ML19269C640
| ML19269C640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/25/1979 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269C641 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7902070025 | |
| Download: ML19269C640 (78) | |
Text
,
s,.
g-s.mii.-
..e 7ep -, s sy
- g. g,r 7 y pf.-**mga
...w.
?
,, gatyief,'
g".g,
.eyn.,..u...,.u - ~r... g...., %.. e p.m.;; m -
...,.,.r.
. d#,.. 3...
..u~..
-ar
's,.
4 g.a 3
s,
- m.. g. -. -.,. - t g..' e.. +.w.... w.,m,.
e.s. e.- ;..--.-
p M* ;. -u
(
.=.- r
...r e
... E-*M e
- s. '-
J f.6 f*
- H't.
c.2 w~. w.,. ~
. x.. 4m e..g. e
, H..>. : - s x..
n
. ~.- e.,w:.,,...
.,. - + +-e.=. m c-..
w...
. ~.
. o.
~ h. g.... m,,w<.e,
- ...D '.".. "~M '. L
-,. ee.a.,.,
..e.:.
4 s
g.x m
f, I f".' ' /f. Y.
- 5,N 2- ?
.y'4'U eq N '/.dr. -
M.
A
. L 2.,.
. %,.w,f
- f.,-. s,S R s.'
i _*~
. f 1 %. ~..-.
r
- m.. u.e :'..
x.-
-. > *..u. w *. -
w
'.4*
,.....,n.,...~.;',..,.+w... ' '.
.4...~.,.
- - ~.. *,..e'-.. r.
- ~
- p. ;.
..g
.s,.
. w.... n,.
. y,
....., m.-.a,. v....
.~+...gm..~=..
a.
. ~.
4
' ( '.' ;e ' NU CL E A R _ R E G U.l. ATO R.Y z.C O M M I.,SS I O NW ?.. '
- /
a..w-. w...:.. m :.+#.,a, w.~. :.....,m.._
n,.; = >
- c.., :...
e.
,. n, e
...a-
..v.v. m.
. :,. mw.......,
.g.
m..
W-gg+yg71 -.m+.q.. l.,ix. N.Q ' %
.m m
..-.v
- . ".,._,;*.p..t lf,, * '.,f'D, s',
- k.>* la.. ~ e _ _ h,^*
u.~
f's j
f$
hY '-
'{
y.
"{
a s s.
.+
..... 4 1 ac --
m
.. ~
- 4*,w [.r"!
~
.,f
. e.. 7.%. y. t.., (.y.,."' 4 '
.q,
"*i..(.* *.
~
..w.;w.,1. :p.,.m,.,.y.:. a,a.m%.pwW<.,,.,;ph..,
= e..
p.
- 4. y,.
w.
>.s tg._
- r.. n-:. +.;,., s m
n..
w w a.. -
- m. s..e,-
..2 w y,.,.
, g..-
~
,y ~
h n 5,:,:..- y. w r....;t.,; m., ;x. y,~c...
e
~.
Mg. 3._...~s
- .u;...
m,, g.w.,.., mn...... s +%e w, e^.!, y
%,... : A...,.u
.f x.
,,..w 1 s~~,
.a.
,c.
v
. w D.
rc.
w.,.vaH.... n.
,MM: ;w ' r.. M.
~. g.....
a-v
. w._%.s z,...,.
.,,.w.a w..
o.
A.,.,a,w. x,,.,
.a,.
.,.,%. ;w..,. s,,.,.c..,..m.
..,., w
.,a..g..:...
%. w.-..
p
- w.., m
.m
. r.. i s _ y..
,.w
... e.
a-.,
.n
...,e
. m c..
.. y c
.- ~
p....,._.
..m~.
. p,.
s.,
w.
...4
%, a.n ft..,....,
.- m c.. e.,,.,
--..e..
...- p m. m, : e..w. -.
..g< 1
- w M M i n 4 h a t t M,. w p
- g;;3,.y: g *
. $Mrr*
K.,_.< %:.
.e m.;::.:...f ar.,.,a.Ce (, ~ e..
pr 3
.s
.w e
..np n g.
s,.
- x.,. 2..
- IN TH E M A T.T.ER.. O.. F.h.,;.',c..y..f; jr
. cw.v.
.m a.,..
n
. ; W ~~
m :..-
-. m:r.s.. A.c y %: g,e t.. ~.
- < w..,,,. e w.....,..c
.. m. u v.
- -. u, =..+.-
-g,.r. ~:,..., ~ w.. if;. m...a c.,. s.w.-...
. 3.m.,,.::
.c L p.,
r,.c,g:..m,. g,-
e.
.%e.w-..w. 1
. x..
-G.
~
.4 r
e,. %,.,.,x.,
,. p, +m.
,2 e, y s
,4
~ *-;.-P.UBLIC MEE.TI.NG. +a,,~.,,c.m.~x._&..
c., 4~b.,iy,qq.,,
,s..y ce.A.,.-.y pg w.+.f-n - +. %. :o... --.
9
~ %. a.
.. 3
.s w,.., a..
.<-.,5.,.,.c~~+w g
,,, n.. e.
g.,,
gr
- v.. 3....e~1 s
m
,.c.ts..'m.
.u
~, s
. r y.. -
. w..-
2
~
.-~r.- vm',".:.,'--.~n..'.......-.
."vi.
r..:.
x.
s,-
- .m,.u
. c,. :
- 'r.,e. G Q, ;,;. s.
x.
,ps..,s
.. ~,,. ; 7.~. -M,{n s.g,.d.
-t,. *. ".:g~.po?v Q %~.'
- = ' *; s-
~
wg', ;.r'- 'A.ar...a s
w,
.w.
..y
.s%.
4 u, a r..
.e.
. g
,.u.u.w..-. n- ~,. w ;.
v.-
...a,. -...,.......S...,.e.
.n...
w '. -
- m.
4..
~ w w...:: ms..,e.A.<,'.1. ~..w.,.:.-
.- s. 2.
e r..
n.- x. n _l n %.n. u. w
.-~. m... &.: w-2
, s.<
4.-
. w.~ m.
6-e
.r..-
n W.-
- a..n e. ?.
n.
c. ~.~
~
+.
- v. :
" BRIEFING ~ ON ' FINAL'... ~ *
.--u-r.-
- ,,.. s.,
~.e
.x....
c.
7
- n..%s_ &...w.pp:, O.. 5 &.u. /.g M.~. ~, w....mw~.
-3. Y,
.- 1 PR
.. s, u... s W :
,m:
w w%
- u. v.s,.y -
u._n..-...e....
..,.m...
..r
.,,.c..
., -,. - ~
v.
1-r m. %.,:.y,.c 1. <.<.m,
. :.k.-,.
t
,i.
. m pd g. n.,a..M
%.m
,.~-..q
.m+.
~.>.-s
-a
,....~.-i y,. m,.?..,5..a,,.:c y:
.c e v
- f-
~. N. -.J - 7..-??.m.,~,,....W. : s
,W. g....4. M. b. w. 'Js'.
Vf.4M., a q u..::-
w, D..
- c. y@u -+
.sp.%#. ?.?, Cs2 A, A..,
- -., <,~ a r.f. s: - x-n.'.... t,n. 'T
'N '.
1
,p,*
- p-b M
.s.
3 m.~. T t.;p.,t-e c. T~,.,. w c,~.,.g f..s. m.g.,.
-<v.
7-w wm s
q,.. e. ~..,
a-T.. //j;,. s..,.
- f. '.{*
i
... o
.7
~m,w.?y' i,4
_m,.
,t,.
..+-
d--
. m,~.~. w. w.,, m..w.. J.s.w y e,,.;,g%.:yn,y w.,:. s---
m y. m.
~.
. ;;g.p.:
G.,- w. 4
- t.c..
.w. a..= w.y, x..--n,
..<.g,.7 y
- a. e-.
.w,
. w,..
.p..
.:, ?
m.m
.m s a.s. n. s... m,.g w. w : p; w.-
- ... u s.g ; w _. e..w<.,,.,cv.mw.,s s.v9.,.,7,ya r.
+.- m,. '..n m.:-.a j,.._ 5 :.,.
.. w. '
w 7,-
,,-..M..
-r
.e. :g..
..n.*
- .,,s..
. ~..
a w.:
w.
...~.-.m. n..=...
. ~. n.,
. p.c. <.. y& 4%, ;. ru#.... s >-(,.;. w.m aM::=..%...,s.s. 2.
~. ', v h..z.~. y_,.
-..e
- m. c,..
,u,,
.m
... a.
.s
.,.w..
3::,,:~~. :
u
- w.
.w
- g. g,.,:y v:. s es. -..- m.a-a,,,s.
.v n. m. M^ 4..W.. z e.. b.2W.,w..>.
i,m(Wl:c,!.% y b. > >::. m.. ;:W...v 2
.w 1:~.n WPM @,.
- 2.i' i.,;
.,...;;;;s n.. w.
4 is n:
....y,,...q...s, N,. t u....w...
n'.,.g.,.
m.
a.
'.. n. :.u-
.m~...,~.~..
s.
7p~
-..Ly~.....
.t>-..,,...
~
Q
.. ;'s
-'n,..~.. ~. ' ~
-:&' s ;
.~-.
~
.* ; W ptac's. '
?
g::':~.n.
.,.y;. 3.c.;,:.n.g; Q p. -,'y -. 'f&- W;li.,
7...
x z,.
~-
- WaShihqton%'Df
- C M W ?A H&
4.~
a~W
- G D. ;p,
- m. '
.m
.z, 4< ~.h ?
- -7
.T.*.m. ;
. - r f e$K,q 3 ; - : q M.: 3 3 * -
January : 19,7 9. ~1.'f....y --Q.ig e, s 1"..c, l
e-
.r s*-M.A
'767 '. s.
7 O c~te G... yThursdary.'25:
m, ggt *ge,. y,,,*y. _, 3,y, w,.
- .) 3 : e,;.C.,..,'
y - %! (.
,,> f,,...m..,--
-c:-
? =,; v,.,.. y
.;..?.:. pp u.g.c..g,9;.,, y~*.
- .a -
.9..
s e **..,.
. ' - a. c '
- n.g
' ~ ~
~s.
..~v.
g
,.. -.i.. *.
. ".h :
- .,...^ =...
,,5 A L %.... p.
",..,s n. v.c -
c.'
=-
t
..:..=
T
[ f, i t"M ',J...
'~
',f,. $ U..." -..'. <, -
'U*
t 2
.s,
t se e-i..
t
. ~..
- y
.w,..
=
=
,.v
..*y
^
m
..l s..
3.s..
?.=
-.=
1:.., m...
,.. w:
- -, *.,.e..
f
=.; ;.
.1. ;
- c. f.*.
.... w.:. x gm!
p., g
... - U.
- -w--.-,*.-.
,.g". -. :
- 7 g-
. y, g.. I., :,.e..,,,- p..g *n., ;.2.n.;. ige
?g
.u.
.r-e 1
- 9., o4,.
~.:
L r,...a..
- ,s..
s v(. %, s a. s,
.x.-
4
.. a
.s.w n,u
<.u...
- M, n.eu.m.r,,w:;.,n...,m.z. '.:m.qm. eW,.W -,4.v g,s.:w
.~.s w- -. 4.,.u:s*...
..g
'.m'.,,
.G.
- :,s:
. ~..
. -.. - s..&.s...
..,m,.c
. e
-~~ e -
g
. p.
- .m...
. r. 4
. ~.
