

)9 Y'

Y 20 I serious consideration.

21 h I'

22l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It shouldn't have cost i,

8

$400 million.

23!

(Laughter.)

24 u..;,aerc'Reconen inc. !

COSD1ISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well,that is neither here nor 25; e

e L

i 29 mm 1

there.

2 (Laugher.)

3 If we were talking about a $40 mi'. lion investment

(

4 it might be one order, but a $400 million investment which is Si what is involved.

6 l' MR. LEVINE:

Maybe I should change my estimate to I

7 somewhat on the low side of medium, l

8t If we are having a lot of fuel failures, we are 1

9l certainly going -- the program ill go slower, there is no l

10' ques tion about it, because we are going to have to try to If understand what is going on.

jj [

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But, you know, for $1 million 12 f},168million, c

'N) l 3 l, I'm wondering if there isn't another place ut i

(.

- ja[ to find that $1 million.

i I

m sure that you have hedged against this 15 gl. possibility.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

When is the first nuclear run?

i MR.LEVINE:

End of

'78.

It is scheduled now for g

19: early spring --

I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

This is only procurement in 20 (1 iI'79.

The core won't be delivered until 1980. So we are talking 21 [

l about bis eventuality three years from now.

22' I

MR LEVINE: The first nuclear blowdown is scheduled 23 [

for April of

'79.

We are now ahead of schedule, so that it

.-w ede,ei Repene s. '"'

s appears it could happen in December of

'78.

25' i

i

t 30 mm 1

We will have reached the last blowdown of the first 2; series of blowdowns a year later by the end of

'79.

3 This core, on the slowest schedule, will be dulivered

(

4, at the end of

'80, one year later.

We have that year in which to; I

5 get through with a. whole 'nother core, replacement core, and 6

four central subassembly spares.

7 Now, I really think we can make that 3ittle jump.

i g !,

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think you can make it.

MR.LEVINE:

I think we ought to be able to make it.

9 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Furthermore, what will happen 10 Dick, is there will be some indications as to whether you ought

))

h to take your cuts elsewhere, that is before '79 is out.

12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

You have got time -- if you 13 have got time to reprogram that --

)4 MR. LEVINE:

We have time --

15l i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

-- you have time to avoid 16!

l l

this concern I have, then I'm not worried.

MR. LEVINE: One thing I was going to say is, we will be starting early next year testing fuel under local conditions i.j PBF blowdown loop.

20; I

And we will have three such tests run before we run 21 I i

the first LOFT test with nuclear heat.

And we will know a lot 22!

t I more of what we are talking about at that time. We will have 23 time to make some changes.

24 u,4,5,,o' R epo"e's Mc COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

In terms of fuel?

25l 1

t 31 mm ji MR. LEVINE:

Yes.

2 CHAIR 14AN HENDRIE:

I think by the time it gets to the 3

place where you either ought to order it or decide to stretch,

(

4 you will have a lot better idea whether you vent to order it

$[

r can ride --

l MR. LEVINE:

And certainly we can always find $1 6,

u 7'

million somehow, change it around.

8[

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's what I thought.

MR. LEVINE:

But I would say this is the place to do 9

i 1

10l i' " **

On PBF we are taking a $600,000 cut, which will i

jj.

m rely result in a slightly higher risk that we will run out 12 l '-

of fuel test trains. We will have fewer test trains in the

(

13 pipeline.

But again, we should be able to make it with fewer I test trains in the pipeline.

It is sort of eliminating a bit 151 l

of insuranca.

16:

'u L

$3.4 million -- oh, I forgot to mention 200,000 code 17 [. d'evelopment, which is a small subcomponent code that will not I

present a significant risk.

t

$3.4 million on the fast breeder reactor, which will 20 (L i

result in cancelling all of our study work on he safety test 21 j facility, and that is reasonable because in '79 there is no 22l

(

' money in DOE's budget for the safety test facility.

It will 23' also result in leaving some facilities, small type of facilities 24 Ace Federo' Repo *em in:

we have built to aerosol testing and the like, unused in

'79.

25' I

32 h

gy 1

And another 800,000 in power plant environmental mm qI 2

work. That is where OMB cut us.

