ML19305D612
| ML19305D612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/09/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T, NUDOCS 8004150292 | |
| Download: ML19305D612 (80) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..
e t%
h...k.. ]
s'
\\
UNITED STATES N UCLE AR REG UL ATORY COMMISSION in the m atte r of:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH e
Place:
Washington, D. C.
Date:
April 9, 1980 Pages:
1 - 80 INTERNATIONAL VERBATIM REPORTDtS. INC.
G 499 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET. S. W. SUITE 107 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 202 484-3550 l
\\
M
o 1
cacz.sc.
I I
l l
t i
UNITED STATES 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
8 Wednesday, April 9, 1980 I
The Advisory Committee on Reactor 3
Safeguards, Subcommittee on Reactor Safety Research, met, 9
pursuant to notice, at 4:10 p.m., Mr. David Okrent, l
- o Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
PRESENT:
Dr. Siess 13 Dr. Mark 14 Dr. Carbon l
12 Dr. Mathis i
14 Dr. Lawroski I"'
l Dr. Kerr i
II Dr. Ray i
19 Dr. Moeller l
r 20 Dr. McCreless 21 Mr. Murley z:
Mr. Scroggins l
Mr. Arsenault l
llI u
j ie %ves== %
- m. -,mer.s...,m =
e6 & & asut
a NDP q 2
raar Na 1
i 2
PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
The meeting will now come to 3
order.
This is a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on Reactor Safety Research.
I'm David Okrent the Subcommittee Chairman.
The other i
6 ACRS members present at the moment are Mr. Lawroski, 7
Mr. Mark, Dr. Siess, Dr. Kerr, Mr. Moeller, Mr. Ray.
3 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the 9
NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research response to ACRS recommendations to the Congress and NRC research II FY 81, and to dircuss the plans for review or research lh 1:
FY 82.
is The meeting is being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee ta i
i i
1 Act, and the Government and Sunshine Act.
f6 Dr. Thomas McCreless is the designated federal l
employee for the meeting.
Rules for participation in today's meeting have been announced as part of the notice of this meeting previously published in the Federal Register.
l on March 25, 1980.
20 l
A transcript of the meeting is being kept and 21 will be made available as stated in the Federal Register notice.
U It is requested that each speaker first identify lll 24 himself ans speak with sufficient clarity and volume so u
i imh VgleMies h jouc l
l
. som. w.m. m.av. 3...== n i
o e
3 racz sc b.
t l
that you can be readily heard.
l i
3 We've received no written comments or request 4
for time to make oral statements by members of the public.
We'll now proceed with the meeting and I think 6
I'll call on Mr. Siess first to give us all a little bit 7
of inkling as to how he thinks we should proceed.
DR. SIESS:
Well, the Staff was requested to 3
give us as much information as they could today in relation to the FY 1982 budget which we may be expected to comment on by about July.
The Staff also was asked to address i
lll
^
the recommendations that I report to the Congress on the 12 FY 81 budget and what they intend to do about them, and of course right now they don't have an FY 81 budget.
The la Congress has not yet responded to that budget request.
13 DR. LAWROSKI:
Does that include the supplement T4 to 807 17 DR. SIESS:
The FY 80?
I don't know.
The last I
tg I heard it had not been acted on either.
But not just
- 9 the supplement, the FY 80 budget has not been acted on yet.
,0 4
DR. LAWROSKI:
Oh, yeah, the 80 has.
The supplement is the one I'm asking about.
a DR. SIESS:
Oh, all right.
23 UNIDENTIFIED:
The supplement is a question 92, mark.
2 i
O U
,n.
=,n.or.s.. -erin oneseemsTone, & C, ammet
f 0
racz.we.
4 P
l 2
UNIDENTIFIED:
But the 81 they're on a continuing thing I presume.
I DR. SIESS:
Well, '81 begins October.
3 UNIDENTIFIED:
Last October.
UNIDENTIFIED:
We're in '80 now.
i 6
DR. SIESS:.Following the Staff presentation I'd like to discuss briefly as a last item what kind of 3
a schedule we need and what subcommittee activity is 9
needed in preparing two reports on the FY 82 budget.
One to that we'd give to the Commissioners in July, and I'm i
II assuming that they still want it both the nature and ll 1:
scope of that; and the one that we will do for the Congress 13 I
which I again assume will be done on the same schedule as i
i 14 last year.
That is, we will do it in about February.
13 Considering the rapidity with which the Congress l
has acted on the FY 81 budget, I believe that February 16 was quite soon enough.
i e
i CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Excuse me, maybe we could send them the July one.
19 i
DR. SIESS:
Yeah, for next year.
20 (Laughter.)
21 I
It's my understanding that all areas of the NRC staff are working on a five year long range plan and 23 that research is working on a five year long range plan.
llh 24 Has anything been accomplished on the five year research i
3 i.m r
v
- m. % i,.c.
smam cuma. eram, s.. surre ia ne-s c==
... - =
t o
e 5
nca c.
g l
I I
I plan.
3 MR. ARSENAULT:
Yes.
4 DR. SIESS:
Yes or no?
3 MR. ARSENAULT:
Yes.
DR. SIESS:
Are you prepared to talk about that j
6 at this meeting and if not when would you be prepared to l
7 talk about it?
Either for Research as a whole or for 3
the individual areas?
9 i
MR. SCROGGINS:
Let me just stand.
The require-to ment by the Commission for the Office of Research to 11 prepare to so-called iong range research program.
lh I
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
The recorder can't hear.
IU DR. SIESS:
Pick it up.
14 l
MR. SCROGGINS:
Originally the plan was to do i
13 a long range research plan for the entire Office of l1 16 Research.
However, in view of the uncertainty at the j
g7 time the decision was made, which was last fall-with 7,
regard to the light water reactor area because of the Three Mile Island accident and the ongoing effort and the action plan and also the uncertainty in the advanced 20 reactor area because of then pending OMB and presidential i
21 l
initiatives, the decision was made to proceed with a 22 I
long range research plan for essentially a safer area.
23 The safeguard fuel cycle, waste management, and environ-24 mental research, and the work on a long range plan for
=
c l
i-.~ v- - x l
= = min. cwmm. reuser. s... m,rre.n w.1.:. mum
1 o
a 6
I, n as no.
h I
the remaining areas, primarily the light water, the advance !
j reactor, and risk assessment would be initiated essentially at this time and available at essentially the end of this 4
physical year.
3 The status on the long range plan for the safer j
area is that it's just about ready to come out and 7
Mr. Arsenault can give you a more up to date status.
I 3
believe it's in a final draft form and we would hope to t
9 have it out of our office by the end of this month.
10 DR. SIESS:
My thought was when and if you have II a long :.ange plan that the ACRS review should be directed k
primarily toward that plan rather than the year to year l
l I
13 project by project, area by area type of thing we've ta been doing.
We still have to address budget requests and 15 committments.
I would think that the people -- the r
Subcommittee's work in the safer area that should look 16 at the long range plan as it affects their areas, but that we won't have anything to look at for the major part of the program, light water reactor, reactor safety 19 l
research, all of your area, right?
And advance reactors.
20 So we would proceed for those areas just as we 21 have in the last couple of years.
Looking at the budget i
requests.
U MR. SCROGGINS:
For the Fiscal 82 cycle that's llh I'
correct, though obviously during the time frame of the
}
i== ro v
- m. % v.ai.<:,
., m.,r mv.... on.
A t am
o o
7 rect sc I
2 development of the 82 budget the plan is also being f
3 developed and hopefully the two would be consistent.
4 But our plan with regard to the safer area addressed by Mr. Arsenault is that indeed we would be discussing that long range plan with the ACRS probably i
i starting next month I would guess.
7 DR. SIESS:
Am I correct?
Didn't the Commission 3
say they wanted us to comment on the long range plans?
I 9
MR. McCRELESS:
I have been lead to believe that.
10 DR. SIESS:
In other words, something that the i
II Commission said that about January or February they lll 13 wanted the Staff to develop a plan and they wanted ACRS 13 comments on it.