.n.&c gwp.g.yt e.:, n y#.'...
- ,; *a;
,,.y 7
-n
^ ?w % : '.: M.c.
.....x 3, W *r-.-j*c...- w.r c.
sw
+
-q.
- n. ; -. '. zw.3.w~r.::.w&?%o j.g,./.xm.. :,, ' 2m g in rr. :v;; m,m,
't, u+.,,e
- s e r+tge p
.*4..
o
'- - e-
^
..c.
m.
.. r :,..
e.gi..
Q s ' f..
y c
.%ggL m.
s Q.,i,...s *W..W.5 m-.4. C D C ^....._
r<,.
~ (mpccca 3:.. n
.=,c
- 3..
.y o
t
- ' ?. :
n.
y; s :.
c
. -. x..
s.. p ;;.. w....n : a.: %. :..
v
..j.
.~
a~.
v a
- .....:t. Lu,. ~:.
- 4.,s..
.-c :.:
.. m.3 v w.
n..
...v
..,. -....~.c.
..... =._
. ~..
n..,
. n5 ',-
. J.
~, : '. Y 1 m - ACE be.u.ER.8.LT RE?ORTERS,INCF... #
~ ~.,
es a.,m... -
- . u.,.
.n..
3 u,..
-,-.. o. g.. -- -
a
.. e.
S 2.
,,s.
..s m..
Cfy.... lRepor:ers
- e;.2;:
gx
.m
.. i. 7 G. 9,(
- . '7. %. 9 4/ i.
- w -...-m.-
42 X4 a s'
?-
=LLA Nci.-h C::ir [stre,r
- '?".~f...'
-e r
- 1. ?s ~
3.
~
7.9.02070c96.D ~. T,..
. W -
.wceiG.,=n.hc. :ccm
- e..,c.
..n a
,;~.
e.
.. ~..
i..
3
' HAUCNWICE COVGAci s CAlLY #,
- 3..,.
a
,,. 44*t.s. ".,*.
1.-
,. -..c.,..
.. >.,. 1
. nnu
- v..
w, a :
? : 4p '" ; a ' *"-.A; l<,,*
,4..;*~ _,,. - *..
. ' +
~^
.m
__.m g.__
2-w-e
'6.01.3 5
gsh I
dollar amounts actually in the authorization act.
We have 2
constraints from the appropriation people on those areas in 3
.which they specifically provided reductions to us and a 4
general guideline that they have provided us that tells us 5
we will come back to them for approval.under several 6
conditions, such as anything, any reprogramming, or $500,000, 7
regardless of where it is.
S So in order t'o live with those conditions and to 9
recognize the three conditions that I previously mentioned, 13 we have had to go through this exercise.
.11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Len, remind me, for Fiscal '79, 12 we are still under the 30-day restraints with the committees, 13 aren't we?
14 MR. BARRY: Yes.
[2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Was there any more -- or 16 wasn't there a longer period of time spelled out for some 17 of the things in '79?
13 MR. BARRY: Yes.
In some cases, depending on if 19 they're out of session -- Bruce, give us the specifics.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There's that 90-day thing for 21 certain things in the '80 budget.
But I thought that we 22 were all on a 30-day basis for this one.
23 MR. COOPER : There is both a 30-day rule and a 24 90-day rule, to make things as complicated as possible.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Even in '797
46.0l$2 4
gsh 1
minuses seem to be somewhat complex and cumbersome.
2 Let me console you and say that it really was 3
cumbersome and complex when we put it together.
4 (Laughter.)
_n w
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is consolation?
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He doesn't want me to think I'm 7
easily confused.
S COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Ah, that's a new. definition.
9 MR. BARRY: The paper -- the reason that it takes 10 on the appearance that it does is because it results from
.11 three conditions that we have had tv deal with in Fiscal 12 Years 1979. One, we had to recognize and respond to 13 authorization requirements in which there were more 14 requirements spe.lled out in the Act and in the legislative
..L 15 history than there were dollars available.
16 We also had to recognize and respond to appropriation 17 reductions in areas that were difficult for us.
And then, 13 of course, 18 months have pa ssed -- about 18 months, 17 19 months -- since OMS, the President, in fact, approved our 20 budget for his Fiscal '79, and things changed, as you know.
21 In addition, we have to send a letter up to the 22 Congre ss which, in effect, exclaims the results of this 23 paper.
And the reason for that is we live under very 24 stringent repr.,gramming constrains these days. We have 25 programming and reprogramming constraints at very low level of
4 6. 01'. !
3 gsh 1
P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we can come to order, please.
3 We meet this morning on the first item to deal with final program plan for the agencies' Fiscal Year '79 budget.
There 4
5 is a paper on the table.
I see there are a couple of charts 6
which are going to help us through this thing.
7 This morning's discussion will deal with what are 8
judged to be appropriate and necessary adjustments. back and 9
forth between accounts.
10 Lee, why don't you go ahead and see if you can
.11 lead us through this enterprise.
12 MR. GOSSICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 13 As you indicate, the papers that we set down in 14 the first part of the week gives all the various adjustments ihi 15 both in dollars and in people that a: e necessary to proceed 16 on our '79 program.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE That's 7953, the paper you 18 are addressing?
19 MR. GOSSICK: Yes. I will ask Mr. Barry to brief us 20 through this in perhaps abbreviated form at first, and. then 21 perhaps go into further detail as you want to.
It's a fairly 22 complex paper.
23 Len?
4.
24 MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, in going through the SECY 25 paper, we found that the maze of numbers and pluses and O
2 I
i j
m 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING 4'
BRIEFING ON FINAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE NRC FY 79 BUDGET 5,
6 Room 1130 I
l 1717 H S treet, N.W.
7l Washington, D. C.
8 Thursday, 25 January 1979 9 l' The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m.
.1 10 j BEFORE:
!l 11 ll DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman i
12,
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner I
13 i:
RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner I-14 '
PETER A. BRADFO RD, Commissioner 15 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commisisoner 16 ^ PRESENT:
a 17 "
Messrs. Barry, Cooper, Gossick, Kenneke, Kelley, Chilk, Levine, Case, Smith, Donnelly, Dircks, Murley, and Budnitz.
la 19,'
il 9
20 "
i I
22 h l'
I.
23 li It 24 "
t Etcef at Repo,ters, lac. 4 25.j f*
I
'I
~
12346.
L i
t i
.:.?
.s.
\\
e DISCLAIMER This is. an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Reculatory Coclission held on 25 Januarv 1979 in the i
The Co nission s offices at 1717 H Street, ii. W., Wasnington, D. C.
meeting was ocen to public attendance and observation.
This a anscrip,w has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
b
. The transcript is-intended solely for general informa'tional purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of. the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
!'o pleading or other pacer may be filed with the Ccmmission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any state. ant or ars.: ment contained herein, except as the Co: mission may authorize.
4 e
e 5
'v
46.01.5 7
gsh I
flexibility within an agency, flexibility and change of 2
program than in the past.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is what political science
__ (
4 calls the blurring of distinctions between executive and 5
l e g is.l a t ive.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They have 'a lot of staff up there.
7 Now thera has to be something for them to do.
~
8 MR. BARRY: I might say as.your comptroller, they 9
have put nothing on us that we can't manage.
But it does 10 take a lot of time and effort to be sure we properly do it
.11 and it does slow the process down in terms of decisions that 12 we probably could make with complete integrity to put money 13 out to work.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But Len, aren't many of the 55 15 90-day restrictions in areas where they have said, do 16 something or don't do something?
And it is the 90 days that 17 are related to us deciding not to do what they said?
18 MR. BARRY: No.
The 30- and 90-day is really one 19 where they give themselves that period of time.
20 COMMISSIONER AF ARNE: I understand that.
21 MR. BARRY: You mean if they don't respond to this?
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The sense that I had that 23 where they're putting on the longer time period were in areas 24 where they had specific interest and they had provided some
~
25 sort of specific guidance.
6 46.01.4 gsh MR. C.00PER: Yes, in '79.
30 days f or everything 2
except the new initiatives that were. identified by the 3
authorization committee.
4 In those cases, it's at least 90 days.
Actu ally.
5 the 90 days begins with sine die, which was January 15th, 6
and it wouldn't have started before then.
7 So we have a complicated situation.
8 The.only good light that we can shed on lt is that 9
we have talked to most of the committee members, staf f 10 members, and they have indicated that upon receipt of JI reprogramming requests, they will try to act as expeditiously 12 as possible.
They may not take the full time.
13 MR. BARRY: We have one other thing, of course, la reflected in these papers. In other words, we have to do the n
tf 15 comparability adjustments in conjunction with our '80 16 budget, where we have change decision units.
We have 17 re o rga n iz e, and you shift -- by definition, you shift IS functions that were under that title to this title.
So that also te ds to make the paper somewhat complex looking.
19 n
20 COFMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are the types of constraints 21 that Bruce just outlined common to most agencies, or just 22 something that Congre ss has --
23 MR. BARRY: It has become more so in the past three 24 years than ever be. fore.
The new Congress has begun to lean 25 in that direction of more specific constraints in terms of
46.01.6 8
gsh 1
MR. COOPER: Mr. Commissioner, that is corre ct. The 2
only thing Len and I, I think, would want to point out here 3
is that the complication is such that we don't have one 4
Congre ss down there. Unfortunately, we have two.
And if the 5
appropriation committees had saluted the authorization 6
co mmitte e initiatives, we'd be home f ree.
7 Un f ort una tel y, this becomes a reprogramming to the 8
ap.oropriation committees if we do what the authorization 9
committees want us to do.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I guess --
.11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Cheer up, it's going to get 12 worse, not better.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE I expect I'd f eel worse about 14 some of the Congressional time limits if I had the feeling 15 that here we were able on October ist to smack into place 16 w ith the '79 budget and go.
But I notice that our own 17 process isn't necessarily as crisp as one might like.
18 MR. BARRY: I think I'm more concerned, rather than 19 the time, I'm really more concerned that every approval, in 20 effect, has to go to five different committees.
And that's 21 the one that may cause us the most di.fficulty.
Five 22 dif ferent committees, you could have one or two little items 23 hung up rather than as a part of the total, whlch could tend 24 to hang up the total.
25 But, of course,, we will go up to each commi.ttee
26.01.7 9
gsh I
af ter this paper is up there --
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Why don't you submit them 3
separately, individually?
4 CHAIRMAN MENDRIE: On, they do.
~
5 Cow 4ISSIONER KENNEDY: If you submit each one of 6
them individually, why is the entlre pac kage, then, going to 7
be held up?
8 MR. BARRY:
Well, oecause that was one of 'the 9
reasons I was anxious to get the 'inobligated balance paper 10 up there, because those are pretcy acceptable items, most of
.11 these are.
But there will be some questions on some of these.
12 Co.VMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am just suggesting ir you 13 know that there are going to be questions in some areas and 14 not in others, why don't you separate the packages and make
$hi 15 it easy for them to act on those which they have no problem 16 and deals with the others separately.
17 MR. BARRY: Well, we could.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Just considering tactics, 19 that's all.
20 4R. BARRY: I just don't want to have too many 21 l e tte rs --
22 MR. GOSSICK: Can you get partial approvals from 23 them?
24 MR. BARRY: What I would attempt to do is if we 25 find some of these are hung up, we will go up and see if we
46.01.S 10 gsh I
can't get, as Lee suggests, partial approval. Same effect.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Len, did you mean that cach 3
item has to go through five committees, or that there are
' - ~
4 five committees involved?