We probably will -- and so we 3-have listed it there.

We probably will reprogram from fuel I

4 cycle environmental up into that area.

We are not sure.

5 I think we will have to do that.

t 6'

CHAIRMAN IIENDRIC: Thank you.

7' Let's see, up in NRR, the 3 million ', in the result -

8: where does that appear? How much of it has to do with the

(

}

9 7 million, 19 neople --

10.

MR. BARRY:

llow much of that, Dick, f rom the people jj and travel and so on?

12l Well, put it thc; other way, how much of that would b

i be program support?

About 2 million?

13 MR. CASE:

2.65.

ja CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And where does that come out?

g MR. CASE:

1.3 came out of generic activities, 500,000 out of case work, and 800,000 out of operating reactors

-- (Inaudible.)

g CHAIR 31N: IIENDRIE:

Where does that leave you with 20l regard to the '78 program support level; up, down or sideways?

i MR. BARRY: That is an increase of $2.3 million.

21.

i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

On a total program support of what?

23 MR. BARRY:

35 million in '78 and 37.5 in --

24

.: ewo % o,rs.,:

CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And on a lot of base -- what is 25

33 I

mm 1

the program support base?

Approximately?

2 MR. BA RRY :

I don't know.

Dick?

3' MR. CASE:

18 or something like that.

I 4

MR. BARRY: We went in with a pretty good increase.

5 CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

Approximately 18?

6 MR.BARRY:

I think.

7l COM'1ISS10NER GILINSKY: Where do we stand --

l 8j MR. SHUMWAY:

14 1 in '78 plus 2.

9 MR. BARRY:

14 1 in

'78, plus about 2 1/2 million 10l more in '79.

L jj CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So it is like about 2 1/2 million n a base of 14 1,

or 18, 20 percent increase at the reduced 12 i

1 ""1"

(

13 So the request was pretty husky in there.

ja M

s.

15 h

CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE :

Okay, now back to your research 16 question.

r COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I just want to understand where we stand with the EBTF.

19 I

20 ll There was an item somewhere for $135,000 that you wanted to get going, a s I understood.

MR. LEVINE:

Yes.

22!

(

Ne owe the Commission a DOE input on our cost estimate and we are working on that now.

There was a meeting in Idaho w c w c: E.oene, '"

last week.

We promised you information by the 16th.

I should 25; i

i

/

34 mm i

have preliminary information this week sometime, but not a fi,nal t

2 letter from DOE until the week after.

t 3

CO:1MISSIONER GILINSKY:

Okay.

I 4

I mean, I indicated I would like to hear from --

5 CHAIR'1AN HENDRIE: You were going to talk to some 6j folks and --

7h COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I understand the ACRS is

$ going to --

8 L

pl MR.LEVINE:

There is a briefing -- we have a meeting I

10[ with the ACRS on Thursday morning of this week to brief them F

11 '! on EBTF.

12 [

There is also a 2:00 o' clock Thursday afternoon, F

there is an item on the agenda for the Commission,the ACRS

(

13 meeting with the Commission.

ja CO:1MISSIONER KENNEDY: They are going to discuss 15; 16 [ EBTF with us?

I MR. LEVINE: I don' t k now what aspect.

There is one g

! item on the agenda.

18 I

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think the agenda item is the 9

b Year End Safety Research Report to the Congress.

20 MR. LEVINE:

Excuse me.

21 [

CHAIRMAN HENDIRE:

And I expect this is inevitably

(

a part of it.

And particular interests on EBTF can be pursued at that time.

e.:..r wo! unone i in:

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I would at least, for myself, e

25 I

i 35 l

mm 1

like to get at least their preliminary view on this before --

2' MR. LEVINE:

From us or from the ACRS?

l 3

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, from the ACRS, before I i

(

4; go any f urther.

l 5

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That's in fact what we ar.

holding 6

up now.

7,!!

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

May I ask a question?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Pray do.

8 9l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I noticed, Len, in your 10, N vember 25th memo on the OMB budget mark, a couple of things I

h that interest me.

11?

