ML19289C440
| ML19289C440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/03/1979 |
| From: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7901120197 | |
| Download: ML19289C440 (45) | |
Text
i BRIGINitL
~
N'U CLE A R R EGi]L ATO R Y CO MMI SSI O N* -
(
r IM THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON FY '79 OPERATING PIANS DECISION UNIT TRACKING t
Placs - Washington, D. C.
Octe - Wednesday, 3 January 1979
. pag., 1_44 Teseenene:
(20*.) 047 *7*::
- MRTE3S,INC.
OfJ-ial.L,. ~
's su Nce n C-=nci swr West:ingen. '.'.C. *EC T 790112,0197 sAnenwies c=vtuct. CARY
1 i
i DISCLAIMER This is. an unofficial transcript of a =eeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory C mmission held on 3 January 1979 in the Cecmission's offices at 1717 H Street, ii. W., '.iasnington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observaticn.
Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
. 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 infor.nal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
io pleading or other pacer may be filed with the Cernnission in any pr ceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg*.: ment contained herein, except as the Ccamission may authorize.
w-D
2 i
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CR2000 MELTZER/mm 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
5 PUBLIC MEETING 6
l i
BtIEFING ON FY '79 OPERATING PLANS 7
DECISION UNIT TR?iKING 8!
1 9
Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
10 '
Washington, D.C.
II Wednesday, 3 January 1979 I2 The meeting in the above-entitled matter was 13 convened pursuant to notice, at 11:50 a.m.,
Joseph M.
- Hendrie, l
14 Chairman, presiding.
15,
PRESENT:
i l
16 '
JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, CHAIRMAN 17 l VICTOR GILINSKY, COMMISSIONER 18 PETER BRADFORD, COMMISSIONER 19 JOHN AHEARNE, COMMISSIONER i
20 Messrs.
Chilk, Gossick, Barry, Heller, Levine, l
21 Davis, Dircks, Minogue, Smith, Bunch, Pedersen and Murley.
l 22 I
'n 23 24 l As mal Reporters. Inc.
25
l 3
~
I N
QREqEEEEEql 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we come to order 2
i 3 !
and get on with this leg of the meeting.
Commissioner Bradford will join us shortly.
3 I don't believe Commissioner Kennedy will be able 5
t j in us.
6 We pick up and continue the briefing on fiscal year 7
perating plans, the decision unit tracking system and i
8 so on.
This is part of the review of the budget and how we 9
are doing under it, that we are now trying to conduct at fout-10 1
I jj i month intervals.
Lee, why don't you and Norm remind us where we have 12 gotten to, and then pick up and go from there.
13 And, I don't know -- what do your time schedules 14 look like?
Can you stand 12:30?
i 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:(Nodding affirmatively) 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: (Nodding affirmatively) j7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What we will do is target for 18 12:30.
19 I
MR. GOSSICK: We had just gotten to page 8 in the 20 briefing handout, Mr. C Mirman, which was the beginning of 21 i
a dbcussion for the plans of the individual program offices.
l 22 t
I will ask Norm to go ahead.
23 s
MR. HELLER: All right.
24 i
Mr. Chairman, before we get into the details, if 25 i
i 4
mm 11 you remember the briefing structure was from summary material i
2j and then we started on each of the individual offices, and i
3 that was the point at which we ran out of time.
4 In order to conserve time today I thought it would l
5l be helpful to concentrate on the issues page for each of the 1
6!
offices, which is for I&E, the third page in on the briefina j
i 7
handout.
i 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 10 on mine?
l 9i MR. HELLER:
Yes, sir.
10 The Comptroller, of course, is working with the i
11 officas to try to firm up the operating plans which will be 12 prepared individually by each of the offices, and also to i
13 firm up the financial plans for each of the offices.
l i
14 So the issues that we will be talking about today l
15 may or may not be resolved by that time, and there might be f
16 possibly be other issues that would arise during the time 17 that these operating plans are being firmed up.
18 At any rate, I think it would be appropriate to go 19 ahead and start by a discussion of the I&E issues which are i
20,
on page 10, and then we can go straight through on the other l
21 offices from that time.
22 First, the major issue, cf course, is the resident l
23 inspection program schedule for I&E.
The original '79 s
24 l projection was to man 49 sites.
It is not firm at this time A.
wei neoorms, inc.
25 '
whether the goal of 49 sites will or will not be met.
5 mm 1
The numbers cu.rently on site are shown here, and 2
the number of designated inspectors going on site are also i
3i shown.
I 4
I thinK the key point is that Mr. Davis and his 5
staff are working on a paper which will be due to the 6
Commission within about a month and a half that will lay out 7
the current schedule for the program as well as provide a l
8 discussion of some of the program difficulties that they have 9
been encountering.
10 !
Some of these items are mentioned on this handout:
11 Qualifications criteria is one of the things that is f
12 of concern to I&E.
l 13 Of course, the personal impacts of the moves; the 14 resident inspectors changing locations and changing their homes, 15 this type of thing is also of concern.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Norm, do I interpret from 17 that that the major difficulties in the program then are not 18 related to budgetary pressures, strength pressures, but it is 19 with reference to the issues that would be there independent j
I i
20 of the budget?
i i
i 21 MR. HELLER: That is my understanding. And Mr. Davis 22 could amplify that if he would like to.
23 MR. DAVIS: That is correct, Commissioner.
I
~
24 Actually, our problems are not with the budget, our A.
3 erst Reporters, Inc.
25 problems are with implementation of the program.
j i
l
6
- )
MR. HELLER: They am continuing to pursue full implementation, I believe, by the end of FY '81 for the full 2j complement of sites, is the target that Mr. Davis is shooting 3
i for.
4
/
If there are no questions on that one, we could 5
m ve n to the next one which is NMSS.
6 i
Again, for the sake of movi rg quickly through this, 7
I w uld suggest we turn to the last page, which -- it is 8;
I page 13, I'm sorry, of the series of 3 on NMSS. The issues are 9,
identified on page 13.
10 l
11 '
There are three issues identified there which the office is currently dealing with:
12 First is the program support dollar constraints I
13 for Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Divisions.
The problem j3 there is the combined total is lim ited to about $9.7 million, 15 but there is a mandated floor of about 6 million which they 16 have to spend on waste management.
j7 Any changes from these types of numbers require 18 congressional approval.
j9 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Under program support, that 20 1
wraps up what types of things?
21 MR. HELLER:
This is contracts and this type of 22 l
23 il things, studies.
4
\\\\
\\
24 [
MR. BARRY:
Contract-type money, is what it is.
As detal Reporters, Inc.
MR. GOSSICK: Tech assistance on research.
25,
i
7 mm COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This is exclusive of moneys 1
2; on research?
2 MR. HELLER: Yes, it is.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now how does all of that 4
5 get coordinated?
i 6
MR. HELLER:
Well, Mr. Dircks is working right now l
l with the Office of Research and also with the Office of 7
Standards trying to develop an agencywide plan for waste 8
management.
And hopefully in the development of that plan 9
10 all of the resources of the agency will be brought to bear on l
11 {
this problem of waste management and will be put together in i
I 12 !
a coordinated fashion.
13 That plan is not yet done.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But this restricticn of $6 l
15 !
million out of the 9.7, does that eliminate the possibility of 16.
some of the -- some other work that had originally hoped to be l
17 done within the division being done, say, in Research?
18 MR. HELLER: No.
I don't believe so.
19 MR. BARRY:
This restriction, really is -- I don't 20 l think it is a restriction, per se -- is that they wanted to l
l 21 spend more money in waste management than we actually have 22 available is what it really is.
It is not a restriction.
23 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why do you say "than we have
.~
t i
24 l available"?
f wei neoonus. w. l l
A.
25 MR. BARRY:
In other words, what we requested in t
I
8 mm our budget for Waste Management, the authorization committees
)
recognize that we put more money in waste management than we 2
actually have in our budget.
3, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How much money in these 4
categories is there in Research?
5 i
MR. BARRY:
In Waste Management?
6 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No.
What are the comparable l 7
numbers to 9.7 and 5.9?
8 MR. HELLER:
I can't answer you on the 9.7, but 9l n the 5.9 I believe the Waste Manacement number for research 10 l is about 4 million.