12 i
MR. SCROGGINS:
Yes.
6 y
DR. SIESS:
That was not the long range plan t
i though, was it?
j g
MR. SCROGGINS:
Yes.
DR. SIESS:
Oh, that was.
So I think we 18 have a request from the Commission to comment on the 19 long range plan, and I don't see why that request should 20 be handled sepa?'tely than from our other review.
I 21 don't see taking on a third level, that's absurd.
I suggest today that we might sta.ct with that E3 response to our last year's reports which we just got.
(g) 24 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Okay, we have about an hour l
i_ _ v- ~.- i
-m. m:
.=rr.
-m.,
_.-sc
.. _ ~ -
a
o o
8 racs so.
l 2
and forty minutes or so unless we're going to run late, so we'll strive to presumably cover thau response and also to get an inkling -- some preliminary information on the next budget, is that correct?
DR. SIESS:
Does everybody have copies of this?
5 This is dated April 8th.
It's got a cover letter from 7
Tom McCreless.
3 UNIDENTIFIED:
Some of them may be down at the hotel.
IO DR. SIESS:
Research comments on new Reg 0657.
\\
11 Max, do you have it?
ll) 10 UNIDENTIFIED:
It's the one I gave you last 13 night.
DR. SIESS:
From Budnitz to Dircks -- for the
- 2 Commissioner from Budnitz to Dircks.
I assume the g
Staff has it.
16 MR. MURLEY:
Mr. Chairman, there's about five 17 minutes to talk about the review of the 82 budget and 18 schedule.
Could we do that first and then get to this?
19 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Do you have some numbers?
20 MR. MURLEY:
The top line shows fairly firm 21 milestones that the Commission has established and that 12 we have to meet.
Each office has to submit their budget i
23 to the Executive Director for Operations by June 1st.
ggg 24 That means we have to have done our homework and we can u
i-% v
- m. = cn i c.
I
= = =_ g g ;* ; ="r "
c 9
caca sc I
2 submit this to you at that time.
2 Then the EDO review during the month of June l
4 and appeals and whatever, then the EDO will send it to the Commission on July 2nd.
They will review it and 3
make the normal appeals.
Their mark will be wrapped 6
up by the 24th of July.
During that time they will have j
to rewrite it and submit it to the controller by the 3
i 13th of August and then they do an analysis of it making 9
cost cuts and whatever and submit it to OMB on the 1st 10 of September.
Our only internal schedule is down at the bottom.
U gg We are meeting, have met once with division directors U
and some of the other staf f, and we plan to give guidance 14 l
to the staff probably next Monday on levels and general 15 management guidance.
What to emphasize, what to deempha-size.
j 16
- 7 Then we'll talk that over amongst the Staff and probably by the third week in April we will establish what I call the overall budget levels.
Then there is 19 quite a lengthy period of developing the ZBB Format and 20 the narrative that goes with that so that we can provide 21 it to EDO by the 2nd of June.
I The middle line then is what I anticipate the ACRS schedule will be.
And that is we'll be in dis-I#
cussions from the middle of this month all the way 2
I larftposanease. Veemsees StrastruPE f a=C aus name Cap *th rnesET. E e. sufft is?
j samensmettpe, & L ammes
i I
o caca sc.
10 l
I l
2 through June with the various subcommittees.
If you are to submit your report to the Commission in July, my 3
presumption is you'll have to write it finally at the July meeting, and I would presume that you would also write a draft of it in June.
Therefore, the subcommittee i
6 i
discussions we are assuming will be prepatory to that.
l 7
1 DR. SIESS:
That's our schedule.
Now, last S
I year we did not get your budget submittal until June 15th.
9 MR. MURLEY:
Okay, there's no reason why we cannot submit it to you at the same time we send it to II EDO.
ll) t:
MR. SCROGGINS:
Yeah, the Jun 15th slip last l
year was primarily because of the impact of Three Mile is 14
'i Island.
All of.the offices were given a two weck slippagc i
i g
in the normal June 1 submittal, but we would not expect t
that this year.
g DR. SIESS:
But the subcommittees are going to have to get something earlier than that.
18 MR. MURLEY:
Yes, that's a good question.
Once 19 we've established these budget levels then the staff can, 20 as far as I'm concerned, deal with the subcommittees on 21 the basis of those levels.
We have submitted to you already some information on 82 and beyond years particu-22 larly in the structural engineering area.
Those have ggg 24 not received any kind of reviews.
l I
i
!== m=
ve
- m. % i,.c j
l m sm,m m sm a?,t e sarygto,
_-- s c mm 1
.s
11 f
pecz.9c I
I DR. SIESS:
I haven't seen anything.
I have a 2
I meeting scheduled the week after next at which I expect f
to go into that.
4 3
MR. MURLEY:
As I said, that stuff is in the mail to you.
You may not have gotten it.
l 3
DR. SIESS:
Okay.
Now, your procedure -- when 7
you say established budget levels, essentially then you 3
I try to decide how much money you can get and then you 9
build your program around that.
Or how much you're going 10 to ask for.
11 i
MR. MURLEY:
Generally, yes.
l a
)
1:
DR. SIESS:
Th'e three levels -- when you say I3 budget levels, you've got to establish the three levels 14 to build the ZBB on.
13 MR. MURLEY:
No, we'll only establish the i
id requested level.
And during this period of developing l
the ZBB format, then the other three levels will be
- 7 discussed.
DR. SIESS:
Now, that's exactly the schedule we'd planned.
I'd hoped for a fair amount of time with 20 the full committee, four to eight hours in June, and l
21 then eight to ten hours in July to finish the thing 23 like we did last year.
And, of course, we were getting 23 information right down the line, right down to the last lll 24 minute.
l j
u
%% v-= = _i c.
t
9 ract sc 17 tlb I
l 2
MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
DR. SIESS:
And the scope will necessarily be 4
somewhat less than the scope of the review that goes to Congress.
And, of course, if you want to fill out this l
thing completely, then addit'.onal discussion with sub-l committees between July and January to finish out the 7
Committee's report.
8 l
l MR. MURLEY:
I expect that there will be 7
interactions and feedback during this period.
The to l
subcommittees will probably be making comments that U
will get reflected when we put our final budget together h
1:
in late May.
13 So when I say establish the budget levels, they
+
la should say preliminary.
I
- 3 DR. SIESS
Well actually last year we'd only f
14 had three subcommittee meetings prior to June.
I'm still not quite sure how we got the thing put together g,
with that, but we had five subcommittee meetings in June and three in July just before the full meeting.
19 MR. MURLEY:
I encourage as many as you can at i
20 that time.
21 DR. SIESS:
Then, it's my feeling now that we almost have to work two cycles.
One to get the report to the Commission in a timely fashion and then to flesh l
lll that out with a report to Congress with probably more 24 u
i
= v
- n. % c m_ _vw=& & EME
-. -. -. _ - -. ~.
4 0
occx sc.
Ll _
PL h
I 2
depth and more review of programs and not just budget.
S mewhat the way we did it last year.
2 MR. McCRELESS:
The budget review group will be meeting during the month of June.
MR. MURLEY:
We're not sure, Tom, this year just I
what the format's going to take.
There's a general l
7 j
agreement that it's very inefficient and not maybe the 3
best way to review it.
So the Acting EDO, Mr. Dircks, 9
has got some ideas and it may be a different kind of i
IO review.
But in any case it will be an internal EDO type II review.
I:
DR. SIESS:
Now, the one date you haven't got i
ggg is because it's probably not a fixed date -- last year when ga we wrote our report to the Commission we had the BRG mark.
- 3 MR. MURLEY
Yes.
r DR. SIESS:
That was the stage at which we were.
g Now, the BRG mark -- there's not a specific date for that.
l I,<
i i
It's sometime during that period, right?
l 18 i
MR. MURLEY:
Yes..
19 DR. SIESS:
And actually you get it all at one 20 time for research or do you get it by groups?