I 12 l One, you indicated -- now let me just quote this:

1 l

"In r gard to the resident inspection program,

(

13 i

the OMB staff offered that the President indicated 34 he had not anticipated that its earlier direction 15 would result in a significant personnel increase."

g l

What did he expect?

Did they tell us?

17.

How did he visualize this was going to occur?

Are we on some kind of a wicket that is different from that 191 h

20 [' that he was proposing?

Did we nisinterpret what he -- up until this point I always felt, and I think most of us have, that we were i

23 [ proceeding on a program that while it had been in a sense f

independently arrived at from our own perspective, nonetheless, 24 c a: 5.oero'Repones. enc was wholly consistert with the view which he had and espoused.

1 25 i

36 i

rc 1

But this suggests that maybe we are on some kind of 2

a wicket that is different from his and I guess I'd like to 3

know what that is.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, there has been from time 5

to time -- and you know, I don't. say that any of us have 6,

engaged in it, although maybe we have, maybe we have -- there e

1 7;

has been from time to time, discussion about the improved 8l ef ficiency of inspection of operating reactors that might occur if you had resident inspectors who didn't travel back 9

o 1

and f rth and prepare reports on a lot of reactors, but lived 10 jj' right with a plant or a couple of units on the site.

And I think one of the thoughts which has occurred 12 13 l is, g e, if there is a.nore ef ficient way to do i t, take the

(

forcas you are now using less efficiently, and convert them

),

6 into resident inspectors, and you will be able, because it is I more ef ficient to do more inspections with the same people.

I And I think the thread of that thought has been 17 l encouraged in the Administration, in the sight of the Administra-f which is fiscally conservative, and people conservative, 19 l

tion, f and that is where the comment reflects back.

20!

MR. VOLGF7AU:

May I add something to that, h Mr.

Chairman?

22' i

When we started out on the resident inspection 23' program, and in fact when I briefed the Commissioninck in May, 24 prior to he tinte I briefed the Commission back in May on the ee sea,,oi s m,,, W 25 l'

i l'

i

I I

37 i

mm 1 resident program, I cleared the essence of the briefing, a t 2

the suggestion of the previous Chairman, I cleared the essence G

f 3

of the briefing with both John Ahearn in the White House Staff

(

4 and with the OMB analysts, the very same analysts, because 1

5:

just prior to our meeting and prior to the press release, they 1

6 had all of the figures that we spent.

7 We went over and over those figures with OMB.

There 8 L was no objection at the time.

It was a different time.

People were caught up in tha motion of the thing and --

9; i

COXMISSIONER KENNEDY: A couple of months difference.

10

)) n It is remarkable.

i MR. VOLGENAU: That's right.

Six whole months.

12 l

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Which suggests the fluidity l of policy making.

f H

(Laughter.)

15 l!

I:

16 [:

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The result of the enthusiasm of the growing springtime season, versus the sere, austere chills 17 [

F of fall.

18' MR. VOLGENAU:

That's about it.

19 l

And may I just add something to your comment, 20' Mr. Chairman.

21 While it is true that the efficiency of your 22 i

resident inspectors most certrinly does increase, because they 23 don't have to travel, and it is essentially the travel time.

24 m. 5, w o: secon-s. in:

There is a limit to what the resident inspector can do because 2b ',I O

38 i

i 1

he is a generalist.

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That's right. Unless he happens 3

to be a bonafide specialist. in 14 dif ferent lines, you don't I

4 ge t the diverse expertise that the visitation program out of 5; the regions allows.

6, MR. VOLGENAU:

Exactly.

7 So that means he has got a lot more time on site l'

8-and there is a limited amount of the special type inspection I.

9 that he can do.

He c,

absorb some of that, no doubt uaout it, io.

particularly with a little cross training.

b But with the extra time that he can't absorb in 11 ll 12' specialist type inspection, he does more generalist type

(

13 inspection.

And that, after all, was the point of LN whole ja ; thing.

The President, as you will recall when he was running f

f r lection, was not going to have him do any of that 15 F

specialist inspection, but instead was going to put him full-16 b

^

time, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day in the control room.