11 I can check that.
12 MR. LEvIuE:
4.2 mi111on.
MR. HELLER:
4.2, okay?
ja COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: For the fuel cycle -- (Inaudible.
15 MR. LEVINE:
No, for Waste Management, 16 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
What about for fuel j7
- YCI'*?
18 MR. LEVINE:
I don't have that.
39 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Len, what have we asked for?
20 MR. BARRY:
In total?
21 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: For the fuel cycle?
f 22 MR. BARRY:
I don't know what the total is.
23 i
24 l COMMISSIONER AREARNE: I am just trying to get an detal Reporters, Inc. 'I As I
estimate on how big a problem is that?
~
25 i
9 mm 1
MR.BARRY:
Actually the problem in the Waste 2i Management is not one of meeting -- I don't believe -- is i
3 meeting the authorization requirement.
4 (Inaudible.) -- own requirement, and that is to 5
put more into Waste Management than we have available funds.
6 We are helping the situation, if you remember, l
7 by the unobligated balance paper which -- (Inaudible.)
Si by putting an additional 650,000 on Waste Management.
That 9
will see us through '79 with some limitations in the Livermore 10 '
contract, which we will have to defer some things into
'80.
Il COMMISSIONER AHEARBE: But then you don't see any i
12 ;
problem with that first -- the program support area?
13 MR. BARRY:
I don't.
14 MR. HELLER:
I might add here that the third bullet 15 also relates to this, of course, and to some extent the 16 seccnd bullet.
17 l But, let me go to the third bullet on that chart.
18 In addition to the 650,000 and the 5.9 million i
19 that have already been mentioned, NMSS feels they need at 20 least another million for the current High-Level Waste 1
21 Program.
22 COMMIS3IONER AHEARNE: That is in addition to the 23 '
5.9?
~
l 24 MR. HELLER: That is in addition to the 5.9 and in As serat Reporters, Inc.
~
25 l l
I I
l' I
10 1
addition to the
.65.
2l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought the.65 was a 3l mechanism to get to the 5.9.
I 4
MR. HELLER: No.
5 MR. BARRY:
No, it is over and above.
It is to get :
I l
6 you between the 5.9 and the 9.
Well, not the 9.7, but it is 7
to get you above 5.9, because we actually required it this 8
- year, 9'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
More than 5.9?
l 10 '
MR. BARRY:
Yes, sir.
I I
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't understand that.
12 What is the issue on the last bullet?
13 MR. HELLER: The issue is that they have more work 1
14 to do than they currently have money to do it with, and they 15 are saying that they need more money.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mean 6.9 as opposed 17 to 5.9?
18 MR. HELLER: They need more than 6.9.
They need 19 6.9 plus
.65.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Right now they have got 6.45 --
21 6.55.
And they need 7.55?
22 MR. HELLER: That's correct.
23 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what about the 4.2 1
24 million in Research?
l A.
$ m i ne m n m.ine.
25 '
MR. HELLER: That's in addition.
~
l t
l
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Has the relative priorities f
mm f those two been looked at?
Is it possible that some of 2
that million --
3.
l MR. HELLER:
I think Mr. Dircks is looking at that 4
n w in conjunction with he Waste Management Program Plan that 5
he is trying to develop with the other offices, but I cannot 6,
I say that that has been solved at this point.
7 N :
xcuse me.
i 8
I l
The question you asked before -- S4 million.
9 i
10 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I must say I find this discussion a little fuzzy here.
11 I
What is the question before us?
Issues or questions?
12 What is it we are supposed to decide?
13 MR. HELLER: Well, it is not clear that you will jg have to make a decision on this at this point.
15 What we are doing is alerting you to issues that 16 i
have arisen in the process of developing these operating plans.
- 7 This issue has not been resolved or decided. It 18 may get resolved and decided in the next month because these 39 perating plans are supposedly back to you by the 24th of 20 January.
21 I
t COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And your question is, how j
22 l
to provide NMSS with enough money for --
l 23 l
24 i MR. HELLER: For Waste Management, that's correct.
l l
A ceral Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And where is it going to 25 l
l
12 i
mm I
come from.
i 2l MR. HELLER: Yes, sir.
3, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They want another million bucks, l
4 and the question is, how are we going to manage that.
5' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well at some stage dso, part 6
of the question is do they need that million dollars.
7 MR. HELLER:
That is clearly a question.
8f MR. LEVINE: The issue is actually larger.
In 9
total Waste Management it is larger than just that million 10 !
dollars.
I Il The group that Norm mentioned,the three-office 12 group that is working or this, is trying to generate a 13 coherent Waste Management Program Plan for the agency.
And 14 there are preliminary inputs coming to Bill from RES asking 15 for more money and so forth.
16 So -- (Inaudible.)
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we going to see that 18 at some point?
l9 MR. LEVINE:
Yes, of course.
20 MR. HELLER: When the plans will be prepared on the j
l 21 1 24th of January, I believe this issue would either be resolved j 22 and you would see it in its resolved form, or you would see i
the issues that still remain to be resolved.
l 23 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess we definitely would
- sc.ineoornri,ine.;
4.
25 '
have to see it in time, if necessary, to incorporate some I
I i
l l
i I
I 13 mm I
sort of comments when we go to Congress -- (Inaudible.)
i 2l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, what this suggests is that i
3 I j
there is what, 3.8 in Program
-- 3. 8 million in Program-4 Support in the fuel cycle area which is not specifically 5
labelled Waste Management Program Support.
6 i
Do we have that?
MR. HELLER:
You are referring to the difference 8
between these two numbers?
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
10 '
MR. HELLER:
Right.
And the problem, as I saw it at least and I tried to identify here was that as you spend more and more on l
12 13 l Waste Management what you are doing is cutting into that 3.8 14 I
that you just talked about.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is 3.8 what they need in the 16 rest of the fuel cycle?
17 MR. HELLER:
Bill, can you --
18 MR. DIRCKS: We seem to have that 3.8.
I think what I
19 we are doing is being crowded on the 3.8.
I 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I understand, but if you keep I
l 21 the 3.8 in the rest of the fuel cycle, that seems to be what P;
you need and you have got it?
MR. DIRCKS: Yes.
24 Right.
I will let you know within the next couple 4,
3mi n on,,,, %,
~
25 f of weeks if we can squeeze through on that.
i
14 mm CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You notice it is --
j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Change in point of view.
2 (Laughter.)
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You notice how funny, you take 4
a Budget Review Committee member and send him out there to 5
l the Wilste Building and the first thing you know, you have 6
got this guy saying, well, we need more money.
7 9
8
( Ommissioner Bradford arrived at 12:05 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Must be something in the water 10 !
out that way.
11 I
MR. DIRCKS: That must have been my bad day when 12 i
the NMSS budget cane through.
13 (Laughter.)
ja CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Under the weather, just feeling 15 l
16 E
- 1Y*
Okay.
What about the ten positions?
j7 at is ano der issue, sk.
Mere seems 18 I
to be some controversy about whether, in fact, the ten j9 p sitions are to be absorbed within NMSS or whether they are I
20 i
to be added to,NMSS from other parts of the agency.
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Okay.
22
- Y Y*** *** *
?*' "*
23 l 24 l added to the agency total or absorbed. You didn't mean that?
l As Jeral Reporters, Inc.
MR. HELLER: My impression is it is added from within j 25 I
15 l
1 the agency to NMSS.
2j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think it sitould by now be i
3i quite clear whether -- what our strength is going to be.
4 MR. GOSSICK:
We don't get any additional --
5 MR. HELLER:
No, I think it is from within the l
6 agency.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is certainly not added to the l
l 8
agracy total.
The question is, do we eat it on a -- do we 9l provide ten positions to the Waste Program out of the agency I
10 '
total, or is NMSS invited to provide ten, how they would.
I 11 MR. GOSSICK:
And I think it should be pointed out l
12 that, this, you know, ten positions was added before we 13 discussed the Waste Management Division.
We now have the 14 Waste Management Division and some reshuffling of people.
It i
15 may be that we can very easily point to the fact that we have 16 satisfied this.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did the Atthorization Act 18 end up specifying a total for the Waste Management Area?
l 19 Say ten more?
20 MR. HELLER: My understanding is that this direction 21 cLae from the Senate Committee Report which was referred to 22 in the Authorization Act, so it is by a reference as opposed I
l 23 !
to an actual line item.