21 MR. MURLEY:
We get
't all at once and normally 22 it comes in about -- oh, the latter part of June and then 22 there's an appeal period, but there's a different process.
I 24 MR. SCROGGINS:
Yeah, there's a different --
% % v
- m. % i,.c
- ~. s...m a 3ew 11 mm
0 14 raca sc h
,i 2
I the EDO is now referring to this cycle as the budget 3
review process instead of the BRG.
It is our understanding 4
that there will probably not be a BRG mark as we have 3
had in previous years.
We will be continuing discussion back and forth between the EDO and his staff and the l
offices in developing an EDO mark.
Well, there might be 7
questions back and forth and looks at various levels --
3 l
that the on11 mark that really will occur during that 9
time frame will be the EDO mark that goes to the Commission.
10 DR. SIESS:
Then the EDO mark in my schedule 11 i
says July 2nd.
l ll) 1:
MR. SCROGGINS:
Correct.
I 13 DR. SIESS:
And we will be meeting in July 14 about a week after and I suspect we'll have a number of 13 subcommittee meetings then right before then.
We'll f
I 16 be meeting the 10th, lith, and 12th.
So the EDO mark g7 will come out about a week before we have to write our f
final --
MR. SCROGGINS:
That's our understanding.
DR. SIESS:
That's a little better than last 20 year maybe.
We've got to make arrangements to get that 21 as soon as it's out and, of course, we have to have
~,
~
l your submittal.
MR. MURLEY:
I.hink that schedule will be lll particularly useful because you will have seen our I'
u i.mm % vs = % x me souTie sTp4ET 3.
surft :e?
r o
e i
15 I
osas.no.
t 4
2 reauest and have met with us during this period.
The i
EDO and the BRG, of course, may have a total different idea of what our budget ought to be.
They'll submit 4
it to the Commission.
You may or may not agree with 3
that and the Commission then will have not only the l
EDO. mark but your recommendations as well.
And that's when the decisions will be made.
3 I
DR. SIESS:
Well, if it works it'll be a little 9
better than last year, but we are commenting to the 1
'O Commission on the BRG mark and the EDO mark came in afterwards, g
I2 MR. MURLEY:
Okay, are there any further 13 comments?
l 14 i
DR. LAWROSKI:
Yes, is there anything expected 13 with respect to the five year budget for that part for g
which there will be, namely the safer so-called five year projections?
Or is this strictly'a 1982 review?
g, MR. ARSENAULT:
Frank Arsenault.
As was is pointed out a few minutes ago, the safety division is 19 preparing the first phase of the research five-year 20 plan.
That is in draft now.
It's being reviewed by 21 l
Dr. Budnitz.
It's also being coordinated by my staff 22 with the working staff of other offices, that is at the U
working level to get comments.
And we are, in fact, 24 g
soliciting a large number of what I take to be constructive
=
- ~ v
- m. - x
,n. e-=
m.=u
=
t nw-a c==
o e
16 raar so.
h i
l I
2 comments.
So we're likely to be making some substantive 2
changes in the current draft.
i It is the intention that the five-year, long 4
3 term research plan for the safer division provide the explanation and justification to support the 82 budget proposals so that that document will at least accompany 7
any plans that we develop for 82.
It will be made avail-1 1
able to the ACRS accordingly as a couple -- a set.
9 DR. LAWROSKI:
To make my question clearer, 10 will the Commission be expecting the ACRS to comment on 11 the safer five year budget for the July report, or is it II lll just for Fiscal 1982.
13 DR. SIESS:
I don't believe we've even had l
14 l
a formal request from the Commission to comment on the 14 long range program at all.
It was just in the SECY f
16 whatever it was.
It was stated that the ACRS would be g
asked to comment on it. We have not yet been asked..I think we ought to wait until we have the whole thing.
DR. LAWROSKI:
Unless I hear otherwise, I 19 will not plan -- since I'm involved in two parts of that 20 safe area.
21
[
DR. SIESS:
U.se it but don't consider consider 22 a formal comment until ve get a request.
3 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Max?
2' g
MR. CARBON:
Tom, when will Congress take 2
some kind of action that will give us some insight in i.m
= v
- m. % i e
,n.
-=.
u== =
u-e
q 9
I raos sc. l.7 I
hlh l
2 the advanced reactor budget?
3 MR. MURLEY:
I was going to mention the status of our hearings with Congress.
We've met with 3
all the authorization committees on our 81 budget and j
appropriation committees.
We have received, I would i
say, universal support within those committees for 7
some increase in the advance reactor budget above the 3
l present budget.
9 DR. CARBON:
Above the $5 million.
MR. MURLEY:
Above the $5 million.
That is 11 not then in writing.
None of the committees have made lll 12 their marks yet.
They're still dealing with their own is internal budget committee setting overall levels.
The 14 tone of our hearings and the feedback from all the i
y committees is that they support the NRC maintaining t
i g
an advance reactor research capability.
l The second aspect is and this I guess is in what our controller and our management catch under antenna is if a Fiscal 80 supplemental still looks good, 19 and they have not acted on it.
None of the appropriations 20 committees have.
I believe the authorization committees 21 l
have approved.
The chairman is going down to the House 22 on appropriations committee on I believe it's the 16th 23 of April.
And that should be a key.
ggg 24 So I guess in sum the Fiscal 80 supplemental
.~!.
i lm% Vg.eaMas h jp.q*,
me sentne c.pmm sneer?. f. e. astra ser l
.- a c.
~ _....,,
raca sc 18 f
o a
'1l>
1 2
looks hopeful for the greater part.
2 Fiscal 81 budget here we have nothing formal except that the Senate authorization subcommittee, 3
Senator Hart's subcommittee, has kind of slashed the agency five percent.
The Senate budget committee which j
sets overall levels for the government has slashed 7
each agency five percent.
And that kind of means that 3
j we're looking at least a five percent slash in our 9
overall budget.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 l
to $22 million.
Just what share of that will have to to 11 be Research's cut if we take it -- so, in summary we're ggg 12 going through exercises now, internally -- what happens if we get cut certain levels?
And that will affect 13 i
i 14 our '82 thinking to some extent, but I can't tell you 33 right now how that will turn out.
r I
DR. CARBON:
I'm still unclear as to what j
g you're saying as to when Congress will be far enough 1,,
along to have something somewhat firm on the advance 18 i
reactor Fiscal Year 81 budget, 19 l
MR. MURLEY:
My guess is we won't have anything 20 i
firm --
21 DR. CARBON:
Even half way firm, a good guess.
1 MR. MURLEY:
We'll have a -- oh boy, when do 23 the marks of the House Appropriations Committee come 24 out?
h
=
i i===. % vs ms % w l
aus SIEUTts M ETIsW7. L s. Sufft 's?
I T
lin & C. Juman
e e
raca sc 19 i
2 MR. SCROGGINS:
Last year the original marks came out in July but nothing got settled until fall.
- Now, I
4 this year naturally being an election year either means you will get it fairly early like in July or August or you won't get it until December.
It's one of those i
where we come unscheduled type things, and it's hard to 7
say right now.
Surely their intent is to try to have S
it done before the end of summer.
7 MR. MURLEY:
What Max is asking le he going to have some indication during this review per;.od, and II I would say no.
Nothing firm.
lll 1:
Bob Budnitz sent his regrets.
He'd like to 13 have been here today but he had a previous engagement 14 up in New York.. We do appreciate the independent look 13 at our program that ACRS gives.
We may grumble a little l
bit, particularly when it comes to cutting budget items, g
but it is a useful exercise and we do appreciate it.
g, I
I think in nearly all cases we agree with the direction that the Committee wants us to move in.
There 19 may be some disagreements with regard to pace, but that 20 kind of has to do with we just feel that sometimes we 21 can't move as fast as we'd like.
I
~,
We have sent down the report which is the U
preliminary report that will go to the Commission on 24 ggg our comments in your February report to Congress.
It I
1 6 FM3pnae.VWeeaftee h 1sec i
weessame css.1 & asas
i 0
20 l
rsas ns I
2 is still under review and will undergo some revision 3
I should add.