5 MR. SARRY: The request for these approvals wLil 6
have to go to five different co mmi tt.ee s, three authorization 7
and two appropriation, yes, sir.
8 I provided you a little two page handy-dandy, which 9
may help us expedite our understanding of what's in the 10 SECY paper.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't you lead us on through 12 that?
13 MR. BARRY: On the first one, as I rentioned 14 earlier, we had to really respond to two different 15 Congre ssional actions -- one, appropriation reduction, the 16 second, the Initiatives.
17 On the first one here is a summary of how we, in la e ffect, are responding to the appropriation reduction.
As an 19 example, if you look at NRR, we were reduced S800,000 in 20 technical projects and were asked to do s5 00,CD0 in gas,
21 which really meant with no increase in funds, which really 22 meant we had to take s500,000 from some place else.
And 23 that's the reason for that $500,000 general reduction.
24 We, as you can see, are golng to do -- we 25 reprogrammed a little bit and the bottom line is that we really
46.01.9 Ji gsh I
are not going to do S500,000 in gas because it is not really 2
feasible to do so with the gas program in NRR.
3 We are not anticipating any applications in gas.
4 The gas program for our domestic gas reactor in '80 is 5
dead.
We have no f unds in '80 and so we are going to reduce 6
the program.
7 I don't think we will have any problem with that.
8 Ths othe r $154,000 is simply a reprogramming action.
That is 9
in addition to.the $800,000 they reduced, which we are 10 putting up into operating reactors and casework higher 11 priority.
Salancing factor -- we're not balancing but the 12 increase of a $1.374 million is the reprioritization of the 13 work we have to do in the operating reactor's decision 14 unit and the casework decision unit.
ihi 15 That includes the $ 900, 000 that you gentlemen IS approved here a couple of days ago to take care of the 17 NMM backlog by contract.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Joe, would you prefer to have 19 Len go through the whole paper and then ask questions, or 20 ask questions as we go along?
21 COM.MISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's ask questions.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think we'd better take them as 23 we go, because by the time we get down on through this, it's 24 going to be hard to remember the context to get the question.
25 MR. B A RRY : If you want a li.ttle more detail to the
12 46.C1.10 gsh I
summary charts, I would suggest in the SECY paper you go to 2
the statistical table in nuclear reactor and regulations. It's 3
about f our or five pages back and it will give you a little bit more detailed explanation of the pluses and minuses.
a
==
5 CohWISSIONER AMEARNE: Len, on the dropping of the 6
advanced reactors, you tie it and as you point out in the 7
paper, that's because we don't expect to get any gas 3
a pplic.at ions ?
We don't have Fort St. Vrain running, and 9
the President's '80 budget doesn't include any money.
10 Now would that imply that had the Pres ident's '80 11 budget included money, we would have -- and if the answer 12 is yes, then it must mean that we also conclude that 13 Congre ss is going to accept the President's budget and not 14 put any money in.
15 MR. BARRY: Yes.
The answer is yes.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And I gue ss -- and are we 17 automatically then concluding that if the President's decisions 13 say that a program is not going to go, that the Congress will 19 follow along with that?
23 MR. BARRY: We ll, in this case here, of course we 21 have to make an assumption that the Congress will go along 22 w.ith the President's decision on gas.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do we usually make those 24 a ssumptions ?
25 MR. BARRY: No, not always.
46.01.11 13 gsh MR. LEVINE: It seems to me, Mr. Commissioner, that 2
if the President's decision on gas is not upheld and money 3
is put forward for progracming, there would have to be a g.
commensurate change in our budget.
4 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So would we be making that 6
point, then?
7 MR. LEVINE: (Inaudible.)
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So that if the Congre.ss sees 9
f it --
10 MR. LEVINE: This is my understanding of our understanding with OMB at this point.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But we would make that in 13 connection with the Fiscal '80 budget. Is that correct?
14 MR. LEVINE: Yes.
-i 15 MR. BARRY: Now I think in this particular case, 16 this is an appropriations action that we are responding to in 17 which they did put in s500,000 a ddit ional.
They did put that 18 in in their response to the authorization committee, who 19 actually have put it into the cuthorization.
20 The appropriation committee generally will go with 21 a lower figure, regardless of where it comes from.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I recognize that, Len.
I 23 guess my concern is there seems to be an area where Congre.ss 24 has said, we ought to be doing more, which indicated in some --
25 and I'.m not familiar with the background of why thay said 1r;
i46.01.12 14 gsh I
that -- but it does at least seem plausible that they were 2
concerned that more be done in that area.
3 MR. BARRY: That's right.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And we're coming in and saying although Congress has expressed the wish to do more, we 5
6 have concluded because the President does not, we won't.
7 MR. BARRY: That's right. That r ulted, as you S
can appreciate, in lobbying activitles in conjunction with 9
the FY '79 budget.
10 DOE, of course, did have an active and does have
.11 an active gas program in Fiscal Year '79, but now the 12 decision has been made that terminates in '79. DOE has no 13 money in '80.
We are now, a year later, in terms of an 14 update of propability of, is there really going to be a
=4E 15 gas applicatian, and that update and information says, 16 absolutely nc t, there will not be an application.
17 So we are a year updated in inf ormation --
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 But you're perfectly right in 19 what you say, John.
The Congress has simply said, back when 20 we. proce ssed the '79 budget, we had a certain support in 21 there for gas reactors -- the Congress said, do more of that.
22 and they cranked the language into the authorization bill.
23 The appropriation committee put a little piece in, I gue ss.
24 MR. BARRY: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But in '80, the Administration
46.01.13 15 gsh I
has said, you know, knock it out.
2 And what we are doing here is trying to interpolate 3
the '79 budget, our '79 budget, somewhere between those g :.
previous discussions with the Congress and the Administration's 4
5 intent to go to zero in '80. And, indeed, depending on 6
what the Congress does with this '80 budget in this area, 7
why, we may find ourselves changing the rate of spending S
slope on the gas program toward the end of Fiscal '79 to 9
either accelerate it and get back, reflecting a renewed 10 progran that the Congre ss puts back in for '80 or, you know,
.11 talling it down towards phase out.
12 But you are culte right and all we can do is 13 recognize as we go down the line, we may very well have to 14 adjust.this program yet aga.in.
"~f 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now I guess also this means 16 that the effort to build a consortium on the commercial side 17 has not been successful.
13 MR. BARRY: We ll, that consorti.um does exist.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Yes, let's be fair to the 20 gas group.
21 (Commissioner Bradf ord lef t at 10:D0 a.m.)
22 CO WAISSIONER AHEARNE : Our conclusion seems to be 23 that we are not going to be -- we don't have to build up the 24 base and prepare to license gas reactors.
25
'4R. B ARR1 :
In this particular area in NRR. which,.
16 46.01.14 gsh 1
of course the work that they would be doing would be 2
anticipating the receipt of an acplication this year.
3 The answer is we don't think we're going to get it 4
and that's the reason for the reduction.
5 Now in a related one, where they also ask us to 6
put S500,000 into gas and research, we are putting s500,0.00 7
in gas -- $5C0,000 additional over the 2.4 we already nave S
in gas, f or a total of 2.9, and we are going to sustain that 9
level in '79 in kind of a holding position to see how the 10 Congre ss does come out this spring, as the Chairman suggested.
11 So this is a specific in the licensing process 12 where the probability of getting an application is very 13 remote.
But in the research area --
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I.think everybody agrees with 15 the possibility of getting an application for a specific 16 pl a n t --
17 COWlISSIONER AHEARNE: '79.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- is zero in '79 and probably 19 zero in '50, 20 On the other hand, the direction that that group of 21 people have been going would not produce an application for 22 a specific plant, but
- mething that staff could work on 23 and work toward issuing a PDA.
That is a generic HTGR at 24 this time, and they have been headed down that road once 25 before before they had to phase back.
i46.01.15 17 gsh 1
MR. BARRY: If you look down.just a little lower on 2
that handy-dandy I have given you Commi.ssioner Ahearne, 3
under research you will see that plus 5 that the Congress 4
put in for, it says, advanced converstion reactor.
But 5
that's gas within there. We sustained that in our program, 6
as well as an additional program for alternate fuel 7
cycle.
~
3 9
10
.11 12 13 14
+,
"?i..
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
46.02.'l 18 gsh I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In technical projects under 2
NRR, there is a reduction of 24 people and $ 154,000 in 3
this reprogramming.
4 MR. BA RRY: It's redefining the work up into 5
operating reactors. In other words, same people, same work, 6
only redefining it in the operating reactor area rather than 7
to projects.
3 That's what that is.
That's TL pro jects.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Redefinition?
10 MR. BARRY: Yes, rede finition.
Any other questions
.l i on NRR, gentlemen?
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes, I do.
13 How many people have been put into the generic 14 issues?
455 15 MR. BARRY: What is.the total number going to be in 16
' 79 in generic issues?
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.
13 MR. BARRY: Let's see. Well, generic issues per se 19 is a part of tech projects.
In other words, within the 20 techn project line --
21 MR. CASE: I think it's approximately 50 to 60 22 man-years, Commissioner Kennedy.
I don't know the exact 23 number.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would like to know the 25 exact number and I would like to have that in the form of a 7..
19 46.02.2 gsn 1
memorandum, please, f rom the executive director.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the rest of tech 3
projects?
MR. CASE: Code verification, topical reports, 4
5 contract management, research coordination.
There's a number 6
of items in that overall category.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY And when you move people 8
into case work, what sort of cdses are we talking about?
9 MR. CASE: Excuse me?
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When you move people into 11 case work?
12 MR. CASE: Operating licenses, operating reactor 13 licenses review before operation to keep up with those 14 schedule s.
We have a decision before the time we're ready sh" 15 to lead the fuel.
16 MR. GOSSICK: It also includes CP work.
17 MR. CASE Primarily.
18 MR. BARRY: cps and site reviews.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Ed, in that, if you were 20 asked in this reprogramming, are you increasing or decreasir; 21 the e ff ort on generic issues, what would be the answer?
22 MR. CASE: Decreasing.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Decreasing?
24 MR. CASE: Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE : So the reprogramming is
t46.02.3 20 gsh I
decreasing the effort.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And you will explain that, 3
I assume, in the memorandun that I have requested?
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's nece ssary to come in and
~
5 k eep the operating licenses moving. If youTdo~n't do it, why 6
we're not going to be able to be ready to make that decision 7
on those plants when they come
.'p.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would appreciate the 9
sta ff's confirmin[ all of that in their memorandum, which 10 I will expect to re ceive.
Il COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are we prepared to address 12 the question from Congress er from anyone that we have these 13 generf.c issues which we have just recently gone through. We 14 have identlfied 17 high priority generic issues.
.'.)I 15 How can we -- do we have a sort of a rationale to 16 explain why we are concluding that those need not be 17 addressed in a high priority --
13 MR. CASE: The 50- to 60- man-years I spoke of will 19 cover all of those unresolved saf ety issues.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In other words, so the 17 21 we are not decreasing the emphasis on.
22 MR. CASE 2 That's right. It's on the low priority 23 generic Issues.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: On the 17, as a matter of fact, he
21 45.02.4 gsh I
picks up, sort of, on the prior layout.
2 CO)StISSIONER AHEARNE: So we are increasing the 3
e ff ort on those 17?
4 MR. CASE: Yes.
5 COMMI.SSIONER AHEA9NE:
It would be very useful to 6
make that point.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But because previously there was 3
a substantially larger number on which work was going on --
9 MR. CASE: E ss ent ia lly, concentrating efforts on 10 those.
.11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY de have concentrated efforts, 12 and thereby, have beer able to reduce the number of personnel 13 involved.