1 i
24 MR. BARRY:
The Conference Report doesn't specify A.
mal Rmorwrs, tm:.
~
25 l people.
The Senate Authorizations Report that fed into the I
l l
l 1
l i
a
16 1l, Conference Report did specify --
il 2 ll CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But the Conference Report is the 3 I law -- I mean the Conference Bill is the law of the land.
I 4l And the Conference Report governs it.
l 5
MR. BARRY:
Yes.
And the Senate Report did have 6'
so many for Waste, so many for this, so many for that, totals.
7!
And we had a total for NRC I think of about 30 or l
8\\
40 addit;.ional spaces which were like dollars, you know, i
9
" funny money" authorizations, but --
i 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I would regard that kind 11 l of slot assignment by a single authorizing committee as in 12 the nature of their putting money in, s
13 When the Congress gets through the appropriations 14 l process and you don't get the money, you don't have to do 15,
the program.
And so here, I don't --
16 MR. BARRY:
If the authorization is there, you will 17 l find the resources.
t 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- I don't regard the Authorization 10 Committee's people apportionment as binding in view of the 20 limitations on the overall number of slots the agency got.
i 21 l Nevertheless, we did believe it appropriate to 22 crank ten slots in there.
And my impression is that those l
23 !
slots were headed for the High-and Low-Waste Branches.
And 4
24 !
although there is some reorganization going on, whv I cot a A-cvat Amornes, lm.
~
25 ;
notion that those particular areas are still -- the Chiefs are i
1 l
17 I
=m still going to tell you they need ten more manyears per year j
i in each of those -- in those areas.
2 3l Y u may have twenty more people from over here, but they come with responsibilities of their own and I'm not sure 3
that that is going to be replacement.
5 I
- Well, kay, onward.
6 MR. HELLER:
Let me move on to Standards, which is 7
the third office in the series, starting on page 14.
I would 8
l suggest that we move directly to page 16 on that series, and 9
discuss the issues in the Standards.
10 I
11 l Standards is primarily concerned abot, an acute l
shortage of technical staff, primarily in the a reas of reactor 12 engineering.
13 I understand that these numbers are in the order 34 i
f a dozen people shortage in '78, which would transfer to 15 about a dozen and a half shortage in fiscal 'i 9.
16 Now the reasons for these shortages are outlimd j7 n the briefing charts.
I might say in parti;:ular, the 18 second one, there is about a dozen people or so doing NRR j9 I
w rk.
20 The hiring freeze is of some concern.
21 i
They are worried about the availability of 22 i
technical specialists in areas like epidemiology, seismology, l
~
23 I l
geology, this type of thing.
24 A.
Jeral Reporters, Inc. l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Can we go down those in order. j 25 I
18 mm 1
Abnormal number of transfers to other offices, I'm 2
not sure I understand what that means.
3 Does that mean that people forcibly transferred out; people --
4 5
MR. GOSSICK:
Hired away.
6 MR. HELLER:
Hired away, I believe.
i 7
MR. GOSSICK: Selected for other jobs.
l 4
8:
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Recruited out.
9; See, one of the misfortunes of building an 10 '
extremely well qualified staff is that the first time you 11 look around, why you discover they are out interviewing for i
12 promotions in other groups. And I think that is where you have 13 lost them, isn't it?
i 14 MR.
MINOGUR:
About half of the people. Ray has 15 the figures.
i 16 MR. SMITH:
Since last April we have lost something '
17 like 17 professional people; 14 of which came out of that, 18 the three reactor engineering branches; 12 of those were l
19 transfers to other offices, but in NRC.
And 6 of the 12 were 20 promotions.
The other 6 left.
l 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But the freeze didn't go 22 on until something like October 30th.
23 MR. SMITH:
That's right. But now we can't l
i 24 replace those people because --
,w serei nepomn. ime.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, but you said since l
19 mm 1
April.
2 I
MR. SMITH:
It started then, but it was going i
3 !
on all this time.
1 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Some of them were being 5,
replaced during that time.
l 6,'
MR. SMITH: We were replacing some, but we are having l 7
a difficult time finding good, qualified applicants that are 8;
willing to come to work for us.
l 0
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
I'm just trying to I
i 10 separate out all these issues.
11 As far as the freeze is concerned, that only took i
l 12 anybody who, you know, for whom an offer had been made La the 13 end of October.
Was not affected by the freeze.
14 l So what we are really talking about -- currently 15 there is a two-month probl em as far as the freeze is concerned.
16 MR. SMITH:
That's right.
I'7 The freeze just makes it worse because you can't 18 then staff back up.
19 MR. MINOGUE:
I would like to add to that, also, i
20 If you are recruiting is dif ficult -- and our recruiting is i
21 difficult -- orderly planning of recruitment is a longer-term 22 thing.
l 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Sure.
l l
l 24 MR. MINOGUE:
This on-again off-again business A-wei neoorwn. inc.
I 25 j makes it very difficult.
I I
I
20 mm 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that.
2l MR. MINOGUE: We have always had trouble recruiting.
i 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Although you have got a good 4
sales point there, people come work there and you get 5
promoted.
6 (Laughter.)
I 7
I'm not knocking. That is seriously.
8 The idea of the freeze -- right at the moment I 9
thought we were in a one-for-two trend.
Just a partial freeze.
MR. HELLER:
That's right.
10 l Il COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So it is a partial freeze.
12 MR. SMITH: But you see, these people mostly left 13 before the freeze came on. You can't replace those with a l
1 14 one for two.
I 15 It is only people that left after the freeze started.
.md as a matter of fact, we don't necessarily 16 17 get those -- (Inaudible.)
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand.
l l9 MR. GOSSICK:
I gave you one the other day.
I 20 (Laughter.)
l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He gives them to Waste 22 Management.
f 23 MR. HELLER: Well the second bullet on the chart
~
24 then suggests the other issue which is the need for policy j
A!
anc nwonm. irm.
25 guidance from EPA in certain specific areass.
l l
21 As I understand it, these areas are in the high-1 2[
level waste standards area, some more amplification on the l
3 !
Clean Air Act and also in the area of Occupational Health i
4 Standards.
5 Next in the series would be NRR.
Page 17 is where 6
that series starts, and I could move directly to page 19, which; i
i i
7' is the discussion there of issues.
I 8,
And a key thing that is happening in NRR is the I
I 9
increase in the operating reactors effort in order to reduce i
10 the backlog of licensing actions.
11 This is primarily in the area of licensing 12 amendments.
I i
13 Casework is also being increased.
l 14 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On that second bullet, could 15 you talk about the relationship between the required increase 16 in effort based upon increas3in labor rates?
\\
l'7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What are labor rates?
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't understand the i
connection.
l 19 l l
l 20 i MR. HELLER:
I would like to ask Mr. Bunch i
i t
21 to discuss that.
22 (Laughter.)
23 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: Go ahead, Del.
Let's see if l
l 24 l you can -- well, the minimum wage has gone up.
l At 3 Mal R morurs, lm:. g 25 (Laughter.)
j e
l I
22 mm MR. BUNCH:
This one goes back to the presentation j
made earlier this fall, where the numbers over 1974 were about 2i 3l double for the time for OL, which rose from about six manyears j
to about twe..ve.
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Why are labor rates --
5!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Labor rates here mean the manpower 6
cost per unit of work.
7 MR. cOssICx: Per revieu.
I i
MR. LEVINE:
It is not dollars per manhour.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is not dollars per 10 manhour?
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, no.
It is manyears.
It is 12 i
manyears per worker case.
13 i
i COMMISSIONER AHEAPRE:
I see.
ja CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Per case or for some unit.
15 MR. PEDERSEN: These are nuclear units.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Casework effort is increasing j7 l
i because the casework effort is increasing.
18 MR. BUNCH: What it is, we have cot a very large 19 l
I perating license stage review burden at this point.
It has 20 l taken us more time than we predicted and is causing some 21
}
reprogramming out of some other areas.
22 MR. HELLER: And specifically, the other areas that l
23 24 l are beine recrogrammed from are areas like the generic issue Ai wel Reporters, Inc. l effort and the technical projects.