There'll be some changes of substance and some of tone.
I think the tone may be a little offensive 4
and we want to clean that up a bit.
3 Some areas of substance are areas that we find i
6 l
on reviewing it as a whole that seem to fall in the cracks, particularly Chapter 10, some of the recommenda-3 tions that Mr. Moore's subcommittee made.
I think we 9
haven't been fully responsive to them and we intend to be.
10 That means we'll allow Bob Benario to look at it and II cre'll clean it up.
12 I think in some areas we want to beef that up 13 j
a little bit more as well.
14
'I Other'than that I hav no presentation.
We 13 did send you down 30 copies, I believe, on Friday.
74 DR. SIESS:
We just got them.
I guess we
- 7 have a choice of reading through them or having you sort of comment on each item while you're standing up there and see if anybody --
19 l
MR. MURLEY:
Okay.
20 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
How many members have had 21 l
a chance to read at least the sections that they are 22 especially interested in?
Anybody would like five U
minutes or so or ten minutes to reread specific sections?
k 2A UNIDENTIFIED:
I'd like to read the ones I'm
=
i i
i larvasseanones. Vusmerens Repostspa in.c me entTte CaMT4t. STEIEET & e. SJrft 'ef I
iw% & & am a
i
81EO 21 raag.9e.
9 I
l 2
interested in.
l l
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
I think what we're going to 3
i do is take five or ten minutes.
1 f
RECESS.
i 5
i i
7 l
i 3
i 10 l
l 11 g
12 1
13 I
14 i
t 13 r
I4 I
l i
17 l
la l
19 20 21 l
l 1
m I
i 2
4 G
- s i
i - = v n.. % i,.c
- m. - m.ar.
==..,
i r a c.
4 Fa4E Nc.
b/l Tap AB I
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Maybe we ought to begin.
And we'll let the members met on.
We're in an area that is t
2 i
- closer to heart.
4 You want to start with the summary draft and then 3
go the enclosure?
6 DR. SIESS:
What was the summary?
7 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
This is it.
3 DR. SI2SS:
Well, the first part doesn't say 9
anything.
I'm willing to start on page 2.
10 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Page 2.
Page 2 of the summary, okay.
DR. SIESS:
Well, it's not a summary, it's a g
memo.
13 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Or a memo, yeah.
14 DR. SIESS:
Well, I'd like to ask some questions 13 t
about Item 5.
But I think you maybe want to go more ta logicially and see if people have questions down the line.
II CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, why don't we -- page 2 19 l
of the memo.
Are there things there -- well, let me ask 20 a question.
It starts by saying the RAS agrees with 21 the ACRS that these three warrant great emphasis.
And n
then, if I understand correctly, it tries to-show how l
you're giving it the greater emphasis.
n (Il 24 i
I INTsueertC>nak Vanesme Rtpoofges Inc l
i l
==,m w mm.n rr.s wr m ma
C 9
23 h
- nas ns hh T pe 2/2 I
I must confess it's still not clear to me that 2
what you're saying you'll do in the area of studies of the 2
t course of servious accidents is the same thing that was 4
' recommended in the report of last summer.
It's related to it but it's not clear to me 3
it's the same thing.
7 l
DR.-KERR:
.Well, at least it's related to it.
3 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
But that recommendation, as I I
recall, was that one look at some selected scenarios
- g i going from the beginning to the end to see what was inter-
' esting and what you didn't know that you'd like to know, lll l or so forth and so on.
It wasn't aimed at studying specific phenomena
! in a research way and so forth.
14 DR. KERR:
How about the dominant accident i
13 sequence you've identified by IREP?
to CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
I would say that might or it I
might not be related.
Again, I don't find a one to one i
is correlation between what you're talking about doing and 19 what was recommended back in Item I.2.3.,
page 1-4 of 20 NUREG 0603.
21 MR. BERNERO:
Dr. Okrent, I'm Bernero.
What i
n were doing on the probabilistic analysis side is not 3
selecting any accident sequence and following it, with lll I
the exception of things that call for our attention.
3 l
l 2
l i-
= v n-m i,.c
.un. wm
. s..== =
i Z
T 4, & asuus
o l
nsas ns os Tcpe 2/3 I
' You know, non-nuclear instrument bus failures.
And make sure we cover these things.
We are looking for significant accident scenarios in the IREP program so we're making this general 3
sweeping review.
But there are some in RSR that will l
1 e
actually take sequences and follow them right through.
7 Not merely looking at one physical phenomei...ut the 3
! whole sequence right through to the end.
I'm not sure if this addressing your question.
If you had expected that we would be identifying just -- say a half a dozen or 4 accidents sequences and confining our attention to that, G
i I'd say no we're not doing that.
12 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, did you read I.2.3 before II l
you wrote this item?
j 14 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, we did.
But let me go back l
}
l and refresh my memory on it.
14 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Let me make a general comment.
And I wish you would think about it and prepare in your f
37 l
18 answer now.
I have a problem with the staff writing the 19 commission saying this is what the ACRS recommended and 20 we're doing this.
And this -- therefore, you know, agrees 21 with what the ACRS recommended when in your own mind at least there's a fair chance the ACRS doesn't agree.
Or g
i in fact, there's a good chance the ACRS doesn't agree.
ggg And I find that has occurred in the past.
Okay.
That 03 i
inw =% ve== h I c
[
de suhtMe C.prf% STuserP. E e. 3JrTT !st I
& & mm w%
e
q g
aca.9c. _2.5._
Tcp b/4
~
I l
the staff has written to the commission --
MR. BERNERO:
And that's a fair comment.
We should -- we'll go through and see --
2 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
If you really don't understand what we're saying or if you don't agree, say it rather 6
than putting it the other way, okay?
7 DR. SIESS:
Everybody else asked us to explain 3
what we mean now, you can too.
p MR. MURLEY:
Yeah.
No, you're quite right.
We
! should not put words in the ACRS mouths.
We will say to here's what they said, here's what we think they said, i
here's what we're doing and we think it's responsive or we gg disagree or whatever.
l CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Fine.
Now, with that comment.
14 MR. BERNERO:
In the part of risk assessment, 13 f
I think the principle area where we apparently do not agree,l 16 l
and I'm not sura that we don't -- that it's true that we j
disagree, is the ACRS has been very strong, as we perceive f
I8 it, in saying that.the probabilistic analysis effort should 19 be gotten out to field far more rapidly than the staff 20 appears to be inclined to do so.
21 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
I'm sorry.
Are you talking 22 about 1.2.3 in -- on page 1-4 of NUREG 0603?
MR. MURLEY:
No.
No.
,3 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, that's what I'm talking 24 a
1 4NTWneeMChee. VeneeMae MtprJeftet leec
-==in. - re arr.
wron
-_ m a e.
n.--
r C
0 l
Eact so. _2Ji__,
Ta
/5 1
I about.
1 DR. SIESS:
We don't have 0603.
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
But that's what you're a
responding to.
3 DR. SIESS:
No, we're responding to 0657.
i 6
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
I'm sorry but 0657 references 7
new recommendations --
3 UNKNOWN VOICE:
If you've got 0657, Appendix C 9
. has got what Dave is talking about.
to DR. SIESS:
It's in the back.
Appendix B, I'm sorry.
The last 2 pages.
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
If you could say you didn't think it should be done or if you said to yourself, well 13 i
it's valuable but not as valuable as other things or 1.t i
l something, at least assuming, we were both told about the 12 same thing, I'd know what you're saying but, here it id I
seems to me like you were saying we agree and this is what we're doing to met it.
And I couldn't see a strong correlation.
19 MR. BERNERO:
We did not -- at least in my 20 contribution to it, we did not specifically address this 21 recipe and we should.
I CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Okay.
Then let's go on to i
23 the next topic.
g 24 i
t
- E l
3887WBu*eMCuuA4. VWeeaffne Agpartget laea; I
88 Sol,De CAMM31. fFIBERT. & e. SJfft '97 l
_~ le.% C. Muum l
csas na 27 Tape 2/6 I
DR. SIESS:
Dave, I think, you know, hitting 2
, these -- I didn't realize what you meant by the summary 3
i j cause I hadn' t gotten that far yet.