14 MR. LEVINE: The re are other o ffices --
Y$
15 MR. CASE: That's generally in the 50 or 60.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's the reason I was asking 17 the cuestion.
It's a little hard to find all of those. It 18 turned out a number of those, if my mathematics are correct, 19 were actually working on other matters at NRR.
20 I'm not disagreeing that that shouldn't be done.
21 I'm simply saying that the shell gaae got a little confusing 22 to me.
And I would like this very clear memorandum laying 23 this all out in prinstine clarity, which you just expressed.
24 (Laughter.)
25 COMMISSIONER AHE! 1NE: The transcript.will be ready
L46.C2.5 22 gsh 1
in three or four hours.
2 COVMISSIONER KENNEDY: That would just a nice 3
beginning.
4 (Laughte..)
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE I thought I explained it all the 6
other day.
7 (Laughter.)
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Remember the three. walnut shells 9
that I used?
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You have got it exactly.
11 I'm just trying to find out how many walnut shells 12 there are.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is there anything under any 14 one of them?
ig 15 MR. CASE 2 Can I establish one point. C )mmiss ioner 16 Kennedy? We will talk about changes from the budget sent to 17 Congre ss --
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And what we told the Congress 19 last year.
20 14R. CASE I've got to nave a starting point.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY de have discussed this with 22 the Congress on a number of occasions.
They have, I should 23 think, as I have, a number of very clear impressions about 24 what this agency is doing in this regard.
And I would like to 25 be sure that we either are or we have a very, very clear and
46.02.6 23 gsh 1
unquestioned reason for not doing it.
Okay?
That's what I 2
want to know.
And I don't get it frc-all of this.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could you give me a rough a
break-down of these 222 persons and how they break down 5
according to operating reactors and construction permits?
6 MR. CASE: I have a 212 number, which is essentially 7
it, and that was broken down:
105 OL reviews; 50 CP reviews:
8 10 for reviews; 26 standard plant designi 6 other like 9
naval or DOE ; and 15 post-CP, which I assume adds uo to 212.
13 COVMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you.
11 MR. KENNEKE: Can I ask one question on the 12 redefinition that shif t to operating reactors of tech 13 projects?
14 Does that include some of the effort on the 17 key 15 issues?
=
16 MR. BARRY: From what I just heard, I would say no, 17 it would be beyond the 17 safety issues, which would be the 13 other, the remaining generic issue work.
19 MR. KENNEKE: Those are actually going to be expended, 20 55.other than the 17?
21 l4R. CASE: They'rt not really expended on generic 22 activities.
They were more implementation of a generic 23 solution on operating reactors.
24 It's being really used for operating reactors but 25 It was a mischarge to tech proiects, making the books right
46.02.7 24 gsh I
where the e ff orts will be doing.
2 MR. BARRY:
If you will turn back to your summary 3
sheet, you will notice you don't have standards development 4
on this page, and that's because it was unaffected by
.,z r
5 a:propriations committee.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could I just make one last 7
point.
On the NRR, there is an obvious concern, and I'm 8
sure you are just as familiar, if not more so, than I am.
9 But there is clearly an obvious concern that as we addre.ss 10 operating license reviews that are to be ready to handle
.11 reactors, ready for fuel loads, we ought not to be putting 12 aside the effort.that is required, at least in some people's 13 minds, to make sure that we ought to be licensing those 14 operating reactors.
kN 15 (Conm'issioner Bradf ord enters the room at 10:10.)
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And that 's at least the 17
. perspective that many people take to making sure that we are 13 concentrating on generic issues.
19 MR. BARRY: Turn to I&E, the appropriations 23 connittee -
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could I ask auestions on 22 standards? I know it's not there.
23 MR. BARRY: Certainly.
24 COFMI.SSIONER AHEARNE: In your background on your 1_
25 programmatic adjustments column, you mention that the reduction O
45.02.3 25 gsh 1
in power facilities standards is caused by the decision to 2
acccmplish tasks in-house. And.then when I look under the 3
adjustments, you reduce by two people, in addition to the 4
money.
And it wasn't -- at least I wanted to make sure I 5
understood how the decision to do more in-house was 6
consistent with reducing the people in-house.
7 MR. SMITH: Those are two different places.
The a
two people were reprogrammed into waste management, and the 9
other thing is in reactor siting, primarily.
Two different 13 areas within --
.11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, but if you're going to 12 do more work in-house, if you had a certain program planned 13 and you were going to be doing it under contract, and your 14 conclusion is we're not going to spend the money under "5"
15 contract, we're going to do the work in-house, at least 16 initially one would expect that, thercfore, you might need 17 more people in-house to do that work.
13
,1 hat you are saying is that you had enough people 19 any way, so that in addition to giving up the contract money, 23 you did not have to pick up more people in-house, right?
21 MR. SMITH: Right. We had to find the contract 22 money cecause we were recuired to use it on the epidemiology 23 study.
24 So that is the place we figured we could do it the 25 easiest.
1
~.
46.C2.15 32 gsh 1
go to the Congress to indicate how we want to spend that.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It is also not necessary, 3
then, to at this time, for example, to reprogram all of 4
that money from the LOFT fuel.
5 Is that correct?-
6 MR. BARRY:
Well, it would be if you decided that 7
the pluses in research should be accommodated.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, but you see, we are
?
explicitly making the decision that that reprogramming of 13 that money is more valuable than the potential increases that 11 waste management might need.
12 de have made that judgment.
13 MR. BARRY: Yes, at this point in t ime.
14 CovMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
So I'm asking, is it I
15 absolutely necessary to do that?
15 MR. BARRY:
I guess my answer again is -- the 17 answer is no, unle ss you make the judgment that as an example, 13 risk assessment, which is a pretty sizable increase, has to 19 go.
The answer would be no, it would not have to be done.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I understand. In your back-up 21 on the Congress'ional approval notification required, in 22 talking about the waste management, you make the point that 23 NMSS is evaluating to what extent, et cetera, to comply with 24 Congressional initiative.
And I guess somewhere along the 25 line I would like to make the point, I.think that we also
==
..J
26 46.02.9 gsh 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And you did have the staff 2
tnat could pick up the load?
3 MR. SMITH: It will ce reprogrammed out of other 4
things, too, somewha t.
There will ce some shifting around.
5 MR. BARRY: Okay.
If we go to I&E, the appropriations 6
committee did reduce us a couple of hundred thousand. As you 7
see on the chart here, $ 100,000 fuel facilities, material S
safety, s100,000 safeguards.
9 We have f urther reduced the safeguards work in 10 I SE by s 126,000 and put that $ 126,000 into other areas in
.11 I&E.
12 There's not really much of an impact here and there 13 will be no approval required for the reprograrming in I&E 14 up to the Congress.
dk 15 ComtISSIONER AHEARNE: In your explanatory material, 16 you comment that there are minor adjustments to accommodate 17 shifts in priority. In answer to the question, what shifts in 13 priority, what would you say?
19 MR. BARRY:
If you have your detail table there, 20 yo.u will notice that in I&E, they put more money into reactor 21 operating, into the reactor operations program, $173 --
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you took people away.
23 MR. BARRY: Took some people away, yes, and put more 2"
contract money in there.
And put, you know, another $10,000 25 in the vendor contract progran and then reprogrammed from the
'46.02.12 29 gsh I
COMMISSI0 DER AHEARNE: If you looked at that profile, 2
would it appear that you have now reprogrammed all the 3
money that you would want to into waste management, or if 4
there were additi,ns1 funds, would you want to reprogram more 5
to match into the '30 profile?
6 MR. BARRY: I'm going to have NMSS give the 7
specifics, but I doubt that we would reprogram any more.
S We would probably like to have more funds in the waste 9
management area.
10
'4R. DIRCKS: We have developed a program plan over 11 the past couple of weeks, and it indicates that we want to 12 put more resources into waste management.
13 Now we are looking around for the rest of the 14 o ff ice to see where we can scrape up more resources.
We will
'5 15 be coming down to the commiss ion -- (inaudible).
=
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I just would make a cc mment.
17 It's not. obvious to me why, if we are deciding that waste 18 management is an increasing priority, it is necessarily 19 moneys that have to come out of NMSS.
20 It would appear that if it's a high priority --
21 increasing priority item, it's an increasing priority item 22 for the commission and it ought to be the whole NRC budget 23 tha' 's examlned on.a relative priority basi,s.
24 MR. BARRY: That's the reason I was making my point.
25 I'm not sure they would want to reprogram any more because
27 46.02.10 gsh I
two areas.
You see, there are three areas.
2 C01/MISSIONER AHEARNE: I can read the table. I 3
was trying to conclude what's the answer?
What is the shift 4
in priority?
What priority went up? What priority went down?
5 MR. BARRY: Of course safeguards went down --
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Safeguards went down, so the 7
conclusion was safeguards is a lower priority?
~
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Than something.
9 MR. DONNELLY: I'm Lloyd Donnelly f rom I&E. Mr.
13 Davis couldn't be here today.
11 The explanation of the priority change is basically o e of the safeguards program being reduced in '80 during 12 n
13 our budget review process.
And we had a build in '79 over 14
'78.
48
'E=
15 So what we did is reduce the saf eguards program 16 back to a straight line position rather than hiring people 17 ln '79 and taking them off in '80.
13 So in doing that, we have reprogrammed those people 19 into the areas we could use onem the best.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So it's an attempt to be 21 consistent with the '30 budget.
22 MR. DONNELLY: It is.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay.
24 MR. BARRY: In NMSS, the appropriations committ.ee 25 reduced us S3 00,000, transportation decision unit, and
_=+
9
46.02.11 28 gsh 1
increased our International safeguards activity by 75.
2 We have f urther decreased our transoortation activity by 3
5240,000.
That's a multi study that you may have talked 4
about before. And we put another s45,000 into international 5
safeguards, for a total of 120.
6 And in other areas, we reprogrammed from various 7
decision units primarily in safs;uards into several activities 8
that you can see on your detailed sheet in your SECY paper.
9 And you will notic.e that the increases are in waste 10 management, spent fuel, and safeguards technology.
.11 We have explanations for each one In the prose 12 subsequent pages.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE2 Now this is an office where 14 I. guess there is also substantial changes in FY '80?
5b 13 MR. BARRY: Ye s, sir.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do these changes -- are they, 17 for instance, in the waste management area, is there a 18 linkage to these reprogramming changes into what we are 19 p.roposing in '80, so that if you looked at a funding 23 profile --
21 MR. BARRY: You vill be cons istent. You wi.11 see as 22 a result of the programming, you see the waste management 23 starting up over the base program, safeguards coming down. As 24 you go into '80, it continues to go up and safeguards 25 continues to come down.
45.02.13 30 gsh I
they reprogram pretty drastically within NMSS.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: dithin NMSS. And I don't 3
understand why the re-examination, as Commissioner Kennedy 4
said, isn't of the whole cudget.
E=
5 For example. I gather that there was a --
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That doesn't imply it would 7
necessarily change. It implies only that one doesn't make 8
thdt assumption. One makes an analysis to find out whether.
9 that's true.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. It appears that we 11 picked up a fair amount of money from not using up the LOFT 12 fuel, and that would seem to be a very --
13 MR. GOSSICK: Certa. inly, in any search of satisfying 14 any additional needs that bill. identifies, we _wt11 look h
15 thro ughout the -
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Have we?