And preliminary data 25 j 1
I l
l i
i 23 U"
1 indicates that there is fairly large shifts of manpower out 2
of technical projects into the area of operating reactors.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: When you say standards effort, i
4' what are the standards effort in NRR that is being reduced?
5 MR. HELLER:
Well they do some work called Standards l
l I
Assistance.
6 i
i 7
There is a decision unit where they work with 8
Standards, and I believe it gives some technical inputs to l
9l the Standards program.
And what this issue is supposed to 10 indicate is that that is one of the lower-priority areas that i
11 i NRR is reducing, and in order to backfill or reprogram people 12 into these higher priority areas.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
With respect to the Standards 14 problem, in addition to having to pick up some of NRR's work-15 l load, NRR is reducing its force in Standards?
l 16 '
MR. HELLER: T hat's correct.
17,
MR. MINOGUE:
Less products to review
-- (Inaudible.)
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What fraction of these 19 amendments are NRC-generated, and what fraction are utility-20 generated or applicant-generated?
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That question came upthen we 22 were reviewing the, you know, the short-term effort to relieve 23,
some of the crisis problems at NRR, and as I recall it, it 24 was like one part in fifteen or twenty were for applicant-M ww necomn. inc.,
25 i generated.
i
w 24 mm 1
MR. LEVINE:
Some are tech spec changes.
i 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Everything which comes in as 3
a license amendment which can be all the way from totally i
4 trivial -- not trivial, but fairly unimportant sort of l
5, tech spec *ine tuning to some change in monitor, environmental,
I 6l monitoring.
Just all kinds of things.
l 1
7 But I remember -- remember there were numbers like l
8 1500-odd amendments?
l 9
COMMISSIONER GILINJKY:
I thought the large majority l
10 !
of them were NRC-generated.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
I 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think it was quite
'I 13 as 1500 --
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Anybody --
I 15 (Simultaneous discussion.)
16 MR. HELLER:
It is on the order of 2000 total.
f 17 MR. BUNCH:
I think it was about like that.
It was 18 better than 80 percent or so.
j i
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So, in holding those up ineffectholdingupsafetychangesthatwe,ourselves,f 20 ;
we are, 21 I
feel un6sccssary.
i 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, we are not holding up the 23,
safety changes. What we are holding up is Commission review I
24 and approval of changes which have been made.
4.
woi neconm. inc.
25 l There are a c reat bulk of those amendments which I
I l
25 i
mm are in the nature of -- sort of have the following 1
2i characteristics:
i 3i Wo decide from the experience at some plant that a I
4 third widget ought to be put in all plants.
i 5j So you send out a letter to the licensees saying, 1
6 put a third widget in and provide us an analysis of how this l
7 fits into your overall safety scheme, et cetera, et cetera.
l l
l 8
So we get operators putting in widgets anc filing l
1 9l these reports.
Each of these things in due time has to be i
i 10 processed and becomes a change in the tech spec, you see. And 11 hence, is a license amendment.
)
1 12 !
And there is a lot of trouble in generating the l
l 13 manpower to keep up with the reviewing of those things coming I
14 !
in.
But in most of the cases --
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But they are after-the-fact 16 reports?
17 1RAIRMAN HENDRIE: In many cases they are af ter-the-18 fact reports.
19 And I guess I don't remember offhand anyplace that l
l 20 I thought there was a real, you know, sort of a crunch situation 21 in which some safety adjustment was thought to be needed and i
22 was not being implemented because of inability to get to it.
j l
23 In fact, Vic Stello puts his available force into i
24 lj dealing with that kind of situation.
And then the ones where won neoonen. Inc. ;
4 25 !
the operator puts in the third widget is now filing the i
i I
a
26 1
license amendment and supporting analysis so it can go in
=*
ll 2 !! the tech spec, That is the kind that tends to pile up in the 1
l 3!
backlog simply because he has got the widget in, the plant has i
4 got it.
5:
What hasn't happened is that the staff hasn't, you 6
- know, checked off the analysis and processed the matter into i
7 a tech spec; i.e. a license condition.
l 8!
MR. LEVINE:
I think another point that should be t
l 9l made, Mr. Chairman, is that there are not a large number of 10 '
items because each item is multiplied by roughly 60.
i 11 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: Right.
j I
i 12 l Everytime you get one of these generic ones, you l
t 13 know --
14 MR. LEVINE:
I don't know what the exact number is.
I i
15 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Sometimes the multiplier is 10 16 because it is a class of BWRs or something like that.
171 But some of the generic items are, in fact, a full
\\
18 set of operating plans. And each one -- the submission from i
19 each one of of the plants counts as one of these amendments in i
i 20 the backlog.
I t
21 MR. HELLER:
Well, that pretty much covers the I
22 NRR portion.
l l
23!
The final set --
i 24 COMMISb?ONER AHEARNE: Can I ask a question on the A.
Jeal REmners,1r4, 25 issues?
i
27 mm MR. HELLER:
Certainly.
)
l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you say these are 2
issues,these are the issues from the standpoint, for example, 3.
of NRR?
Or, these are the issues from the standpoint of EDO?
5 MR. HELLER:
Right now these are issues which, I 6
f believe, are things that the NRR and the Office of the EDO i
7 together are grappling with in order to come up with these 8
final operating plans.
9l, 10 l In other words, these transfers of resources that 11 are going on, and they are trying in the preparation of the financial plans as well as in the preparation of the office 12 i
perating plans, both the line staff and the EDO staff have 13 6
I gl to grapple with these things and come up with an evolution somehow.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There seems to be more a 16 description of some problems.
37 OMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or facts.
18 This is what I was trying to get out earlier.
l 39 It seems to me issues is a question.
And y'u say f
20 here " Casework effort increased due to large increase in 21 labor rates."
22 l
MR. GOSSICK:
But going back to the basic 23 t
exercise, the operating plan that we are coming to you with i
24 Al' anal Rwornn, In here shortly, differs from what we had in mind when we 25
l 28 mm
]
1 defended this '79 budget in the first place, in many respects.
1 2h Some of these have already been addressed. And I
I 3
when you see them they will represent changes.
But the issues i
4:
that have beenpointed out here in NRR, of course, we have S,
previoasly taken action to get people from SD to work on i
i 6;
tasks and to help them out.
t 7l And they are issues, if you want to call them that; g) they are differences if you want to think of them in that 9[
respect.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Difference, for example, on i
f i
11 !
NMSS.
I would have thought what you really were saying in 12 the issue is how much additional funds should be allocated I
13 to Waste Management --
14,
MR. GOSSICK:
That is more of an issue.
Yes.
I i
On NRR --
15 l 16 I COMMISSIONER AH IAR'IE: On NRR the issue would be, i
l 17l are there additional procedural changes that can be made, is i or orgr.<ational changes, to alleviate this kind of problem.
I 19 MR. GOSSICK: That is not something we are going to 20 !
address in the operating plan, to show you what we are starting:
I 21 i out to do and spend the money and expending the resources.
I I
22 That may be something that we will do in 23 l addition.
But these are things that have actually already 24,
been raised up and had to be dealt with to one extent or A6 seral Reporters, Inc.
25 another.
i
I 29 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am just having difficulty mm i
2; trying to grasp, wnat is the issue remaining in NRR?
3 MR. HELLER: One issue that is remaining there is i
if you transfer personnel out of the technical projects area, 4
5 which is the area where you do the generic issues, then you may or may not get done as many generic issues or unresolved 6
i I
7!
safety issues as what the Commission would like to get done.
l l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think what John is saying, g
l 9!
you. ave got a set of problems and these lead to a number of I
10 issues.
11 But I don't see the issues, so maybe you ought to 12,
call them problems.
l 13 MR. HELLER:
These are problems.
i I
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- Del, do you want to say l
15 l something?
16 MR. BUNCH:
Yes, sir.
I 17 As you may recall, we recently -- your statement 18 is correct, they are not clearly-defined issues as such.
We I
i 19 i recently made a request for some supplemental fundings to j
handle an additional 900 or so operating amendments that fell j
20 out of the general statement problem that has since been 21 i
22 acted on by Mr. Gossick.
I I think the action is still pending.
23 I
I i
24 !
I guess two weeks ago we met with you about the l
weneomn.im:.l as 25 unresolved safety issues.