I think hitting the items that they've highlighted in the summary, might 3
be far enough to go today.
And let the individual sub-6 committees review their detailed responses as they review 7
! the --
3 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
All right.
As far as we have time.
9 DR. SIESS:
But I mean if somebody in discussing 10 one of the summary items wants to go back to the detail f
that's fine.
g DR. KERR:
I think that's a great summary.
13 DR. SIESS:
Huh?
14 DR. KERR:
I think that's a great summary.
13 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Where are we?
Id DR. SIESS:
We're still on page 2.
DR. KERR:
Chit mentioned the summary and I 18 just wanted to give my approval of it.
19 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
The same item says that you 20 endorse study with plant operations and a systems i
21 behavior.
That's item little 3, in item 1.
Then you go i
on to describe a variety of items that I guess are intended i t
indicate how in your addressing matters related to 23 qui u
i i
lNTWBPeefM>teh VEBEGeffM h lMC
.=m. - rn rf. s..==
1.,
sh & & mm
9 c
- *4* Na 28 h/7 i
Tap I
l Plant operations and systems behavior.
And one has to go
{
2 f
to the detailed enclosure, actually, I think, to get more e
i information.
On pages 3-3 and 3-4.
You talk about the 4
- operational safety part, in any event.
3 I must say find it hard to see, in what you've i
5
'said, that again you're responding to what the ACRS was j
7
' recommending.
In other words, what your -- first, I guess 3
l I should ask, what's your understanding of the recommendation 9
for research in the area of plant operations and systems i
behavior?
Did you think that was more in the ECCS area?
jg Than could you tell me what you thought it was?
ggg l
MR. MURLEY:
The way we are interpreting what you said and also -- well, you said -- we're planning i
13 l
to increase the plant operational safety research area 14 i
substantially.
We think it's responsive to what you said.
l It has to do with better instrumentation for plant 16 operators, better diagnostic systems for plant operators, II better control room designs, improved recurrent generation 18 of simulators so that operators can be trained under i
19 l
simulated accident conditions.
20 We expect to be doing more in the area of fire 21 l
research which we lump into this area.
Can you think of i
22 anything that I've missed.
Oh, yes.
Area in component qualification.
We have put in the valve testing program 3
under this area although I think that's more of a -- an ggg U
I I N f10ste4. Y h ffed h l %
===,n. m amarr.s.. = = m easessagyggas, & 4, amag
u o
=
pacs.9c. _2.2, 2/dh i
l equipment item.
i CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, if I were to read I.2.8 on e
3 1-6 or I.2.10 -- those 2 are the items that are lumped a
together on the list.
I think I would get a different 3
reading than the things you've mentioned.
In fact, the i
5 simulation part is picked up in a seperate item and l
7 distu'rbance analysis part is a seperate item.
And I think j you ought to go back and re-read those 2.
And of course I' there in the Appendix, again as I.2.8 and I.2.10 on page D-4 in the more recent document.
10 I think really you should go back and re-read 11 that to see whether you understand or whether you agree or 12 disagree.
If you agree than, whether -- what you're saying 13 in fact is in the same area.
Whether it has a really I#
strong correlation.
This is the recommendation.
1 I3 DR. KERR:
What are you reading from?
Do you f
I 16 have 0603?
i 17 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
With regard to what the staff I
la has submitted, I'm looking at their summary.
And on top 4
pp of page 2, they say they --
i f
DR. KERR:
This is on Item l?
- g CHAIRMAN OKRENT
Item 1.
They agree with the g
! ACRS that these 3 areas warrant greater emphasis.
And j
22 i
i then they give a 1,2,3.
And at the moment I'm looing at B
i 1
l 3 and looking at what they said, with regard to 3, and I'm lll 1'
u i
1w e c o ve
- m. = - t,.c j
,n. -
r.t.. men i
2-m a. e.==
J i
l J
2 30 noz c.
Tap
/9 I
i ljust saying what they said with regard to 3 has a sort of I
2 I
negative correlation with what the ACRS recommended with 1
- regard to plant operations and systems behavior.
So then I went and looked in their more detailed 3
thing and got some additional information but it still 5
didn't have a strong correlation.
7 DR..KERR:
But, where -- now, where are you 3
j looking there?
i DR. SIESS:
Let me try to help Bill out.
The --
9 what the staff is addressing there is Chapter 2 of our report where we said there were 3 areas discussed in i NUREG 0603 that required more effort.
And the one Dave was just talking about was plant operations and systems 13 behavior.
And if you look back in the Appendix B, which 14 was SEction 1.2 from the report to the commission, that t ~e i
was 603, you'.ll find the 2 items in more detail.
That's j
id i
I.2.8 plant operations and I.2.10 systems behavior and II interaction.
18 Found it?
Page B-4.
I 19 DR. KERR:
This is 0657 or 0603?
20 DR. SIESS:
Well, you can go to 0603 if you i
want to.
21 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Either one.
g DR. SIESS:
But, it's easier to stick wit) 0657-and look in the Appendix B.
The last 3 or 4 p ges.
0.5 i
ImMessaa. '#Emmettes Mammettyt lasc
===wn. c-nm. ar arr.
sure :.,
--- w s. c.
c e
FAGE Nc. L Ta 2/10 I
,'!Which is simply an exerpt of that chapter or that section 2
l
.so that people wouldn't have to go back.
DR. KERR:
Okay.
I'm with you.
DR. SIESS:
And then Dave was addressing plant 3
operations and systems behaviors and interations, I.2.8 and 4
I.2.10.
And you can compare those with what's in one little 7
'3.
3 i
DR. KERR:
Right.
Which is not the same thing.
DR. SIESS: And they're not -- you can't find a 9
i good one to one anyway.
- g CIIAIRMAN OKRENT
Well, those are the main i
gg questions I had on the --
DR. SIESS:
Incidentally, in -- in those I3 original recommendations on the I.2.8 plan operations, 14
> we said a systematic effort should be made to identify 1.5 research needs so -- and this is something -- it's an I
i excellent place for research to do -- something -- an l
tI iniative, for example.
Or if you can't -- maybe you can 18 get together with Steve Hanhower's new division and -.
19 And systems also says a new program should be established.
20 I think you've still got problems because of i
the way your budget is set up with risk assessment as a i
21 seperate item and improved safety as seperate item.
MR. BERNERO:
Well, we were talking to Tom 3
l 24
-~ v
- n. %,,
me safw canvas, sguary, g.. m,yg,,,
l
- ua s c
o
= ass
<c. _3.2_._
Tap
/11 I
I l McCreless during the 5 or so minute break.
We're trying to i
restructure our decision units to make a little more sense
' in that regard.
But there are elements in the subject 4
you're discussing right now, the human factors.
3 In Appendix B, the area of plant operation, the t
6 operating experience evaluation, we do have major efforts 7
going'on there..
We just haven't discussed them in this 8
l draft commission paper.
t DR. SIESS:
Well, since -- what's in Appendix B 9
I was not tied like chapter by chapter, you see.
You've got to
' to -- if you've got something that's responsive, you're i
11 i going to have to pull it out someway to show where it it.
O 1:
Because there's nothing with those labels on it. And --
13 MR. BERNERO:
It seems to me there's a clear need i
11
! for a cross cut of these issues specifically addressed.
I r
DR. SIESS:
Unless there's someplace they fit j
M neatly which I'm not sure they do because --
I7 MR. BERNERO:
I think they probably overlap.
18 DR. KERR:
Are you reasonably sure that you 19 understand what is being described in I.2.8 and I.2.107 MR. BERNERO:
I'll say yes to 8.
I think 10 20 21 l
gets a little beyond my area of t.he project.
MR. MURLEY:
I think Dave's right.
We need to j
go back and look at these and reconsider them.