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we talking about the IS total waste management moneys in NMSS and research, or are we 19 just speaking of the NMSS?
20 MR. GO.SSICK: Now we're just speaking of the NMSS 21 amount, I think. But there is a sizable block of money also 22 in the research.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, shouldn't we look at 24 that as one pool?
25 MR. GOSSICK: That's anothe r po ss ible source.
46.02.14 31 gsh I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Waste management moneys?
2 MR. GOSSICK: Sure.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Now in this reprogramming, 4
the time linkage that we are pushed on appears to be moving 5
faster than NMSS's own evaluation of their needs.
6 Is there a reason that this has to go inmediately 7
prior to --
3 MR. BA RRY: You know, we are over three months along 9
in the year.
There is a rather significant chance in terms 10 of dollars taken out of one area and into the other.
.11 I guess we have to recognize that throughout the 12 whole year, there are changes.
There will be more changes in 13 the last nine months, or S-1/2, that we will have to reckon 14 with, including waste management.
15 Because of the time flow of stopping the clock, 16 reviewing our total program, coming up with this exercise, 17 having to go to Congress to get an approval and back, getting so e of this on contract -- you know, that's our dilerma.
13 m
19 This is not the last reprogramming paper that I visualize 23 will go to the Congre ss this year.
21 This is probably the biggest scope, is we're 22 trying to get a lot of things done, including comparability 23 adjustments and so on. But we're going to have to go up there 24 with some more in wastes.
With the remaining unobilgated 25 bal.ance, we have close to a million dollars. We will have to
>46.02.I6
.33 gsh I
think that waste management is an important area that should 2
ce increased.
This increase is not solely because the 3
Congress --
a MR. SARRY: That's correct, yes.
6 7
8 9
10
.11 12 13 14 15
==
16 17 19 19 23 21 22 23 24 25 4
CR 2346 MX:jwb f
34 i3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Can somebody describe to I
i 2j me what the S275,000 being moved from contingency planning to l
J 3
high-level waste was intended to accomplish before it was 5Z i
shifted?
I 4
l l
5!
MR. DIRCKS:
The movement of the contingency --
[
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
$275,000 was shifted
- l 6
7 l; contingency plan to high-level waste.
What was it intended to l i
accomplish that will not now be accomplished?
3
!'s!
MR. DIRCKS:
I think it was the general reaction 9
I lo j that we had back in the spring in the budget rev.iew that the il 11 [
contingency planning e tion had overestimated its needs.
l 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
For what year?
1979, or I
55-13
'80?
p' i
= = -
14 ",
MR. DIRCKS:
It was '79 -- put together in the d
15.;
'79 budget.
The contingency planning operation and NMSS looked
.i d
16 }
like it was going to use many more dollars than it actually 17 needed.
- s 18 '.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see $773,000.
Am I wrong?
i.
19 lI COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am looking at a chart 20 i that shows -- the one I see says $275,000.
There must be i
21 another chart.
i.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Maybe that's "2."
That's t
23 l' where it went to, $275,000 went to high-level waste.
I l'.
24 g COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Ah.
1
,.-F.cere aco m. inc.,i 25 'j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And it came from all of that C
i i
3-2 jwb i'
35 lump.
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is this all perfectly clear to 2
I e
i you?
Good.
~l a!
(Laughter.)
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This chart shows the changes 5
that were made.
6 1
MR. DIRCKS:
There were two major efforts that 7
had been contemplated when the budget was put together.
One 3 ;ll 9;
was a threat assessment automation effort that was delayed, some decisions reached a month or two months ago before I got 10 11 there.
So that there was some reassessment of the need for that threat automation study.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
- Okay, i
-- 2_ 5:._
13 MR. DIRCKS:
There was another related effort --
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Excuse. me.
I Can't hear j
15 16 you.
i MR. DIRCKS:
Okay, let me get up here.
17 h
,1
- g !!
Both of these activities -- the $775,000 -- there i
19 l was a $275,000 threat automation effort that was delayed back I
20 l in, I guess, the fall, and there was a decision made then e
i not to go into that threat automation study.
f side 2 21.'L cassette l
22(i Another $500,000 was also linked to that threat l
...:.1 lt i
23 ;! automation study, but it was decided then to transfer some t
i!
24 of that money into bulk-material control contract that was 1
eJaceral Reporters, Inc. j 25.; sort of shif ted within safeguards at that time.
l if a
3-3 jwb 36 MR. BARRY:
That's two items below.
1 l
1 MR. DIRCKS:
That's $275,000, i
2:
I i
, lt MR. BARRY:
See the $500,000?
If you get -- add f
r:
c the two together, you get the S775,000.
4' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
f MR. BARRY:
You get pretty precise.
6 I
MR. DIRCKS:
If you recall, during the budget l
l review that whole contingency planning effort in NMSS was 8!
questioned by the Commission somewhat, and ther-vere some 9li decisions made to delay some of that and put some of the money 10 elsewhere.
jj COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
Can you help me by 12 I
providing me a more detailed statement of that?
l
"-f i
8 MR. DIRCKS:
Sure.
14,,
1 Y "*
15,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could I ask you:
What is g
I the breakdown in responsibility on spent-fuel storage between
Is it the reactor fence?
18 :l I
j 9 {'
MR. GOSSICK:
Let me turn to Bill, here.
t I
CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
Our present arrangement is that 20 !
Harold testifies on it, and Jack does it.
21 1
I (Laughter.)
22 !l i
s MR. DENTON:
That's a good arrangement, so far.
23 !l h;
The way we have broken it out, from my understanding,
,4 e
3 m Feceral Reporters, Inc.
n l
d
3-4 ]wo 37 The storage of spent fuel in spent-fuel pools within the Il reactor.
2i l
., l Moving the spent fuel outside of the reactor, or 3 i moving it to other locations away-from-reactor, as the term j
I g es, independent spent-fuel storage installation becomes 5'
i NMSS's responsibility.
j 6
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you would review those 7
li ense applications?
8 MR. DIRCKS:
We would review those license applica-9 tions, as well as the transportation aspects.
10 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Except, bill, I think if it j
jj goes reactor-to-reactor as is being proposed, we are taking 12 the generic look, why Harold gets the two ends and we get the 13
_...=-
i middle.
14 MR. DIRCKS:
We get the middle.
15 Now there is some question, from what I gather, of 16 37 l moving it from a reactor containment site to another site I
built within the reactor complex.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's still in negotiations.
19 g I
20 j It's the intermediate case.
I l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And I assume these people
^
21 22 l keep in pretty close touch with each other?
23 l MR. DIRCKS:
Very close.
Very close.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You'll pardon me if I explain 24 l e Fenat Ramrters, lrw. !
that I don't find that making any ' sense at all.
I understand 25 l N
3-4 jwb 38 i
it, but it doesn't make any sense to me.
That's another issue I
i 2 'j that we will get to later.
i i
i 3 i (Laughter.)
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It sounds to me like the 4
i ultimate bureaucratics.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are you sure we will find l
6 a better one?
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It may take a little time.
8; l
9' MR. BARRY:
Are there any other questions in NMSS?
10 i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
11 As to Safeguards Research, we are required to 12 approve the projects over $20,000?
Does the reprogramming
.{. {,f 13 raise any questions?
I ja MR. BARRY:
No, sir.
The reprogramming takes into 15 account all of the approvals that you have made in safeguards.
16 In other words, where we're taking money out of safeguards, this is not dollars you have approved on contract to go some-17 l pl'ce else.
This is money that you have not approved -- I a
18 19 guess we haven't got a requirement for it.
20 l The money that's already in the safeguard columns i
21 as you see here for '79 are in fact the ones that you have 22 approved at the very detailed level, yes.
Well, if we can move into RES, that is the largest 23 24 one.
m.r.emi neoonm inc.,
25 ;
(Commissioner Bradford left the room at 10:30 a.m.)
i i
I i
i
3-5 jwb t
39 j
MR. BARRY:
You might also want to turn to your 2f detailed sheet in your SECY paper.
i I
3 i Let me summari=e just a little bit, and then i
I 4
pernaps we can go from there on questions.
What it.really i
t 51 amounts to is that about a little over half of our reduction i
6, in our budget for '79 was in research.
You can see on the j
i 7
le'ft-hand column here where it was.
i' They specified areas this. time instead of a general 8
9 reduction, as they have normally done in the past.
But in I
10 our discussions with them, they really had no programmatic ij reasons.
It was just kind of a percent cut, across-the-board.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It wasn' t quite that, was j
13 it?
l i..
~
l' 14 l COMMISSILNER AHEARNE:
It was very specific.
15 ;
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They were rather selective.
l 16 ;
M3. BARRY:
Selective in the activities, but we 17 were unable to get any --
18 [9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It was not anything like a il 19 / percentage cut across the board.
They took X out of this I
77j place, and Y out of that place, specifically.
i 21 l MR. BARRY:
What I meant, Commissioner, was that li l
22l they couldn't indicate to us a real programmatic reason as to why that much in that activity.
23
!i 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Maybe the NRC's relationship i emi nnenen. iac. -
l 25 '
with Congress is entirely different than many other agencies, I
l
!I i'
,i J
3-6 jwb 40 but it is my experience with at least two other agencies that 3
,,l!
it wasn't that we had a requirement on the Congress to spell l
ut specific reasons why they took the money out --
2
'l 7
MR. BARRY:
Let mc try it again.
4 i
Take systera engineering.
They had nothing in 5
systems engineering in particular projects such as 380 that 6,
7l they felt wasn't necessary.-
a ENRE:
hey just wanted de total in 8j ll 9j the item whittled down.
MR. BARRY:
Yes, and that's the biggest item.so it gg.
comes out the biggest here.
And, you know, this kind of a 11 I
relationship between the dollars here and the total budget i
12 am unts magnify, and therefore if you kind of look at the
{}{}
13 jal relationship it's, you know, across the board.
l But inasmuch as ae have specific reductions in 15 i
16j these various categories here, we then have to respond to the I
j7 j Appropriation Committee for any reprogramming that we want to do that puts money back into these areas.
And the way we 18 19 come out, of course, in general in research is that LOFT is l
20 l doing better than we had orig'.nally scheduled into the program.:
i The fuel-cycle area is of a lesser priority than i
21
.Ii H
these areas that you see in front of you.
Some money has
.)2 ll pI been reprogrammed out of those two areas into these areas.
l
,3 J
. g' I
The biggest increase in terms of not putting money 24
.ce-Feoeret Recorters, Inc. h 2
back, per se, but departing from 'even our original budget 25 ]i, i
3-7 jwb I
41 i
request is risk assessment; whereas we actually, if you will li 2g notice here, the Congress reduced our risk assessment by j
I l 3
f 3 l S400,000.
We put back $1.4 million, so we actually end up i'
,l!r with a $1 million larger program in risk assessment than we l
I 3l asked for in the budget about a year ago.
I 6f COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Of course, in that relatively, i
7l unique case, we have a very strong case that we can make that.
- i i
g; there has been a substantial change?
'l MR. BARRY:
Change, yes, sir.
I am only giving 9
10, you the perspective.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let's take a look at 12 systems engineering, where the Congress cut us roughly $2.4 gf 13 and we are now putting back $2.0, which out of the total 14.
perhaps of $35 million is not all that much, but on the b
15 other hand, as a proportion of what the Congress took out, it i
16 '1 is enormous.
1 i
17 l Now how do we explain that to the Congress?
I 15 ;i think Commissioner Ahearne is quite right.