We are still in the process of seeing i
i l
i l
l
30 mm 1
whether or not we need to shift resources around to make sure 2 l that all of those get high-priority attention. And if we do i
L 3t need to come back and say, here are some changes in our l
4 allocation of resources that are appropriate, that is something 5!
that will be picked up in the near future.
I I
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
l 7
Why don't we charge ahead, since the promised time j
8 is running late.
l 9
MR. HELLER: All right.
I i
10 !
The last one is research, and that starts on page i
11 20 with a two-page summary of the key plans for research.
12 And then on page 23 are the issues, or if you would i
/
13 like, the problem areas.
I 14 And Saul Levine has asked that he be able to 15 present this himself. So, Saul?
I 16 MR. LEVINE:
The combination is Norm feeling I
17 somewhat uncomfortable, and I offered to address this.
i 18 I guess the first item is resolving our fiscal '79 i
19 budget, plus the differences between appropriations and j
I 20 authorizations that Len has already talked about. They want us )
I 21 to spend more money on gas cooled reactors and more money on l
I 22 approved safety research than we had planned to.
l 23 We also have some reprogramming problems to be s
l 24 {
able to live with our plans versus the limite' ions put in the A(
dwel Repornn, !nc. l
{
25 l various areas of the budget.
l l
i I
n I
i
31 mm In fact we have a meeting scheduled at 1 o' clock with j
1 2
Len to start working on this.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So I assume if the curtailment 3
i 4
of the gas, the HTGR program in the '80 budget continues, that it doesn't make a great deal of sense to pour additional 5
i resources in in
'79 in order the the drop in '80 will be 6
7 even more precipitous.
MR. LEVINE: That was the next item on my agenda, 8
9 exactly.
10 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know if I would come t
11 off our original '79 projection, but I sure wouldn't jack 12 '
it up the way we were encouraged.
i e
13 MR. LEVINE:
Where we are is, we have about $4 14 million -- we have about S3 million in advanced breeders, and 15 there is a question of an additional million under NASAP, i
16 which is currently being discussed.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Advanced reactors?
18 MR. LEVINE:
For advanced reactors, yes.
19 And that $3 million will see us through half the j
l 20 year, and then a half year termination.
So that we can 21 end up at the end of the year with an orderly termination of 22 the gas program.
I There is some cuestion about whether the Hill will 23 s
24 ;
restonamoney to DOE's budge _, and if so, there will have to A( -
25 { be some money restored in our budget to keep pace with that m.oumnm.ine.l i
32 i
i I
mm CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the '80 --
o MR.LEVINE:
In the '80 budget.
,p e
i Implementation of improved safety research, in light 3
I of the '80 budget, we had asked the OMB for*4-plus million
,i and we have a million dollars in the budget.
5 We think we can do some useful work with that.
6 And we really have to get started in '79, mostly.
7 8l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we were going to reprogram I
what wa s it, S7, $800,000 in '79 into the effort.
9 MR. LEVINE: But we haven't got the money on the 10 street. And I would like to get some money on the street gj before we go before the Hart's Committee this spring.
12 They were encouraging us to get some money --
13 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So would I.
ja l i
MR. LEVINE:
-- on the street in
'78.
And --
15 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So would I.
16 I'm not sure, in view of the '80 budget level, I'm 37 n t sure that 7-or 800,000 is the right level for
'79.
18 MR. LEVINE: It is, because we have looked at it.
j9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is?
20 i I
MR. LEVINE: And it is compatible.
g MR. BAFRY: We have got 400,000 that will be 22 23 !
reprogrammed, plus we had 400,000 in unobligated balance --
(Inaudible.) -- before we even started.
24 4( wei smomn. im -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What holds moving some of that 25 I
l
33 1
into action?
That is, getting it to the contractor and "U
2 l!
getting him working?
Il
!3l MR. LEVINE: Well, really, Len and I had agreed i
4 that we should get some congressional reaction on the l
5 reprogramming of unobligated balances before we went out.
6 1 Now we do have 400,000 we could start with now 7
in advance of that.
And maybe we ought to consider that as 8
a matter of fact.
Otherwise we will not have much money in 9
the streets.
10 '
MR. BARRY:
I dont think we can because it is a i
11 programming action for a new start.
It was not approved 12 by the --
i 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So you have to go to the 14 Appropriations Committees.
15 MR. BARRY:
All five committees.
I 16 CHAIRMAN rfENDRIE:
All five committees?
17 l MR.BARRY:
Yes.
l 18 i And so the purpose of my unobligated balance t
l' i paper was to get it started.
But now it looks like we are 20 going to have to put the two together and do it all at once.
l l
l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
What is holding 22 the unobligated balance paper?
i 23 MR. GOSSICK:
Well, let's see.
There was a letter 24 or a message that you sent us with regard to the NASAP M{ aral Roorters, ine.
25 effort that we are working, trying to resolve that.
And i
i i
34 I
1 I think hopefully we will have it resolved in a day or two.
I 2l It is just the makeup of the money, the million l
3' dollars that was being proposed to be put on the NASAP for 4
a line item were primarily RES items.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Was that the only --
1 i
6 MR. GOSSICK: That is the only question we have had. ;
i 7
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do the Commissioners recall l
8; any problem with that reprogramming aside from that item?
e 9f MR. GOSSICK: And is it possible to break this one 10 '
out and go ahead with the other?
s 11 MR. LEVINE:
I think Commissioner Anearne had a 12 problem.
13 MR. PEDERSEN: Your problem was across the board, I I
i 14 think, Commissioner.
l 15 [
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I seem to remember it, but I 16 don't remember the problem.
l 17 MR. LEVINE: You wanted a review, a rather extensive l 18 review of it.
I 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the story with NASAP?
Tiereareanumberofquestionshavingf 20 MR. GOSSICK:
21 to do with what was proposed to be done with this million 22 dollars.
And we are doing some more massaging of that based l
l 23 on the questions that were asked, having to do with whether l
l 24 l it should be all research, whether it should be other kind of A( swei nworwrs, im. j l
25 '
work, as well.
i I
I i
t I
35 l
1 i
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right.
2 Which office it ought to go to?
i 3-MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
4i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And we will get a look at 5
that.
i l
6!
MR. PEDERSEN: And what the million dollars is to 7
be used for.
It was all proposed for Reserach when it first 8
came up.
i 9l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What about the other -- whct l
10 ;
worries me is until we get Commission agreement on the 11,
reprogramming of '78 carryover funds, why we are apparently 12 in some difficulty getting down to talk to the Appropriations 13 Committees about that and other reprogramming.
l 14 I would very murh like to be able to present to 15 the Oversite Committees, when we go at the beginning of 16 February, at least the proposition that we have got the 17 l reprogramming before the Appropriations Committees for their 18 beloved improved safety research effort.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I have no problem with the I
i 20
" beloved safety research effort."
I I
I 21 ELD now reminds me that my problem was that I I
t 22 hadn't seen anything in the papers that I have seen since I
(
23 have been here that gave me a consistent picture of what our i
24 ;
priorities were and why we were doing one thing versus A(
mal Recorurs, lm:. ';
25 l another.
j l
i
36 l
mm And as a reprogramming item it seemed to have j
that same flavor, here is a place to put this money. But I
2 didn't see a framework f ma which that was being laid out.
3 I
MR. BARRY:
What we did to initiate that paper was,:
we went to the Staff and said what are your top priorities for,
5 unobligated balances, which was, in effect, to them, new money.l 6
And those were the candidate items, the top of the 7
i list.
The million dollars ser.e Denton for the amendment 8
9; bicklog plus a little travel money.
The 650,00 increase in Waste Management --
10 ;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Don't laugh, he is getting 11 people out to hearings.
It is getting tougher and tougher 12 I
to support them out there.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are we sending staff to i
ja Arizona for some hearings?
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. BARRY:
(Inaudible.) -- increase in Waste 37 Management, and 400,000 for Davis to finish off some things 18 I
we have to do for the rest of the program.
j9 l And the NASAP items.
The NASAP items, of course, 20 are really reactor safety items, but they are alternative 21 reactors, they are not light water.
In a sense, indirectly, i
22 they are alternative programs.
l t
23 5
I I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When does NASAP end?
i 24 dml Reconm. W I A(
I MR. BARRY: This year.
'79.