I must admit that we probably didn't go back and pay as much l h 24 i
l I
- 4 I
lartippeaficanee, Vmrtes Ruptwerges (seca l
ase SOWTM CAPTUI. f?pWET. & e. SJrft it,
{
Z
_.-%& & mm f
O caca.yo.
33 Tap llk/12 I
- attention to the July report as we should have.
2 DR. KERR:
Is there anybody in RAS that thinks i
lheunderstandI.2.10?
It seems to me it's a little useless ltotrytorespondtoitifyoudon'tunderstandwhatthe 3
' words are driving at.
i 5
MR. MURLEY:
I think -- yeah, I think it's not i
7 l unclear.
3 l
DR. SIESS:
The only -- I'm having a little i
I 9
trouble with it to.
I think IREP addressing it to some f
extent.
to DR. KERR :
I'm a little puzzled that Dave i thinks that the comments on IREP are not related to this
)
1:
because I would have thought that they were.
13 l
l CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
No.
No.
Because this is in 14 l fact, it so happens, would be more a what you would call 13 t
a deterministic analysis of systems behavior.
It talks 16 about the existing operational limits and behavior under II transient conditions and how design changes would affect l things.
I8 19 l
In other words, if the staff had the benefit 20 of this kind of research, they could have a better feeling 21 for what is a larger pressurizer volumne do for you, so i
forth and so on.
i MR. BERNERO:
Yeah, these very things the IREP 73 qui
=
i j
in
% v
- m. % i,.c
..=m1
_ _ ae,1 c ama
f n
=
racz so. la i
Tapdlh/13 f
!would almost take as a gibben.
t 2
i CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
It's not IREP.
s t
DR. KERR:
Tell me what it is then?
I might r
s
- as well learn something in this process too.
3 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, there are many systems 6
talked about here and I gave one example.
But if you 7
were thinking about a PRR and you're interested in knowing a
! for example, is it necessary for the pressurizer heaters
! to be uncovered during operational transients or could you 9
ja j design the systems so that doesn't occur?
But what are the penalties you pay if you try to design a system that way.
You have to understand something about systems ll) 12 i
behavior.
Alot of different interacting design 13 l
l provisions.
14 l
DR. KERR:
Why would you not uncover something i
like this if you were doing an intergrated reliability l
y assessment?
i CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
All they look there is what I8 might -- if systems either work or don't work in IREP 19 and from a point of view they start or they don't start, 20 they run or they don't run, they break or they don't 21 break.
That's IREP.
m MR. BERNERO:
1.'e really use the book values to say the system has to turn on one high pressure pump and n
i r
l l
2 i
i l
l i =
-v
% i e
= =am. a-m. smuu..
.,,n,,,
\\
_ h & & aus t
l I
i r
o 35 l
caca.we.
Tap k/14 1
Ione building cooler if event X happens.
And we take that l
2
,as gibbens that that's necessary.
Whether that's over-3
.' kill for the transient or accident, we don't make a
. judgement on that.
We just take -- take what the book e
- says.
i 5
DR. SIESS:
As I read this and listen to Dave
{
7
' and I see the words improved safety in here.
Maybe this f is a part of improved safety.
s 9
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, I'm not going to try to i
10 l get into what's improved safety or not.
DR. SIESS:
No, but I'm looking for a place i where they can get the money.
l DR..SIESS:
But, again what you are 13 i
l interested in here is in getting that information that 14 would led you to see ways of improving safety without l
13 i
degrading some other system.
It's not just knowing how l
14 I
it behaves now but how it could be improved, right?
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
This would have, in fact la this would feed back into how you -- what it was you 19 wanted to do in his -- this engineering simulator that's 20 all.
It has a variety of ways that it would influence 21 thinking if you had done it.
I was just at the moment i
n saying that there answer was to a different question.
j And --
g h
l 2
l i== = v r e i,.c
- =mm. w.m.,r.e r. s..== =
l r m a e. --
i
poca sc. 36 l
o e
Tap h/15 I
I DR. SIESS:
Well, I'm sort of half way with Bill 2
~
but I'm not quite sure what this question is?
It seems 3
- awful broad.
And maybe they need some more examples.
Or maybe they need to set up some program to discuss with 3
the licensing people to see what directions to go on this.
I 4
But it's not just systems interation, is it?
i 7
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
It's says -- no, no.
You're 3
quite right.
It says systems behavior, t
DR. SIESS:
And interaction.
9 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
And interaction.
g I
DR. KERR:
It seems to me the interaction 11 problem should be de-emphasized.
It's really behavior.
O 1:
l We've been talking about systems interactions for so long 13 that I was looking for interaction.
14 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
You're right.
And in fact, t
so -- because of that question -- well, you're interested fd here, I think, in systems interaction in a way differently perhaps than Jesse Ebersole is raised where he's talked l
17 l
18 about, you know, failure of a pipe leading to failure of l
19 a wire.
Here you're talking maybe about malfunction in
- o the jump valve effecting what happens in the pressurizer.
DR. KERR:
Or what is changing this set point 21 over here due to something unexpected over there.
n CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Exactly.
Yeah.
So it's i
=
i larfguseaficonaa. '#Esseaftaa h laec
.]
- -,r
== sv rr. s..==,*
= mu
t c
raca so. 77 Tap llR/16 lanother kind of interaction.
In fact in the -- in re-writing this for the later report where ever it is, we 3
linfactsaidstudiesofplantoperationsandasystems 4
, behavior.
3 And because of this concern about it being i
4 mis-interpreted with regard to the word interaction, I l
7 delib'eratly dropped out that word.
It is an interaction of i
3 l a different type.
i Well, on page 3 are there questions?
i i
DR. SIESS:
Rell, you know, when I look at Item 2 there where -- what we did was propose a budget increase I
11 l
i to get it back up to the original level but to be re-llI II distributed somewhat. The staff indicates here and from what 13 i
Tom said earlier that they're likely to take a cut and I ts guess NUREG 0657 doesn't give too much advice to anybody t*e t
about where to cut it.
That was deliberate on our part, 14 t
I believe but --
I7 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Yeah, a majority of you.
I 18 DR. SIESS:
If we offered too many -- well, yeah.
19 I think we could always get a few suggestions as to where 20 to cut.
And --
21 i
UNKNOWN VOICE:
And not always the same one.
DR. SIESS:
But if the congress cuts, they'll i
just probably just cut the agency budget.
No, they might l
spread it around, won't they?
lh i
I u
e I
l lartupsiaficsia6 Venenfine Asprzetwes im aus son,rw c.asrva. rrmarr. E e. marft o, 4
. - s <. m
___s
O
=
cnas us 38 O
Tape 2/17 1
MR. SCROGGINS:
They've done both.
DR. SIESS:
They've done it both ways.
2 DR. KERR:
Do I understand the language in 4
'page 3, the second paragraph down from number 2 to say since they don't know what the -- are going to look like, I
they haven't done any reprogramming yet?
I DR. SIESS:
They've got until October 1st, I 3
guess.
And at the rate the Congress is going it might 9
be this time next year before they know what it is.
I to DR. KERR:
This is sort of in response to an interpretation of our recommendation, we said in risk l assessment ought to be increased even if one had to re-gg
,7 program.
And you're saying since you don't really know f
what you're talking about yet, you think it's a little
' early to re-program?
i 12 MR. SERNERO:
Well, for what it's worth in the id i
discussion of possible re-programming, the spirit of the 17 l
ACRS recommendation is clearly evident because in all of 18 the contengency plans risk assessment is the last thing i
I9 to be cut.
You know, for example.
20 DR. KERR:
I'm not trying to disagree with -.
21 I just want to make sure I understood what you were
=
saying.
I i
n DR. SIESS:
In connection with Item 3 on (I) l 24 t
l i.m==
ve= = % i,.c me 9thdT%e CAFT*JR. ff'IBEIT. & 4. Suff1187 3
^:-
&m A L mm
. - - ~. -
~ + ~ -
n --
~ ~. - - -
q e
raos so._L._
Tap 92/18 i
t
' advanced reactors, what do you know about what the Congress 1
has done to DOE's cut.