They don't have any 0
19 h obligation resting on them to explain to us programmatically i
20 !
why they want the figure reduced.
It is our responsibility l
21 l to them to explain programmatically why it must be replaced.
MR. BARRY:
Right.
~~
22 lv i
~
23 ll' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And I am not sure what that
'i
' prcgrammatic justification really is, or how strong it is.
24 e-Feml Acc&m. inc..l 25 ] $2 million is a lot of money, at this place.
l I
I I
ki i
3-8 jwb I
42 I
i MR. BARRY:
It's cc tained in the paper --
y i'.
2, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I read it.
~
2 MR. BARRY:
Bob, or Saul, or Tom?
l h -
4 ll MR. MURLEY:
The reason for the increase in systems l P
i 11 5 ':
engineering is really for the 3-D program.
If you recall --
i I
6 Well, this budget was put together two years ago internaliy, l
l 7l and we really underestimated the pace that we were going to j
!; pick up in instrument delivery to Germany and Japan as part b
!! of the 3-D program.
9 I
l As you recall, we told you in July, as part of our 10 I!
11[ fiscal '80 budget process, that we had to do some internal i
j 12 reprogramming in fiscal '78, and that we would have to do some j I
s.e._.s.
13 internal reprogramming in fiscal '79, although at that time l
i ja[ we hadn't figured out quite how to do it.
l I
15 'l We are doing it by means of the pluses and minuses ll l
16 !! that you see here.
0 17 h.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But this really isn't i
il 13 *. reprogramming, in that sense.
To a large amount, it seems to l!
19.! me you are saying, "We found S 3.1 million that we didn' t expect.
l 20 r to have, and so we are going to put it here."
21 ll T
MR. MURLEY:
No.
With LOFT, really, it's not that i
22 lli we found money.
We are deferring work.
Let me explain the ll f
23 q LOF*
f.
I 24 j When we were formulating the budget with the 24.enei neoorms, inc. '!
Departdent of Energy, we had to pick a date where we would pick l 23 q l
as 3wo i
43 l
\\
1 up operations, and they would cease paying for operations.
2f So we picked April of
'79.
That happened to be our baseline i
d l
21 budget, at that time, schedule.
T :.
U
- _
- 2=
I 4-On the other hand, all the signs were that we were 5i I
going to get done early, and so we had to be prepared that we
\\
6 would finish the construction and run the test early.
And i'
7 changes were that we might fail some fuel.
We didn't know S!
that at the time.
9l So we had to prepare for the contingency, which i
10 we did.
We prepared to have a spare core on hand, and some 11 spare central subassemblies in case we failed the fuel.
12 Now the test is milder than we thought, and we are i
~
L gjs 13 fairly sure that the next test is going to be milder than we I
i 14 '
think.
We are not going to have to replace fuel.
t l
15 l Therefore, we can defer payments on the second l
16 Ii reload core that we have in the mill.
It is under f abrica-it 17 i tion.
We can defer payments on that until 1980 -- fiscal '80.
b 18 pl ile can also defer some payments on some decontami-l 19 1' nation equipment, because we're not having to use it.
There l
20 l were no fuel leakers in the reactor.
So it is a matter that 21 ! we are going to have to pick -- we are kind of pushing the N
22 bow away ahead of us a little bit into '80 or '81.
_a_
g i
23 !i l'
We are going to have to pick it up eventually.
g l-24 ll COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
Except for the same number neere Reconen. Inc. !
25 l of tests you're going to need fuel cores, aren't you?
i s,
.i I
3-10 jwb l
44 1
MR. MURLEY:
It looks -- No.
You see, we started I!
2 [
out at two-thirds power, 8 kilowatts per foot, and we thought, i i
2' we weren't sure that we might get some leakers, some fuel E55 leakers in that test.
4 5
Well, we didn ' t.
The next test now is up to full 6,
Power.
That's 12. kilowatts per foot.
We don't know.
Half l
i l
7' my staff thinks we might; half thinks we won't.
But I would g'
rather not bet on the come, yet.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not asking you to bet i
10 on the come.
I'm saying, in comparison to your original 11[
forecast of this schedule, this program schedule you now have
}
1 12 since you had expected you were going to have to reload and nas 13 you're not going to, it appears that obviously you have now l
l 14 L on those schedules in those programs there will be a need for I
15 ;
fewer -- one less core.
j 16 (
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not really.
17 h MR. LEVINE:
That's true of this test, for sure.
N 13 !i Beyond the 12 kilowatts per foot, we're thinking of going to It t
19 F 16 kilowatts per foot.
So that we really bracket a range of I
20 l Power levels and get a deeper level of understanding of the l
21 effect of power levels on various --
I l
l 22,j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that in accord with the i
l' 23 original schedules on which this additional core --
24 !!
MR. LEVINE:
I didn' t hear the first part.
l a.F cust peoonm, inc. 3 25-COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 'You are right, Sol.
Of I
!l 1
!i i
i i
i i
3-11 dwb I
45 1
course the farther out you extend, the more cores you are 2 ll going to need.
i' i
3 The question is:
What was the planning base on i
I i
4l which this core, this additional core, had been based?
I l
l l
5' think that's the point that's being made, and quite rightly.
i 6,
MR. MURLEY:
Let me say, we're sure we're going to 7
fail some fuel at 16 kilowatts per foot.
a COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What was the planning on f
i that?
9l.
i 10 MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Then you must have had fuel I
12 out there for that purpose.
l l
i
!g-}
13 MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
i 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, 1 and 1 still equals 15 2.
16 MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
Now there's another complica-I 17 tion --
l 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John, there is a little different ll 19 ]
way to look at it.
I 20 Suppose the whole series of nuclear tests go through:
1 l
21 [ and, low and behold, by God, not a fuel element gets damaged l
22 l anywhere along the line.
At the end of the test, you will in
=
23ll fact be sitting there with a spare core, with a reload core, l
ll 24 and say to yourself, " Darn it, we overshot by one core."
... ~.,
25 But up until you have made the final test, you l
l l
l
3-12 jwb 46 l i
- N always want to be in the configuration that you have got the s
Operating experiment with a core in it, and you've got another 2,
s 3
core over here ready to go.
At least you want to be that e
~~
4] way until you get to the final shot, because if you're not and '
i s
you damage the core and you have still got a test to go, and l
5 i
you then have to go and get a core fabricated, you're going 6
I to' lose money like it was going out of sight by having to 7
I keep the facility up and viable and a crew on hand during the a-9 year-odd fabrication.
~
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Total program, you only 10 ;j 11 ;I had one replacement core?
s 1
12 !
MR. MURLEY:
No, we expect to have one replacement i
gi,g.
13 i core per year.
l
'q 6
h.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
See, you always have to keep on 14 15 ) core ready to go.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You and I, at least, are 16,
't 17 y in agreeuent.
- t COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You know, it's simple.
18 h 0
19,, When you add 1 plus 1 and you get 2, and you add 1 and you get I
3, and you sWatract 1 and you've got 2, and you subtract 1 20 i
l i
21 and you've still got 1.
1 bi_
22 h CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You make it to the end of the
{i 23 program, and in fact have a spare core.
1
- 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY
And one goes to the L
,c.J.omt aeconen ine. h i
23 'i.i Smithsonian.
n i
l e
3-13 jwb 47f I
i
{
1 j.
(Laughter.)
d 2"
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or, if you can see on the L.
2 :l original plan, 2, but you wouldn' t do that.
7 4!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But you can't run the program l
l 5'
without having that spare core, either.
l 6{
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The point, Joe, is clearly I
7 thby got S3.1 million that they didn't expect to get.
I, i
g !i MR. MURLEY:
There is another complication tbnt 9l I think I have to tell you, and that is where we think a
i i
10 'h can run the test a little quicker than originally was
} budgeted.
}
11 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But that's not reprogramming
.i esi 13 1, of the schedule.
It's entirely feasible, but it is a change
--l
==:
o g
14 ll it's another change that you are able to accomplish.
!i d
MR. HURLEY:
Yes.
15 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We found the other shell.
L 9
a 17 ']
MR. BARRY:-
I think the answer is that we had a a
18 :, good test.
It looks like we've got another good test --
19 MR. MURLEY:
As we move the test together, that i
l 20,
means that instead of getting like three tests a year, or I
21, two-and-a-half now, maybe we can get four if we're lucky, but d;
22 h that moves the need for replacement fuel up.
That's what T_
q 23 ;'l I am saying.
1 2:
I am not prepared to say that we don't need this e-Fewal Roorms. lN. ;
'79.
25 i S3.1 million.
I think we don't need it in t
il
3-14 jwb i
48 MR. LEVINE:
I think another way to look at it, 1
l' 2 ll dhere is some core down the line which we may not have to o
rder, which is not yet ordered.
That is future funding.
2 I
17
,l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will tell you another way i
I i
t k a. it, which some people in Congress may look at it 5
i l
like.
6' 7f You had originally planned to need this money.
l i
You don't need it.
Why should it not revert to the Treasury?
g, I
MR. LEVINE:
We have other high-priority needs for 9 ;is iU*
10 i
y y l*
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We have other high-priority
\\
needs for it, but that's a readdressing -- Here is the money g
that Congress agreed that we're going to spend it here.
We gr3 j3
==
are not going to spend it there --
)
il MR.. LEVINE:
That is why we are going back to them 15 ll 16 ;
f r repr gramming.
b COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Obviously.
But in going 37 back to them, we had best be very sure that we are now going la back with the best place for that money.
- 9 1
MR. LEVINE:
Sure.
20.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And I don't think necessarily-g i
-. l, that going back and putting it in places where they specifically jl took money out of is necessarily the best place.
gd 2, 3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Amen.
asemsnworws.nu.
And let me just add cnd more little memo to the list 3
s
'l
3-15 jwb I
49 that I expect to get.
It's on this one.
Because, gentlemen, j
i 1
I don't intend to go up there with what I have in front of I
2b r
f 3;
me, and what I know about this up to this point, to try to I
,l defend it.
I couldn't, for precisely the reason that i
l Mr. Ahearne is suggesting.
5l It is not that I don't think you need it; that's 6
1 7l not the point at all.
But there is no justification here in the face of the Congress already having precisely cut those 8,
1 items -- if they had cut some other items, or if they had 9
I i'
10 taken a big number out of research, but it isn't that.
It 1
11 is precisely these numbers which they cut which we are now 12 replacing.
We are putting our judgment in place of theirs, Til 13
=-
and in order to do that, commissioner Ahearne is exactly right:-
14 15 we better have an ironclad, gilt-edged justification.
It is l
16 !
not in this paper, i
17 ll So I would like to have that, please.
18 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I want to make clear that I have l
19 l no objection to approved justification, but the proposition l
20 l that the reprogramming here flies fairly and squarely in the I
i face of the Congressional mandate is just not so.
j 21 The Congressional judgment was on a body of informa,
22 ll i
c-i tion and a set of program plans that date back now more than a 23 24 year.
What we are saying is that:
what we know today with co Faderal Reporters, Inc.
regard to the 3-D program needs means that we need some more 25 I
I i
l
4-20 jwb 54 }
l 1
the only amount that we can find in a witch hunt, looking 2 [i through the various programs, if there be a requirement in I
I 1
3f addition to a million or above a million.
O 4
IIR. BARRY:
The problem is this:
You know, how 5
are you going to make a judgment right now as to whether waste--
6 what we're facing in waste is really that much more critical, l
I 7
even as critical, as these items?