2S (
I I
I l
l l
i 1
l
37
~
i mm 1
MR. GILINSKY: So there is still time to do things 2
on NASAP?
3 MR. BARRY:
Not much.
j 4
MR. HELLER:
I think that was one of the issues.
I 5
Or, the questions.
l l
6, MR. LEVINE:
There is time, but the longer we j
7 wait the less time there will be.
l 1
I B!
MR. BARRY:
But we dic have a problem that the 9'
Senate -- particularly the Senate -- but it came out in the I
10 '
total Authorization Report -- they want us to do something II and said, -- (Inaudible.) -- NASAP support.
12 And, you know, you could have a list that would go j
I3 a mile long, but it wouldn't necessarily make any sense if
(
14 you are going to terminate the program this year.
15 So we came up with basically a couple of items in 16 research which feed into the existing DO.". so-called NASAP I7 items.
l I8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what are they?
i l
I 19 MR. BARRY: The reactor, the fast gas --
l 20 MR. LEVINE:
The fast gas, and the light water 21 breeder and the heavy water reactor.
I 22 There are some special safety problems that we l
(
23!
are not covering now, and will be.
2#
The other three reactors are the HTGR, the LMFBR A( dwal Reczners, lrc.
j 25 and the light water fuel e:.hancement which we can cover without 1
i
38 mm any additional funds.
j I
MR. BARRY:
They do relate to existing programs.
2!
l f
Now admittedly you can go beyond that to, you know, 3
i other alternatives and new initiatives in ASAP.
But the 4
pr blem is, how much money do you want to put in that type of 5
l w rk when it looks like the NASAP progra:n will end this year.
6 So those are the items that are in that paper.
7 MR. LEVINE: Senator Hart made it very clear.
gl, 9l at one of our hearings that he expected to hear from us about the problems involved in the various prcposals tnat DOE was 10 ij making under NASAP.
MR. PEDERSEN: One of the things I might say, since l
12 the OPE memo helped spark sece of this which the Staff had, is '
13 a description.
It was not easy to see how the safety research ;
ja,
i i
i as described in that paper, shorthanded perhaps, related to pro-15 liferation'with systems concerns, which is after all what 16 NASAP i<. 0.11 about.
j7 MR. BARRY: That's a good point.
18 I
It is indirectly --
j j9 MR. GOSSICK:
We are going to have a meeting 20 MR. BARRY:
It is alternative systems, even though 21 i
it is a safety review.
i 22 My point in separating the two papers, of course, 23 s
i was to get this unobligated balance noney working, particularlyi 24 w i a ponm, inc. !
4(
25 l to get -- (Inaudible.) -- money out and the -- (Inaudible.) -;
i i
i
s 39 mm money out, because when you add the programming items that j
will be coming into you here in mid-January, and if you send 2
3l them all to five committees, I just know somebody is going to find one item they want to debate, and I am worried that in 4
debating one item, the whole stack will get held up until 5
I they resolve the one item.
6 That is my prime concern.
j 7
"Y
- 8 consistent picture.
9 MR. BARRY:
Pardon me?
10 !
l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They might even look for a 11 consistent picture and see if all those moneys fit into --
12 MR. BARRY-Except that every one of these items l
13
(
y u will find in the Authorization Conference Report as, 14 "Please put more money into this."
You know, consistent with 15 that, to make sure that it meshed.
16 There is no item in that unobligated balance paper j7, I
that doesn't support the Authorization Conference Report, and
- g when they tell you, please put more money into that and in 19 de bacMog.
Please put some money into NASAP -- (Inaudible.)
20 I
they leave us some 400,000 for John Davis, which was not in 21 1
the Conference Report, but that was in the Supplemental Report.j 22 l
So that is where we are.
(
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So what do we have to do to 24 4 met Reporters, Inc. I I
break this thing loose?
25
41 4
mm meeting those objectives we now are saying, here are some j
ther ways we are goinc, to spend some money.
We are going to 2
I take unobligated balances and spread it across.
3 I
That spreading, in theory, tracks with putting it n the highest priority objects in those operating plans 5
which tie and link it to the objectives of the agency.
6 For that track, perhaps I haven't been here long 7
en ugh to see.
j 8
CHAIRMA51 HENDRIE: Could I encourage, John, as the 9
l 10 ?
opp rtunity arises, to go and grab people --
COL _MISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will do that.
gj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is clear it would be very 12 i
desirable for us to get on with some of these ventures.
l 13
(
l MR. LEVINE:
We have a few more items.
ja We have just discussed the next one, that is the 15 t
NASAp, completely.
16 Implementation of the Lewis Committee Recommendations, j7 we leave been preparing ideas on what additional resources would 18 be required for that.
And there will be a significant incre a se 39 1
in funds, roughly S2 million a year in '79 and $2 million a 20 year in '80 to implement their recommendations.
21 i
We are currently examining how to reprogram within 22 RES
- c. uo this. And we will have some recommendations to EDO 23 I
in the near future.
i 24 A( serai Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see, the Lewis Report j
a 25 i
i
42 recommendations affect just Research, or --
mm j
2 MR. LEVINE:
Principally they are directed toward 3:
improving the modeling capability for perforning risk i
b 4
assessments.
I 5'
They mention a number of things, external acciden_
6l initiators such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, ;
i 7
et cetra, fires, human factorn, generic items, sensitivity l
studies on the consequence model, updating of the health 8
effects on the consequence model. There is a whole list of 9
i 10 such things.
i 11 And we have to get ready to do those things.
And i
12 so we have been plan alnr --
l 1
(,
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are we going to see a plan ~--
14 MR. LEVINE:
Of course.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- of how this is all going 16 to be addressed.
17 MR. LEVINE:
Oh, yes. This is just -- we are telling 18 you where we are in developing these plans.
But they will have; 19 to come to the Commission before they are implemented.
j 20 MR. HELLER: On the resource impact, Commissioner l
21 Gilinsky, there was a Commission paper that came down on that 22 and RES was the only office that had any impacts in '79 and '80; I
f
(,
as a result of the Lewis Committee recommendations.
That's 23 24 l at least -- when I say impacts, I mean budgetary impacts in l
amiamonm.ix.!
A.
25 l the sense of needing more people or more dollars to do something.
I
L IfflTIAL Fy 79 Pit 0GMM OFFICE OPEMTIflG ptAt;S
j SE U
SS I
D NA S
IN L
S P
W G
E N
I I
VE T
R AR T
EP I
E N
O N
U 9
I L
N 7
O T
S Y
I UO S
N F
I M
A C
A L
L E
R P
A I
D G
O G
T R
N I
P I
N T
I l
i C
T A
D A
O R
S F
N O
L E
P O
L R
I P
E O
P P
O T
Y R
P S
R G
A M
K T
f C
W X
M A
E E
U B
N N
S
~
7 I
I ll!
?
g~s BACKGROUND PRIOR TO FY 79 - PERIODIC FIllANCIAL REVIEWS TRACKED SPENDIllG OVER TIME VS BUDGET FINANCIAL INFORIMTI0ri ARRAYED CONGRESSI0llAL BUDGET ELEMEllT BY OFFICE OCCASIONAL BRIEFlilGS ON MB0s RECEllTLY COMMISSIO!1ERS IIAVE ASKED FOR DECISI0ft UllIT REVIEllS TO RELATE PLANS TO ACCOMPLISilMEllTS
(
fl.EW APPROACll - DECISION UtilT REVIEWS (PILOT PROGRAtt IN FY 79) 14 DECISI0tl UtilTS FROM LINE OFFICES AtlD ADil 00 VERS,-,30% OF flRC RESOURCES ($ AtID PEOPLE)
IllFORIMTI0tl ARRAYED BY DECISI0tl UtilT, 00Til PLAtillED ACCOMPLISilMEllTS Afl0 RESOURCES, BY OFFICE CAPABILITY TO TRACK PLAllNED VS ACTUAL PERFORMAllCE ($, PEOPLE, ACCOMPLISl!MENTS)
SKELET0ft FOR MORE COMPREllEllSIVE SYSTEM Ill FY 1980 I
I i
1 a
t v
M M
W CC U
8C I
6 J
6 O
O O
^
H C
w H
W H
W Z
C CC J
D E
J
.Z W
o a
J C.