Or did they tell you?
{
MR. MURLEY:
The House Appropriations Committee --
a
> Authorization Committee under Congressman M;cormack has 3
added back in about 140 million dollcrs for Prince River i
i 6
and as I understand it, about, I chink, 50 or million for 7
the base program.
So,'he's brought it back up to about the level of -- that it was.in fiscal 80.
3 i
Of course, that doesn't mean a whole lot because 9
i.
10 l y u've still got the other set authorization committee and the appropriation committees.
g i
UNKNOWN VOICE:
That's for fiscal year 817 O
MR. MURLEY:
Yeah.
13 l
l DR. SIESS:
Will the same committee's work on 14 l
your budget that work on DOE's?
13 t
MR. MURLEY:
Only the appropriations -- only the j
^
14 l
House Appropriations Committee.
DR. SIESS:
So, it's possible that somebody could I8 I
increase DOE's budget but not give you any money for 19 advance. reactors?
20 MR. MURLEY:
It's possible but because we go to the same House Appropriations Committee, namely 21 2
Public Works, it's very likely that if it gets added into DOE's we'll get added into our's as well.
3 I
r u
i.n
= v cno r ic
- ae.es.SM388. & & m
_ - - ~
._.~-.m
...m
- ~. -
l f
n 40 raca.sc.
Tad lhu/19 f
I CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, in the Item 4 in the 2
bottom of the page in the beginning -- page 4.
Here's a 2
i point where you -- in fact you disagree with the ACRS's 4
recommendation, I would say.
Cause he's rather than going e
' for a higher funding level, you say the OMB proposed i
l 6
budget would allow for reasonable rate.
So, the suggestion 7
' is that that's -- you're not saying that you're in 3
! agreement with the ACRS recommendation, all right?
MR. MURLEY:
That's right.
9 i
go l
DR. SIESS:
That's saying that you think that 12.6 you can do enough on risk assessment and that's not t
an awful lot different from 15, I'll admit.
On improved h
safety it's 4 1/2 if you get it against 10, right?
13 And this year DOE didn't get anything of the 3 I4
! million they asked for to support the improved safety.
l 13 And they're talking about maybe re-programming a million 16 i
and half after they find out where they stand in the middle of the year.
And it didn't sound awfully enthusiastic.
la Do you think they're more enthusiastic than I thought they I9 l
were?
20 MR. BERNERO:
Well, we're suppose to met with 21 them the 16th is next week, I believe.
To find out more i
22 about that.
DR. SIESS:
Now, will you have any input into 3
s u
i== % ve m.noe = ic.
88 SIR #ft* CAMTUI. ffWEET. & e. msf73 te?
I 3
- esteundBTWak & & aset
~
i o
caos.wo.
41 Tap b/20 I
' what they're going to ask for for 82?
Well, this is 80 2
i
,now.
What did they ask for for 81 to support your --
3 i
to support research on improved safety?
4 See, I've got a feeling that 4 1/2 million for 4
'your efforts -- if there's a significant DOE effort, is 5
not so bad.
But I haven't put much faith in getting that 7
kind of an effort out of DOE, frankly.
3 MR. MURLEY:
We'll have to get back to you on 9
just what's happened.on DOE's -
I don't know.
I do to
, know that they had asked.for a fiscal 80 supplemental.
l At lease 7 million dollars of which was to help with the ggg research associated with the TMI clean up.
I'm told that has gone down in flames.
That DOE's fiscal 80 supplemental I3 i
i is not likely to-be granted.
In fact they're probably la i
' going to be taking cuts in their BJ budget.
13
?
DR. SIESS:
Well, I was really thinking 81 l
16 I
because -.
I've seen.the proposals that were submitted to DOE.
And that totalled about what ?
3 million dollars, II I believe.
Or was that cut to the 1 1/2.
I forget.
I 19 think it might.
20 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
In any event, the difference 21 and continues here in page 5.
We sort of push for more l
money for LOFT.
I'm sorry on page 4, item 5.
Where the 23 ACRS's indicated a willingness to buy the OMB number.
(I) 2' i
=
l i
- v
.,. % ix se same casma, evnest. s. e. surre est s c ama
i l
0 42 racz se.
Tap llk/21 I
l Although it said you-could use the money.
2 Could I ask a question that relates to, I guess 3
i what you would call improve reactor safety.
It's an item, 4
.*it's different than those that have been talked about g
r before.
And I just want to explore it a minute.
There i
4 has been some discussion or correspondence between I
7 Congressman Udall's committee and the ACRS between his i
3
! committee and the commission about standard reactors which 9
somehow had a more optimal or nearly optimal safety f
approaches.
10 Presumably, these, if they were to exist would be something to be built some years in the future, I ll) 12 i
think one could argue for a point of view that this is a l
13 4
i i
task that the industry, in some way, should take on.
14 I'm not aware that it has but if they can get around anti-13 trust laws and this sort of thing that this would be a id i
logical thing for industry to do.
However, I think one can also make a case that even if the industry were to l
I8 do such studies, and also.if they don't do such studies, 19 that it could make sense for the NRC to support some 20 perhaps more generic kind of studies of this sort under 21 what I'll call neutral auspices.
Maybe under DOE.
22 In other words, it would seem to me that the i
n NRC could benifit from studies that said if we're not
=
i i.m
= v
- m. % =
. sam. cum =. r-ere. s== =
i
~ _~
Tw
& & James
e raca.we 4 3 Tapggf/22
! tied to our current configuration and so forth, what would 2
we do for designs for plants that might be -- really designed -- you'd still be getting a few years from now.
4
- That could be in my mind taken as improved safety.
Perhaps 3
!it might lead to more improvements in the safety for l
\\
5 future reactors and all the experiements you'll ever to i
linLdFTandI-suspectifonewantedtodoit, 7
one could r
3 l do it for a quarter of your annual operating budget in 9
LOFT.
Just a quarter of magnitude number.
l If one only lo ks in the preliminary way, not 10 trying to get the final design which is not something g
i that you would want DOE to do.
g 12 Have you considered ever anywhere in your 13 research program,.whether that kind of a thing is something 14 i
that -- do we ask DOE to include, you know, as part of 13 t
what, you know, a program for research to improve reactor id I
safety to whatever you want to call it.
Does that ever l
come up?
I8 i
MR. BERNERO:
It hasn't come up explicitly 19 with DOE, to my knowledge.
I just.like to interject here 20 I recall from the Rogovin Inquiry one of the perceptions 21 l
that -- that was in the group was that a standard plant 22 ought to be standarized on it's reliability rather than i
what it was standarized on.
n (Il u
i lNDOBhak VNMh8 l peC as sentm caamm treur7. s. n. marre ret 6
_n,
& & ammet
~
O c
l caar sc. 44 Tad lh2/23 1
I have a desire to approach this -- the existing I
standard reactors.
Whether that should be a research 3
program is debatable.
But to take the existing standard
. Plants that NRC has reviewed up to certain levels of 3
approval.
And in a fairly promote way have them reliability l
5 analyzied, if you will, either by the regulatory staff 7
l as part of it's review updating or by the owners or
~
3 l proponents of -- you know, the vendors.
As part of their work.
But as far as DOE starting with a fresh sheet I
of paper saying given that I wanted to design a really i safe reactor.
And let me put aside existing designs for lh the moment and not try to go with that.
We haven't l
13 l suggested that to DOE to my knowlege.
u It certainly would, in my mind, be something t
more akin to what they would do rather than NRC research.
l t
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, it might nct really I7 involve putting aside existing reactors.
I don't want to i
i 18 leave that label on it.
On the other hand, I think if i
19 you were to look at only -- or primarily or initially at 20 existing standard plans, I don't think -- in the first place, there aren't very many complete standard plant 7
designs.
And if you're not interested in looking only at j
NSSS and --
n i
=
i istfis.seaficseat. Vepesttas 4tpsertyt f asc e <- m. m
- r. s..== :.,
i
- _ _. - a c.
l
saar c.45 l
c c
Tap
/24 l
MR. BERNERO:
No, that's -- that's a very real --
l 2
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
You're talking about the whole plant.