How are you going to make l
8l that judgment two weeks from now, or a month from now, from li 9
a comparative standpoint?
10 It is very difficult.
We know basically what our 11 proposition is that faces us in waste.
And we know hat, to 12 solve some of the problems, we probably -- you know, to get j
I
]
13 ready for licensing, we probably need tc put more money on it.
14 [
But, you know, from a safety standpoint, whether you 15 can equate that waste versus these items which are primarily 16 safety items, it's difficult.
That's the situation we have l
17 !!
faced.
18 And, you know, we can hold some of this up for 19 two weeks, or four weeks, or so, and I am not confident that 20 l we would know any more in terms of how to measure priorities I
21 !
between waste and this four weeks from now than we do now, 22 -l unless we were facing some real critical issues in waste.
{
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We are facing a very critical
- t 24s issue in waste management, an extremely critical issue in 2.F.eerai neoorters, inc. ]
j 25 waste management.
If we don't solve the problem in the next-- '
l:
i li a
il i
4-21 jwb 55 i
l MR. BARRY:
-- several years.
I understand you, d
2 l-sir.
I understand your point.
i 8;
i 3h All I am trying to put out is that it is very
'i hh 4
difficult to make that kind of a judgment at this point in i
5 time.
Il la 6 l' MR. LEVINE:
There is no question that, you know, i
7 !
we have to put all the resources we can find in waste manage-I i8if ment.
Everyone knows that.
N 9 '!
One has a lot of points to consider, however.
The 10 ;l'3-D program, l
the international program -- if the program were il f
i our own, one could talk dbout slowing it down.
It's very 11 l
12 l difficult where there are other countries involved, where 21 13 experiments are building and waiting for instruments.
It's a
- MF 14,, very complicated problem that is not easily manageable.
I 15 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not saying that it isn't,-
l 16 Saul.
But it is not obvious to me that the alternatives :are:
l' i!
17 1 fund the 3-D, or extra money for NMSS waste management.
I l MR. LEVINE:
There may be other alternatives.
I 18,
ft I?
quite agree.
I got the impression you were homing in on 3-D, 20 !i and I just wanted to say that it's quite a difficult problem.
ll 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, no.
For example, what i
- l 22 ;;
I am really hcming in on is NMSS waste management in general,
'I 23 ll relative prioritics, balance across the agency, 9
24 d (Commissioner Bradford returned to the room at 10:50.)
ee.eer.: aroomn. inc. j 25 j MR. LEVINE:
One could ask for instance, d
V s
a
't l
4-22 jwb I
56 I
1 Appropriations told us to spend a half a million more in '79 I
2 on gas research than we had planned.
j l
3h And that puts us, in fact, in an increasing it t
I program from '78 to '79 which will then terminate in
'80.
4 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In '80.
5 l
6l MR. LEVINE:
Which may terminate in ' 80, but which- !
l 7
ever way it goes it is going to be a big problem which will l
have to be faced at that time, and one might question that 8,
i' 9
$500,000, for instance, which I think is very rational, much 10 more rationally than other things.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Onward.
1, l
IMs 13 MR. BARRY:
Well, other than research, our last j
j x-14 j two categories are --
lI 15 l' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
On the research,
I 16 'j I would like to ask, in this area of risk assessment, are we li 17 ll going to get a paper at some point on that program, on what 18 i the future of it is, follow on to safety study?
19 ;
As I remember, when we last discussed it, a paper i
20 j was mentioned.
21 l MR. LEVINE:
I gave a paper to Mr. Gossick sometime 22 I ago which talked about the recommendations of the Lewis p
- =.
1 23 i, Report and what we would like to do about that.
I b
24 -
I then gave him a later paper --
m Fensl Rmorun, ls,
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
638.
l i
Il.
l ll 4
4-23 jwb 57 MR. LEVINE:
-- of rough estimates of monies needed j
2l for that.
I don't know if it came down.
4 3l MR. GOSSICK:
There's a paper for the Commission.
4l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we have that in front of :
l us?
5 I
i 6l MR. GOSSICK:
Yes, I'm quite sure you do.
l I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It came through, I think, as an
~
7 8l information report in connection with the staff's paper.
i 9l MR. LEVINE:
It was a preliminary estimate.
I I
10 j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me this is an 11 area that we ought to sit down and address.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You're thinking of it on a broader sense than adjustments you might make because of the "Ti 13 i
14 recommendations of the Lewis Report?
I 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But we need to have reached i
16,
some conclusions in this regard before we go up and ask for ll 17j another $1.4 million in 1979 reprogramming for this purpose, 18 it seems to me, to know what we're trying to do.
19 l MR. LEVINE:
If I may say, this million dollars is l
20 i budgetarily disassociated from the paper that is now before 1
21 you.
This million dollars, or the $1.4 million is composed i
22 of two things.
l i
The $1 million part of it is associated with our 23 l 24 ;
foreseeing needs in NRR that since have been discussed at
..r.cer.i s eporters, ine. l 25 i some length between Denton and myself about things d2at we had l l'
4-24 jwb 581 I
i to do to help him.
In fact, the review of the generic items, 1
i for instance, which you have already done in review of the 2
1, 3 }I Standard Review Plan, review of technical specifications, 8
j Zr review of Rccc items, which we have all discussed, I think, j
4 i
down here in one meeting or another.
SI COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would you please summarize l
6 I
i all those in a paper and send that along, also, with the 7
8;l others?
i I
9' COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
Uhat's the 400?
You said l
10 '
they were separate?
11 MR. LEVINE:
I don't recall, offhand.
I have a 12 Paper here somewhere, if I can find it.
l
_ S_ i.
13 Well, I will put that in the memo.
I 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But is it fair, then, to e
15 say, Saul, that the $1.4 million increase should not be i
16 characterized as reflecting an increase associated with what l*
17 ll extra efforts are required because of the Lewis report?
MR. LEVINE:
Partly "yes" and partly "no."
We 18 l
I 19 j anticipated -- it so turned out that the discussions Harold 1
20 l and I had anticipated the kind of recommendations that Lewis i
i 21 '
actually made.
We didn't know what he was going to say, but 22 ) they do anticipate that.
So it is a start in that direction.
i 23l;
~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did you send something in I
24 ;l; for our approval?
Was this an information paper?
.ce Feceral Reoorters, Inc.,
, It was an information paper l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
25,
O l
I i
- -25 jwo 59 relating to potential research needs as associated with the 3 li
.2j results of the Lewis Report.
l 8
i 3 ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me we ought to ll q~
l address it, and not just be " informed."
l 5l MR. LEVINE:
Yes.
w"11' this money and that money are separate.
This 6
i 7l m ney in this reprogramming action, we can describe it in l
I m re detail for you.
Harold has described it, I think, 8,
already to you.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But now you say that there 10 11 is some overlap.
Do you intend to come in with an additional specific request for additional funds?
12 MR. LEVINE:
Nes, to implement the Lewis recommen-9.h 13
=--
dations, per se; yes.
p COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In '79?
15 MR. LEVINE:
In '79, and '80, and we're still 16 17 l lo king for ways to handle that.
O COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have a rough time-gg schedule on which you had hoped to be able to come up with 19 i I
that?
20 i gll MR. LEVINE:
I think we can do it in a month, or l
something like that.
22 l' 23 h
=
C MMISSI NER AHEARNE:
Because you see, Len, we 24 '.l are faced with -- there 's another case of a very specific sJaceral Reporters, Inc. '
25 - high visibility issue.
i l
i
n-Lo 3wo 60 liR. LEVINE:
Any recommendation we would make, cur j
i d
thinking now would be within the RES funds.
2b i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me, having 3
i 55i; gotten these recommendations, we ought to look beyond general 4
tuning up of the risk assessment program; but this is a good 5!
ceasion to have a paper that addresses the future of that j
6 l
entire program.
That's what I would like to see -- which i
7 I
lays out various directions it might take for the Commission o,
l to consider.
9 I
MR. LE*/INE:
We did that in connection with the 10 11
'79 budget review, the '80 budget review, and we'll do it in
'81.
We can do this five times a jear, if you wish, but it 12 d.Z_2_
13 sure uses up manpower.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wait a minute, Saul.
You l
ja just said -- and I'm trying to figure out how this works --
15 l
16 l we're looking here at reprogramming within RES of a total of ---
j7 ll l
MR. BARRY:
It's about $3 million.
18 ]
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
It j9 f MR. BARRY:
From A, B,
C, and D.
$4 million.
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
$4 million, that 's right.
20 !
I 21 lI And then you said:
Whatever we may conclude we may need i
l as a result of the Lewis Report, we plan to do within RES 3., g.
"E:
II funds, and that would be more reprogramming.
-~
23 Now on top of this $4 million, I guess I am getting ;
i 24
- e.Feders! Reoorters, loc. ]
25j' concerned about how much more reprogramming we can really go l
I i
i i
4-2/ JwD 61 I
l l
t I
1 through -- this being already past the end of the first quarteri E
l 2[ of the year.
It's beginning to look, now -- I'm not suggestingi i;
'i 2] now this is true; I'm just saying what it looks like -- it l
4 j..
looks like we are banking money back here against projects l
r-I 5
and then just shuffling them around and deciding as we go 1
64 along, deciding what we want to do.
i i
7 All I am saying is that that's the way it looks.
l 8j MR. LEVINE:
It's going to defer other work is 9j what it's going to do.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, right now, my i!
11 !
impression is that we are reprogramming here into what research' 12 thinks are the highest priority needs.
And then you' re going l
13 1 to say, after we look at the Lewis matter, we will have even i
4_24._
I i
i 14 '
further higher priority.
I 15.,
MR. LEVINE:
Again, how much we decide we're going il d
to do in '79 and ' 80 depends on what we think we have 16 i
I 17 '!
reprogrammed.
d 18 !!
Let's say we would like to spend a million dollars.
d 19 ' Ue may decide we can only properly reprogram a half a million.
20 So we will start more slowly.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On the Lewis recommendation.
]
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As Commissioner Gilinsky 22 i!
23 suggests, I think the sooner we can address those questions a
2d,
the better off we're going to be.
..ocusi nnmnm. ire j 25 :'
MR. BARRY:
Saul, in your risk assessment I 1
1 i
d
oz 4-28 jwb l
l l
j [
understand there 's a certain amount that actually will. be in i
ll 2
cupport of waste management.
., i s MR. LEVINE:
There is some.
~ '.
a al MR. BARRY:
Is that a significant amount?
f i
5l MR. LEVINE:
Yes.
It's roughly somewhere between t
6l a half a million and a million dollars.
We are developing a model to predict the behavior 7
I a'
f waste-embedded salt, and what happens to it over long times, l'
9l and where it goes.
a COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is this the Livermore 10 i
11 [ project?
MR. LEVINE:
This is Sandia.
And we will be 12 I
modifying that model to look at other media, also, in the
- .57--
13 y,=
future.
73 I!
We are already getting insights about what physical -
15 l
research we will need to make measurements to confirm the 16,
Il validity of that model.
37 MR. BARRY:
That's one of those activities where jg ;}
il 19 j.
it's called " risk assessment" for budget purposes, but the l
end product is for waste management.
20 I l
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is the sort of thing 21 it would be helpful if it were pr. in this memorandum that I 22 g
II 23 d have asked for.
i' 11R. BUDNIT":
I think it is important to point out 24 a.secue seconns, nec.,,
that the overview I have in front of me shows that the total i
25 :l a
!I il
63 4-29 jwb I
i l
net reprogramming within our own shop is on the order of a 3,
{
million dollars, something like $160,000.