aC
=
H L
>=
H O
M E
D C3 W
==
E o
M Q
(n M
o CC M
=
6 E
J (M
U CC 6
M sC Z
aC W
W 3
^
CC C
M C
3 W
W
^
H C
H W
C M
==
M C
O M
C w
1 C
=
J c
W
=
CC C3
=
=
W sC
==
G O
eC
- C H
m J
s CC M
C.3 E
L W
D W
=
H Z
C C
Z W
==
J
=
C.3
=
M W
W C
3 Z
Z Z
H W
E Z
=
3 C
3 W
N c
=
ct W
C H
L.O Ch w
to E
C CC M
w CC M
=
0 Z
c Q
C CC O
a J
Q H
- C
=
H 9:
6 H
E W
b.-
et C
a CC M
W H
M L
==
C C3 J
Q W
C E
o Z
W
==
v A
E O
E W
Ch
==
J A
U M
EC Q
N O
w eC M
M Q
D o
E U
U M
i J
W C
aC et U
e 6
o 1
W CC CC cC 2
7 H
E H
M M
Q J
==
Q
=
H cc aC w
=
Z CC C
2 E
o
==
Z C
J H
sC 2
W M
A U
sc Z
CC H.e C
H L
H O
=
=
==
O 80 H
I M
Gcc m
- =
E
=*
w I
>-e w
D M
CC H
J M
J 3
C Q
==
==
CC W
L W
=
N 6
Z CS aC J
E
=
Q Z
D CC J
G Q
w A
.J Q
Q
)
==
M g
Z aC O
W U
n.=
CC O
v Q
A eC U
M W
=
W CC LM M
Ch C
W CC N
I i
8 ec U
g 3
I N
O C
W t.0 Q
v Q
W
i
(
IIEXT STEPS OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM C0!EISSI0tl EDO AND OFFICES FIRM UP PLANS AND RESOLVE ISSUES WRITTEN PLAtlS TO COMMISSION IN JAilUARY MODIFY OFFICE PARS TO INCLUDE NEW APPROAcil (USE PILOT DECISION UtlITS)
NEXT "TilIRDLY" REPORT TO C0! HISS 10ft IN MARCll-APRIL (INCLUDE PILOT UNITS, MID-YEAR FINAtlCIAL REVIEW) f 4
6 1
FY 1979 OPERATIllG PLAtlS RESOURCE
SUMMARY
HUMBER OF PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE DECISI0ft UNITS PEOPLEaf
($ MILLIONS)
Request to Congressional Request to Congressional OMB Mark OMB Mark IE 7
860 715 4.8 4.1 NMSS 15 302 293 13.0 12.8 SD 6
160 157 7.0 6.8 ilRR 9
635 631 18.2 14.6 RES 15 170 162 162.0 142.6 SUBT0TAL 52 2,127 1,958 205.0 180.9 flRC TOTAL 72 2,999 2,788 209.8 186.2 af HRC strength as of 10-25-78: 2656 on board + 84 conmitments
e k
e N
s C
W
=
m W
W E
D' m
C
-.J C.
.-=
E J
W W
Z H
=
W U
C N
m W
Z W
W 6
6 C
L C
C W
W u
Z J
- C W
o c
W m
CD
=
W c
W CC Z
W D
=
m
&D
-.J V
=
W x
w W
(J I
s
i 3
KEY PLANS - ItiSPECTION AND EliFORCEMEllT e OPERATIllG REACTORS 2000 tilSPECTI0llS AND 87,000 OilSITE Il00RS e REACTORS IN CONSTRUCTI0ft 1550 IllSPECTIONS AND 60,000 ONSITE Il00RS e LICEliSEE C0flTRACTORS AllD VEllDORS 215 INSPECTI0tlS AND 7,500 OllSITE Il0URS e FUEL FACILITIES 190 It:SPECTIO!1S AllD 11,000 ONSITE Il00RS e MATERIALS LICENSEES 2950 INSPECT 10fl5 AllD 16,500 ONSITE Il0URS e SAFEGUARDS 540 IllSPECTIONS Afl0 30,000 OilSITE ll0URS ESTABLISil AllD ASSIGN RESIDENTS AT 49 SITES (45 REACTOR AllD 4 FUEL FACILITY) e 6
I d
A
/
9 OFFICE OF IllSPECTION AtlD EllFORCEf4EllI
($ Millions)
FY 1979 FY 1979 FY 1979 Decision Unit Request to OMB Current Allotment.
Operatin9 Plan
[1[
$PS
[1[
$PS
]
[1[
$PS
]
]
Reactor Construction Inspection 262
.3 Reactor Operations Inspection 348 1.5 Vendor In'spection 35
.07 fuel Facility and Materials Inspection 98
.6 Safeguards 99 1.5 Managenent Direction and Support fl/A Inspector Trainin9 18
.8 TOTAL 860 4.8 715 4.1
10 ISSUES - INSPECTI0fl AfiD Efif0RCEMEllI e RESIDENT PROGRAM SCllEDULE ORIGIllAL FY 1979 PROJECTION 49 SITES CURRENTLY Off SITE 18 IllSPECTORS DESIGilATED, fiOT YET Off SITE 4 If(SPECTORS ASSESSING CURREllT Pil0 GRAM DIFFICULTIES e QUALIFICATI0flS CRITERIA e PERS0flAL IMPACTS UPCOMitlG C0! HISS 10fl PAPER O!! HEW PIl0 GRAM SCllEDULE e
C0flTINUE TO PURSUE FULL IMPLEMEllTATI0fl i
e
M m
W C
J
=
D w
c M<
W E
C W
J
~
M D
W G
M H
L W
D W
d H
~-
E O
M O
C O
H U
H
=
C C
=
J U
=
D Z
W H
W H
H D
m D
o W
Z M
C W
(N O
D W
O O
3 L
Z c
6 v
o 3
V a
M J
w J
W M
C H
H U
C C
=
W Z
=
=
=
=
H C
W W
M
=
w A
E M
c J
M L
=
J
=
o H
O L
O W
=
W
=
6 4
W W
M 6
m o
W W
W m
D U
W Q
Z J
=
M W
W Q
H
=
C C
Z U
M C
M J
M C
W
=
m J
L E
m c
=
=
~
J O
O H
O M
W
~
Z H
M m
~
W D
M H
H C
O W
Q W
L Z
W W
W w
c J
W H
c E
=
D E
C J
C C
W E
=
c
=
W J
C H
v m
C E
C Z
Z W
H W
J
=
E O
Q E
J J
M 3
u
~
J J
M H
e W
W D
M E
C J
C W
=
0 C
C
=
=
=
=
J W
=
=~
D E
H
~
O E
I 3
3
.7 m
L M
W M
M W
=
e J
W E
e M
M Z
Z O
W L
=
W
=
Q
=
C C
E C
W Q
U M
H W
~
D H
~
J D
M C
M H
M M
L C
=
4 C
M
=
=
Z W
D Z
L J
3 m
~
Q C
C O
3 J
J W
M W
M
=
M J
c M
H w
a s
W W
=
W H
O V
J Z
3 U
W
~
D m
J W
M L
J E
W
=
Q Q
L M
3 12 0FFICE OF liUCLEAR llATERIALS SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS FY 1979 REQUEST FY 1979 FY 1979 DECISION UNITS TO OMD CURRENT ALLOTHENT OPERATING PLAff MY
$PS MY
$PS MY
$PS URAilIUM FUEL CYCLE 27 1.7 SPENT FUEL 16 1.0 TRAflSPORTATION 17
.8
~
RADI0 ISOTOPES 47
.7 OPERATIONS & TECll.
28
.7 IIIGli LEVEL WASTE MGMT.
43 5.1 00flTINGENCY PLANNING 21
.8 INF0. ANALYSIS & EVAL.
23 1.0 IfiTERN'L SAFEGUARDS 13
.9 SAFEGUARDS LICENSIfiG 30
.2 SAFEGUARDS REG. IMP.