)7 18; And there is no OMB analyst that can in any way i

h prove that you can do it with anything like less than 4-or 19l I

500 people more, not 100 9

1 i

COMMISSIOMER KENNEDY: That's what struck me about 21 ;[

the comment that as they discussed this with the President

{

he suddenly said, my God, I didn't intend they do more.

i His idea, itself, would have been far more expensive Me Feed Rm"m in than the idea we proposed as an alternative.

25 e

i n

f

39 mm 1

MR. VOLGENAU:

Exactly.

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And yet that alternative causes 3

eyebrows to raise, and I must say OMB continues to do its work.

I 4,

That's all.

5 Whidlis not altogether an endorsement of their 6

substantiive decisions.

7 Cl! AIRMAN IIENDRIE:

Well, it shows that there are c

8h certain sort of deep running things which are always the same.

i.

No matter how much things change, things are always the same.

9 h

10l Other questions?

l.l j j,-

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I have got one more.

CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

Shoot.

12 ;

MR. VOLGENAU:

Is this still in the resident program?

33 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Yes.

i

)3 li Oh, no, die question, it is a different question.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let me understand, this

$331 million, is that what you are in ef fect recommending that

)_

I we go back to them wi th?

18I i

Or, are you saying that this is what we can reasonably 19 L

, cket and we ought to be thinking about some piece of the rest?

MR. BARRY:

No, I'm saying I think that is about what l[ OMB is going to allow us if, in fact,the last piece of the actior 22 L l

i i the vendor program is approvad, and think they have done well by 23 I

us.

And anything beyond that will require an appeal on the part of the Commission to the President.

25:

I f

1, I-I-

40 I

mm 1'

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

My question then that would 2: follow Mr. Gilinsky's is, is it the Staff's view that we ought 3,

to appeal?

(

4 And if so, wha t?

i 5'

MR. GOSSICK:

I think our view is -- well, let me l

6 just tell you, first of all, NMSS and standards are satisfied I'7[that they can do their job with the mark that they hav>got.

gj. They were very close.

Initially they didn't give standards any 9[ increase, they ended up giving them a little bit here --

10 l what was it?

j)[

MR. BARRY:

5 out of 8, they are happy with that.

I MR. GOSSICK:

And they said, fine, we are not going 12 P

to argue over that.

13 ll

[

You have heard Mr. Case address his area.

f Na$

i.

And ect Levine has covered the research areas.

(

f The big question here, I think if we learn that we, 16 l; o in fact, don't get to 35 people in I&E, then I guess our view I is w.

certainly would want to reclama that.

18 I I:

p If we get it, I guess it is my view that the other 19i e

h appeals that we have had from people who said they can't, you b know,really hack it without some help, we have t uen care of 21 l

' the auditors, it was just a couple of spaces ti at was involved, 22 b

(

l but anyway they have come across there for a.ittle more 23l l information, we went to OMB, they said okay we will give those 24 ;.

w reocu ' cemen int I to you.

25:

i.

I t

i

i 41 mm 1

They revised their mark on the state and internationa]

2 What else?

3 MR. BARRY:

They gave us everything we anked for.

1

(

4 MR. GOSSICK:

A total of aboat 11 spaces.

I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Basically you are saying 5,

F 6[ if the number is 2788 you ought to take it and run.

d MR. GOSSICK:

Recognizing that to do any better than 7

U 8l that is going to require going back and really going to the I.

9[ President and, _ you know it is pretty tough.

h COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You would appeal up to that?

10 MR. GOSSICK: Yes, up to this level.

))

lg!

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I would recommend that position t

I

(

13 l to the Commission.

l 14 l In fact, I think the vendor inspection program is i

Il too much of a chunk -- Ernie has convinced me now -- too much 15 i

c of a chunk to lose.

And for that, I think one can not only --

16 not only ought to go on reclama to the President if it isn't 17 [n r

i in -- one can make a very sound set of arguments for it that 181 L will carry there.

i 19[

I think reclama on other elements here are apt to have very tough sledding.

21 q

And I recommend, as you say, that we take the 2788 22 [

(

l and run.

23 i MR. BARRY:

If you look at the last sheet I 24 At. 4 w aiReoonen in provided you --

25; fi.

l-

42 mm i

MR. GOSSICK:

Before you do that, in the way of 3

2 comp le tenes s, I must indicate one other request for an appeal 3

that I have not honored,and that was the EEO area where they I

4 reduced it from 6 to -- what was it?