I agree, it is 2
I 2
imp rtant that we not fly in the face of a congressional ii J
line cut without having some very, very important ironclad, j
4 i
as you said, gilt-edged justification.
You are absolutely 5l i
i 6;
right.
j l
7l COMMISSIONER.AHEARNE:
But that " net" is impossible i
with so many plus and minuses.
8 MR. BUDNITZ:
Sure it is.
But one of the issues 9
is that we' re so much bigger, in terms of dollars, than most 10,
i 11 l of the other programs that what looks small t, us looks big 1
12 for ti.e agency, and that's of course why it's an agencywide issue.
13 1
14 l On the other hand, because these -- we know -- on j
i i
15 l the other hand, because this budget was put together, you I
16 know. long before I got here -- in fact, Commissioner Ahearne, i
17 long before you got here --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's right.
I am 18 l
19 jl continuously reminded of that.
I 20 i (Laughter.)
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's all right.
Even 21 I
i I
those of us who were here are reminded of it.
i 22 i MR. BUDNITZ:
Yes, that's right.
23 But the fact is that in a budget that's as big as 24 2 rens anwnm. ire. ;
i 25 S160 million, readjustments on the order of a percent or two i
I l
i I
I l
4-30 jwb 64 l
1 !lior three percent, that we have to do within our own shop, 2'
are kind of within the normal problems that one encounters i;
9 2
doing business in research programs that have uncertainties 1
T _~
as to when the results come through.
Things work out a little 4
i 5
better sometimes; sometimes things are delayed.
l 6 i Now I really want to make two points here.
l l
The first is:
That the way the research program j
7l g l' typically takes care of what other people would call "over-9 runs," you know, you need a little extra money in a particular i
10 i area, is you delay a piece of work a month out of 12 and you I
i 11 i say, 1/12th, thereby allowing something else to go on.
That i
12 is the most important piece of flexibility that we have as i
==
13 managers.
l I
And of course you have to do it in a way that's 14 :I l'
l.5 ;
prudent, and it doesn't affect the most important goals.
That's 16 '
a point 5 hich I want to make, which is where our flexibility i
17 ll is when push comes to shove.
13 !
Fna uia second point is that I really think we li 19 y only have two areas where we are likely still to come back l
20 i to you, Commissioners, with some rethoughts.
They are:
i vaste management, and the Lewis implications for the whole 21 i
l 22 h budget, the risk area.
~
Now in each of those, we are not yet ready -- in 23 P
24 the waste area, it's because Bill Dircks' NMSS people, with
- ..;.c.,.i n corm i.inc.
2S l our support, are working through a rethinking; and the IRG, h
i I
i
4-31 jwb 65 1
you know the story.
2 :l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand.
I:
I vg I
2a dR. BUDNITZ:
And the Lewis thing, although we have J
.I
+=
4 some preliminary plans, and some of them are contained in l
Si this $1.4 million, we still haven't thoroughly goce through I
6 the whole darned thing.
l t
7 It's going to be -- it's only January.
That's not i
8l an apology; it's just a statement.
h 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand.
I I
10,
MR. BUDNITZ:
I don't think there is much more we 11 will come back with, although you never know.
12 Is there anything else that's important, Saul?
_T2.
13 MR. LEVINE:
That's all we know about.
14 h IIR. BUDNITZ:
Those are the two remaining items.
f 1R. BARRY:
Anything more on research, at this j
15 l 16 I point?
I!
17 4 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
I was going to comment, Saul, if I
la'l with regard to some thinking about the risk assessment areas a
n il 19 1 and where it goes down the line.
l 20 i I think one of the things Commissioner Gilinsky 21 l has got in mind is less a sort of detail in the budgetary I,
22 ;l plan sense, but rather some m,ht about when we might come i
l1 23 ll to a place where we wanted to start to remake the WASH-1400 a
h 24 'i calculation, or an iquivalent, and how we get from here to l
e Fewal Roornes. fm.
25 there, and how -- some thoughts ab'out how and when that might l
't E
i,l ll 3
9
..s...
68 l
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Have you talked at all l i 2 j; about why the $1.4 million became available in the fuel-l il end #4 2 :' behavior activity area?
55 l
,t i
5 i
S 6
7 i
8l:
l l
i 10 11 12 i
_;2'-
13 i
14 15 ll l
i i
16 1
17 ll 18 19 1
20 l I
i 21 22 l
-5:.
=
i 24 h
.i Feceral Reporters, Inc.,
25 l 1
i I
I
69 jl 1
MR. LEVINE:
Yes, it's in the document.
2 COW.ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
3 MR. LEVI.iE:
But we haven't talked here today.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
Why don't you c.;
talk here today about it.
6 MR. MURLEY:
This, again, is a deferral of a piece 7
of work we had planned -- I guess, out of WASH-1400, in the 8
models they used for release of fission products f rom a fuel 9
and the suosequent transfer out into the containment building.
10 They used a very conservative model.
Il We had planned to do some research to try ot 12 quantify that a little better.
How does fission products get 13 out of the fuel?
How is it transported throughout the primary 14 system, and.then through containment?
- th 15 In order to do that, we were going to have to build 16 a
loop that we had estimated to be about si m illion, si-1/2 17 mi.llion; so we are just deferring that for a year.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So tnat that one is one 19 that you will have to wh3t -- reprogran back in '80?
20 MR. MURLEY:
We'll have to pick it up in '80 if the 21 need is still there, yes.
And I guess the need is still 22 there.
23 MR. LEVI;iEs I.think there's a long-term need for 24 this.
It's not a high priority need, but there is a long-term 25 need for it.
46.05.2 70 jl 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, to what 2
extent has the report of the ACRS on the safety program played 3
a role in our thinking here?
4 MR..MURLEY:
Last year -- the first year they made 5
a report in fiscal '77 -- in f act, we sent a note up to the 6
ComtrLssion on what ACRS had recommended and what we intended 7
to do about that.
We are working on that again for the '78 S
report.
9 In general, I think we are pretty responsive to 10 e verything they have asked us to do.
I would say, at least 11 in the reactor research area, they supported probably 90 12 percent of our program.
They asked to do maybe 10 percent 13 that we weren't doing; and of that 10 percent, we probably 14 picked up and started to do half of it, so there's only one or, 055 15 two items, primarily in the advanced reactor work, where we 16 are not doing what they asked.
17 MR. LEVINE:
They asked for a lot more work on fast 13 reactor research than we. think we can accommodate In the 19 current position of national programs in this area, so we are 20 not fulfilling that expre ss statement, expressed last year and 21 again this year.
22 MR. MURLEY:
I don't tnink there are any major 23 disconnects between what they want us to do and what we are 24 doing, or vice verse; and we -- I must add that we listen very 25 closely to what they say in this area.
.46.05.4 72 J1 1
you, Chart 2, we give you a comparison of the recuirment that 2
the authorization legislation put on us and the related 3
legislative history report, and how we are responding.
And 4
the bottom line is that we are either equalling or exceeding 5
their recuest, with the thr.ee exceptions.
6 The first is the 350,000 advance reactors, which is 7
really gas, and we are going to put 130 in there instead of S
356.
9 The second one is improved safety, in which they 10 suggested we put 1.5 m illion into it this year.
Through 11 re progra mming, we are putting in 800,000 in the paper you 12 aoproved --
part in the paper you approved the other 13 day 4 00,000 of it, and 400,000 of it in this reprogramming 14 paper.
2=
15 And then they suggested that in advar e reactors in
=
16 research, we put 3 mi111on into gas, and we will end up with 17 less than that, as you can see.
18 CO MMISIO.IER AHEARNE :
Also, you are lumping the 19 million of the alternate fuel cycles, so they essentially 20 reauested 4 and we'll put 1.3 million.
21 MR. BARRY:
Right. Put in 1.3 million.
22 So, I think the Chairman will be in a position when 23 he goes before the Authorization Committees, between this 24 ac tion -- we.11, I guess this action, between the two papers 25 to say that we have done a reasonsbly good job.
73 546.05.5 jl I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If I were to look at this table. I would conclude that the Authorization Committee only 3
directed increases.
4 MR. BARRY:
That's correct.
cc; 4-9 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That it did not direct any 6
decreases?
7 MR. BARRY:
They did not direct any decreases.
8 The bottom one here is equal --
9 COMv.ISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that the corresponding 10 table is the Appropriation Director decreases?
.11 MR. BARRY:
That's right.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have a third table, 13 the missing slide?
Is that the Appropriation Director's 14 decreases and our reprogramming?
ds) 15 MR. BA RRY:
Yes.
I almost put that one.together, 16 but I decided that was all in here, and that was enough.
MR. GOSSICK:
(Inaudible.)
17 18 MR. B ARRY :
As Lee points out, against the 19 acpropriation table, we also have reprogramming in there, but 20 we. don't really have a thlrd sheet that summarizes total 21 reprogrammings that's right.
22 On the second sheet, the last item there -- equal 23 employment opportunity -- they did request that we reprogram 24 one person into EE0 you know, from 3 to 4, and provided us 25 an authorization of $285,000 to do that.
That's a big salary
,m
46.05.6 74 J1 1
for that one persen.
We, in fact, have four people in EEO.
2 In fact, I think we have 5, but we are requesting the fourth 3
full-time in our
'80 budget.
4 As you know, you gentlemen now are considering an
- 3 5
EE0 study.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Do we have a paper or 7
something on that?
~
8 MR. BA RRY :
Yes, it's in OPE /0GC/EE0 paper that you 9
are looking at t and, of course, once that paper -- you have 10 made your decision on it, r.id on the assumption that we wil
.11 approve it, we will fund that.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How much is involved?
13 MR. B A RRY :
Well, there are three phases.
They 14 range from -- the first phase ranges from 320 to 365.
n.;
"5f 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
For the study?
16 MR. BARRY:
Yes.
17 The second phase is much lass.
The second phase, I IS think, is about 50,0D0 per phase, maybe 75.
And that's about 19 what the thing measures at the moment.
20 I might conclude in saying, from what I have heard 21 this morning, if the Commission decides that there are some 22 items.that you would like to ponder on for some time.
23 depending on the time involved, I would appreciate if we could 24 get whatever the percent is -- 83 percent or something --
25 agreed upon, if that is where we have to come to.
And we can 9
a
46.05.7 75 J1 1
adjust -- it's not that dif ficult to adjust our sheets and so 2
on -- in order to get that much up for accroval, because, as 3
you can see, it's a rather extensive reprograrning.
4 I do advise you that we should get as much of this 5
money out and working in order to have fiscal year integrity 6
in this agency, which we have been able to mcintain so f ar.
7 and continue it.
8 I would also say that, of course, once this paper 9
goes up and, as any paper that we send up, we don't just send 10 it and wait.
We go up and talk to the people and kind of help
.I l you know, answe.r their questions in person and provide any 12 of the staff that they wish to talk to, at their convenience.
13 to f urther explain our objective.
14 So, with that, Lee --
b 15 MR. GOSSICK:
I don't.think I have anything else to 16 a dd.
Undoubtedly, later on in the year, we will be having 17 more of these, but it is important that we sort of get the IS baseline nailed down here, our tracking system that we are 19 ins ta lling.
Our pilot r'n for '79, and we hope to have fully 20 in effect in '80, has to have es a baseline, of course, the 21 dollars that are associated with those various programs that 22 are being tracked.
23 So, at any rate, if there's anything we con do to 24 help expedite it. I would certainly do so.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will ask the Commissioners if
.