24
.7 SAFEGUARDS TECilNOLOGY 13
.3 TE".!I. PROG. ANALYSIS POLICY MAfiAGEMENT. _ _ _
TOTAL 302
$13.0 294*
$12.3**
INCLUDES 1 SPACE TRAtlSFERRED TO NilSS FR0i1 ED0 STAFF DOES NOT INCLUDE $.5 TRAtlSFERRED TO ADI:lil FOR ADP SUPPORT
13 ISSUES - HUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS program Support $ for Fuel' Cycle and Waste Management Divisions Combined Limited to $9.7M with Mandated $5.9M for Waste Managenent (Changes Requires Congressional Approval) 10 Positions Specified in '79 Authorization Act to Speed up Waste Management Regulation Development (Hot clear Whether Added to Agency Total or Whether Must be Absorbed).
At least $1M Heeded for Current ilLW Program (Exact Requirements Not YetDefined).
v m
b w
C v
"3
=
N H
w m
~
J m
a Z
W m
Q d
W C
w a
J z
a a
C m
m O
D 3
C c
z e
w a
O Z
N w
D C
w g
W m
c m
E w
w C
m e
U E
w w
~
M C
C C
O C
C
=
O M
M w
y m
4 m
O W
J m
m H
=
=
w y
w E
Z W
m o
N h
O W
c m
H C
6 w
-e m
a e
m
-o m
c c
sa a
o m
w r
z w
W G
W C
w c
c o
x w
e u
m=
=
3_
e o
e m
mo 6
o c
w a
~
L, C
h 9
E H
k m
C C
w C
~
=
m a
3 m
M Z
g 3
Q C
C w
w g
-m U
Z e
W m
C W
W Z
w O
g v
e C
w e
o a
a 8
Z g
W
=
m 6
o n
gH C
W G
5 s
=
m
=
c:
o E
N h.
w a_
o u
e m
a w
4 W
W J
=
g g
g C
4 O
C C
W w
o H
W N
Z
=
m w
w J
d
~
m m
c m
U D
C J
W x.
g o
g g
M M
W w
w d
~
U J
C m
w w
c w'
o O
W L
M U
c-m y
W W
C J
W w
w W
M M
~
M m
J m.
G O
M 3
J o
Q G
N H
c m
C E
W J
N A
N m
m a
p 6
1 D
E a
g
(
E W
D J
M E
o M
C M
M w
6 o
s "d
O 6
6 3
w w
w 6
C G
k M
U w
U 6
w g
Q W
W W
U C
H O
H e
M M
U W
e C
Z c
w 6
O w
w w
g
{
W C
m W
G m
z y
d6 D
W Z
E D
m m
=
=
D w
w m
m O
C m
w a
V U
k w
g g
OFFICE OF STAND' 7S DEVELOPMENT IS
($ MILLIONS)
Ilf 1979 FY 1979 FY 1979 DECISION UNIT REQUEST TO OMB CURRENT ALL0lMENT OPERATING PLAN MY
$PS MY
$PS MY
$PS Power Facility Standards 73 1.9 fuel Facility & Material Stds.
36 1.6 Facility Operation and Material Utilization Standards 29 1.0 Safeguards Standards 17 2.5 International Standards 5
0 Management Direction & Support TOTAL 160 7.0 157 6.8 s
a e
e
/
/
16 r
ISSUES - STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ACUTE Sil0RTAGE OF TECllNICAL STAFF (PRIMARILY IN REACTOR ENGINEERING) CAUSED DY:
ABNORMAL NUMBER OF TRANSFERS TO OTilER OFFICES DEMANDS OF NRR ON DES STAFF IIIRING FREEZE LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF TECllNICAL SPECIALISTS NEED POLICY GUIDANCE FROM EPA IN SPECIFIC AREAS
17 KEY PLANS - HUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Decrease Backlog of Licensing Actions.
Resolve Unresolved Safety Issues and Implement.
Complete Review of all Operating Power Reactors to Insure Cu1pliance with 10 CFR 73.55.
Work Toward a 24 Month Safety and a 16 Month Environmental Review for 50 Per Cent of New cps Tendered in FY 1979.
Issue SERs Six (6) Months After PSAR is Docketed for a Limited Number of Cases, i.e., Palo Verde 4 & 5 and American Electric Power (Western Virginia).
Process at least 70 Topical Reports in FY 1979.
18 i
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR _ REGULATION
($ Millions)
FY 1979 FY 1979 FY 1979 REluest to OMB Current Allotment Operating Plan
[1[
$PS tY
$PS
]
ti[
$PS j
j Decision Units Operating Reactors -
Routine Effort 73 2.8 Operating Reactors -
tionroutine 37 1.2 SEP 32
.4 Safeguards 16
.8 Casework 213 4.9 Iechnical Projects 210 7.1 Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Reactors 10
.8 Standards Assistance 22 0
Training and Correspondence 22
.2 Director's Office Total 635 18.2 631 14.6
s 19 ISSUES - IlULLEAR REAC!uR REGULATI0tl Operating Reactors Effort Increased to Reduce Backlog of Licensing Actions, Particularly License huendments.
Casework Effort Increased Due to Large increase in Labor Rates.
Generic Issue Effort Reduced to Support liigher Priority Tasks.
Standards Effort Reduced to Support liigher Priority Tasks.
20 KEY PLANS - t.dCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCil Complete Ull! Testing in Semiscale Complete Commission-Directed Electrical Connector Tests Complete First Three Huclear Tests in LOFT Complete RELAP-4/M00 7 Release TRAC-PlA to Pubile and Compare Predictions Against LOFT Data Complete the Licensing Audit Code Package (WRAP)
Complete Vapor Explosion Experiments and Provide Information on Molten Core Interactions Perform 3 LOCA and 2 RIA Tests in PBF Complete In-Pile Creep Tests and Issue Report Validate Warm Pre-Stressing to Preclude Vessel Fracture Under Thermal Shock Recommend Design Guides for Crack Arrest in I.WRS A Best Estimate Tornado Model Will Be Developed for all Regions of the U.S.
A Complex Monte Carlo Seismic llazard Code will be Developed Issue Super System Code (SSC) for Fast Reactors Perform Fast Reactor Fuel Aerosol Validation Tests
/
21 KEY PLANS - NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCll - CONTINUED Continue to Provide a Verified Technical Basis for Predicting Operational Characteristics and Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Power Plants Identify Sources and Effects of Fuel Cycle Occupational Radiation Exposure Initiate Assessment of Adequacy of Existing liigh Level Waste Predictive Models and Data Determine Characteristics of Leachates in Shallow Burial 1renches Provide Information for GEIS on Mill Tallings Provide First-Generation Safeguards Effectiveness Evaluation Methods to User Offices Provide a Generic Accounting Evaluation Method for the NCA Upgrade Rule Provide Supporting Risk Analysis and Evaluation on Generic Issues Issue Interim Report on Risk Assessment of liigh Level Waste Disposal Train Various NRC, DOE and Contractor Employees in Reliability and Safety Analysis, iluman Error Analysis and Quantitative Reliability Analysis Specify Design Criteria for Improved Decay lleat Removal Systems Improve Valut!/ Impact Assessment Methods for Improved Reactor Safety Concepts
22 i
0FFICE OF HUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCll
($ HILLIONS)
FY 1979 FY 1979 FY 1979 Request to OMB Current Allotment Operating Plan Decision Units HY
$PS HY
$PS tlY
$PS Systems Engineering 23 45.9 LOFT 15 28.0 Code Development 11 9.9 Fuel Behavior 15 24.1 Primary System Integrity 11 6.8 Site Technology 12 6.7 Fast Breeder Reactor 15 15.0 Advanced Converters 4
2.4 Reactor Environmental 9
4.5 E ffects Fuel Cycle & Environmental Research 15 9.1 Waste Management Sa feguards 13 6.2 Risk Assessment 26 3.4 Improved Reactor Safety Hanagement Direction and Support Total 170 162.0 162 142.6 6
23 s
7
't
!(SUES - NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCll Resolution of FY 79 Proposed Reprogramming Actions by Connission and Congress Scope of Gas-Cooled Reactor Research in 1.ight of FY 80 Dudget Implementation of Improved Reactor Safety Research in Light of FY B0 Budget Effort Related to Alternative Fuel Cycles (NASAP/INFCE)
Implementation of Lewis Committee Recommendations Improve Effectiveness of User Requirement Procedure Through Clarifying Modification (SECY-77-1300,SECY-78-622) liigh I.evel Waste Management Resources in FY 1979 and FY 1980
.