5 MR. BARRY:

We had 5 and they reduced us 2.

In 6

Other words, down to 3.

7:

MR. GOSSICK: And I have told Mr. Tucker that I just ---

g in light of our -- well, comparing what we have devoted here 9

and identified as being devoted to that function alongside of 10 all other agencies we looked at, I just -- that is not a winner 11 and he might as well figure out some other way of handling the 37 problem rather than going back over there and making an issue 13 l Ver a couple of spaces.

3

\\

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could I ask one other question j4 that may already have been taken care of.

l a_

But in your memo you referred to the OMB's reduction g

in international and state programs each by two positions.

)7 Now, aside from the merits of that, I simply ask,

)g were they aware at the time they did that, of the specific man-g date in the committee report that we put -- what was it, 20,

$80,000 extra over that we already budgeted, into international programs?

i This action with that one, seems inconsistent.

23 MR. BARRY: And, in fact their comments to me on 24 wi wo- (coone t ie; both the international and state programs were reduction e

25 i

k

i 43 i

mm 1

without prejudice, whatever that means.

2 That means that they really -- their point was that 3

they ran that upstairs with the recommendation that they buy

(

4, both positions, and they were turned down. And you know, they 5-were turned down simply on a sheer total number of spaces.

L 6

And in their reclama, you know, wait and see what 7

the agency says.

We came back and reclamaed the thing and 8

then on the second pass through the seniors upstairs bought --

i.

9' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

They just put them back?

l 10 [

MR. BARRY:

Yes.

I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I just wanted to be sure 11, F

12l we were consistent --

l' j3 q MR. BARRY:

Yes.

l j4l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: -- between their actions and e

y ur actions.

15 b

[

MR. BARRY:

No, they approved all of those spaces

)

I consistently.

17 I

If you will look at the last sheet I gave you --

the middle sheet is simply a summary -- but the last one, you 19 will see that we were increased. You know, we were increased 44.5 million, and you can see the distribution here.

b Plus, they did buy the EBTF, which is a sizable 22 [

1.

I h

new program, and in fact fully funded the capital cost of 23 [

that program.

Plus,they are going to permit us to go in with crenyo Reporie i. i-c a supplemental to the tune of about $5 million in '78, for both 25 L i

i l-t

i 44 mm 1

I&E and waste management.

2-So we ar-not, you know, we are not going down.

3 And in today's mode on peoole, it is very, very severe.

They --

(

4 I don't think they were kidding us when they said that the 5

President just says he doesn't want to see any increases in i

i 6[ people in the Federal Government.

i 7

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What is our increase?

L 8[

tR. BARRY:

Our increase they would say would be 9l 143 people from their baseline, but a good portion of that is l'

10 h funny m ney, I call it, really.

They zapped us 50 spaces in

'78, of which they rightfully should only have taken about 10 jj And then they have given us back those spaces plus, 12 13, and the net increse would be 62 spaces in '79 and the additional

(

64 spaces in '78 for resident inspection.

So 126 spaces is g

the real number.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So what is our '78 number?

MR. BARRY:

Our '78 number at the moment is --

17l

I well, in the Congressional is 2662; OMB it is 2645; and it 18 '

i I would be 2726 with the supplemental.

19' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

All right.

20 f

MR. BARRY:

So it would be up 64 spaces in '78.

21lp h

Okay?

22; f

(

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes.

And the people number, 23 I,

for my part -- (Inaudible.) -- EBTP.

24,

Ac. m -w Rwe es inc CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:

Well we are holding on that thing 25.g f

f i

i is

i i

45 1,

mm 1

I showed you -- (Inaudible.) -- DOE number back on cost 2

estimates, whatever else.

3 okay?

I I thank you very much.

4 i

5 (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m.

the hearing in the i

6 above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

7r 81 i

9 1

I 10,-

l' 11!

I',

]

I 13 14 o

15 16j i

l 17 18 19l 20 21 b r

22

(

23l 24 A;t f ectFO! kf DOrters amt,

25' i