Well, let me for the moment leave it as a --
4
{as a personal suggestion.
I don't know whether it will 3
'become an ACRS suggestion at some point, or not.
But i
3 I think it might be money well spent and it could at one i
7 and the same address accident prevention and plant 3
! reliability and accident mitigation.
9 l
DR. SIESS:
Couple of points I'd like to raise 10
{ in connection with this item.5.
You mentioned that more severe tests which might result in fuel damage and if f
you're going to do that you only get 3 -- I'm also looking I back at the more detailed discussion, back in the -- under 13
! Chapter 4.
14 i
And you said with the more severe test it might 13 have a higher probability of damaging the core.
You could 14
)
only get 3 tests made for the 43 million but if you avoid the more severe conditions, you could probably make 6 tests I8 and you'd like ACRS advice on tnis matter.
19 Is that more severe test a small LOCA a
20 transient, a large LOCA or something different?
21 DR. KERR:
Where are you reading from Mr. Siess?
I 22 DR. SIESS:
Well, the details came from the 22 unnumbered page under Chapter 4, LOFT committee.
In the 24 l
l i-v n - i
- E=m. - m
- v. s..==,.,
i
_.e 3. & mem
o e
i f AGE NC. L Tap b/25 I
i rear of the document.
First page under LOFT.
2 l
DR. KERR:
Thank you.
3 DR. SIESS:
Is that the large LOCA at high 4
j power?
4 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
16 kilowatts of the first 1
0 test.
I DR. SIESS:
I don't think we ever heard any i
3
- good arguments why 3 tests, including that one, are i
y preferable to 6 tests not including that.
Or what it i w uld be if you had 49 million, what would it be.
4 tests 10 including that versus 9 tests, not including that?
g MR. MURLEY:
Let me say what the current plans e
are right now.
And that is to do 6 operational transients 13 and small LOCA tests in 81 that will not damage the core 14 and believe about 4 tests in 82 leading up to the 4th il 13 test which being the high power density large LOCA which f6
{
we expect would damage the core and we'd have to change 17 the core out.
II l
DR. SIESS:
And if you had the additional 6 19 million dollars in 81, you would then do the 10 small 20 LOCA tests maybe?
I 21 l
l m
I I
23 i
13 I
i lorT1pouficanat. Vapaaftes 43peefgya Inc.
me saattu c.umm. rfwest. L n. artft ser l
l
- aemiasmze. s c. men
- - - ~ ~
mlb NDP I
n g
47 raas so.
/1 MR. MURLEY:
-- operational transients and small I
LOCAs, yes.
I f
DR. SIESS:
That is, you wouldn't do the large 3
! LOCA test with the damage even if you had more money this f year ?
I MR. MURLEY:
No.
i 0
l DR. SIESS:
Next year.
7 Okay, now, the next part you say that -- and again, i
I I'll go back to the detailed discussion where you point 9
out that the LOFT test will include activities recommended 10 by the ACRS in Chapter 2.
These are the TMI related items.
11 i
And you list A through H.
Decay heat' removal systems, im-12 poved in-plant accident response, etc.
13 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Even plant operations and systems 14 behavior.
13 I
DR. SIESS:
That's right.
I don't know that this I
16 is the time and place to do it, but it seems to me that 17 it would desirable either in writing or in discussion with 18 l
j the appropriate sub-committee to go into a little more 19 I
l detail about how these particular things relate to LOFT 20 l
and why LOFT is the best way to do it, and how the results 21 l
from LOFT will relate to real reactors.
22 i
Now, I'm not sure the ECCS sub-committee is 23 lll24 necessarily the best one to look at that, because they're l
not interested in all of these particular things.
1 25 i
m v e r= moentes1,.c me sm,fMCAMTCl.5?WW7.L W. SUftt tot sameenSTON. & C. must I
O 3
48 ssas no.
2 Now, I admit that some of these things done on LOFT will be interesting, but I wonder if the money s>ent
,doing them on LOFT is cost effective.
6 DR. KERR:
I couldn't really say that this will 4
reduce the information available in these areas.
It says 3
it will reduce the quantity of data available in areas such 4
as these.
I i
7 DR. SIESS:
Yes, but back in the sunmary it said a
! that some of the $6 million if we put it back into LOFT 9
would go for things in Chapter 2, which is what these are.
IO And that would only be somehow related to LOFT.
II ggg They're trying to develop a disturbance analysis 12 system on LOFT, which I can't judge.
Perhaps other people I3 can.
CEAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, I can.
I have -- I think j
that's mislabeled to say you're developing a disturbance to analysis.
I would say that paragraph is a disservice to 17 l
whoever wrote it.
It would have been better if it had been la left out.
19 DR. SIESS:
Which paragraph?
20 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
The one you just alluded to.
Il It suggests to the naive reader that in fact these things 2
are going to be obtained in some meaningful way from LOFT h
and --
u MR. MURLEY:
Well, let me respond to that.
i i=% v
- m. % t c aus soum cumsk smurf, s, e. wart m T-le & 4 apuut
49 noz.wo.
3 They are generally by-products of the main purpose i
i of LOFT, and as such we think they do add to the body of a
knowledge and so forth.
t I gave a report to you last -- I can't remember.
4 2 or 3 months ago.
I left a copy of a report that was called e~
something like Lessons Learned from LOFT.
6 In that, if you've read it, there are many items 7
- which deal with plant operational safety and lessons that 3
, could well have been learned, I think, from commercial plants.
9 How to deal with an accident once it's under way.
Which 10 LOFT had to be designed to handle.
llh One other point, the disturbance analysis, Dave n
was right in the sense that it's not -- right now it's not U
l disturbance analysis.
It's a display system for plant perameters.
15 I
DR. SIESS:
But che implication here is that the g
$6 million you don't have for LOFT is going to reduce the
- g amount of information you get in these areas.
And that
- 9 doesn't mean that if you had $6 million you would use it
- o to get information in these areas, because what you've already said is that if you had the $6 million, you'd 21 increase the number of tests in LOFT from 6 to 9.
I i
n And if these are by-products, you're going to O
24 get certain by-products from 6 tests, you may get some more t
'J by-products from nine tests.
But not $6 million worth.
I i.,e no v
= % rc
..,n.
,mer. u.==.
t
.., s c==
I j
nsas nc.
4 So what you get for $6 million more in LOFT is l
I l three more tests, and maybe a little more information in i
these areas.
i And I've got to agree with Dave that I think it's s
misleading.
3 MR. MURLEY:
If that -- I agree that if it suggests 4
that, then we'll -- we ought to change it.
7 l
DR. SIESS:
Well, it suggests it.
Because my 3
j first throught was if you're going to get all that much 9
' money -- much out of this, then some of that money that to we said should go into working on these problems could simply' 11 lll be allocated here.
i i2 4
DR. KERR:
I am surprised that you two old report writers.--
14 It seems to me that what one finds here is standard, I
reportees.
Which says, we don't know what to do with these 73 g,
items and probably if we could run three more tests on LOFT, l
gg if we get more information in these areas.
DR. SIESS:
It's true, but it's misleading.
And
- 9 go we don't write our reports that way.
You know that.
21 Our reports are perfectly clear to somebody.
e' I:
DR. LAWROSKI:
I thought somebody wrote us a letter i
22 from some place in New England that offered some help in 1
O 24 that area.
t i
U CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
I don't think this is a question t m me yanaam.noo. m 1<
i me son,m CAMT44. fTwn?. t e. Sufft it?
eenneesseT4,a, & & meus
51
'%c I'
naz se.
i 5
of just clarity.
I'm sorry.
I VOICE:
It's not true.
I CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Any more questions on page 47 3
Page 57 DR. SIESS:
Could you give us the list when it's convenient of the research that --
4 I
Well, let me start over.
Under the present program l
I 7
l you don't have to get user needs on anything that the PAS 8
does.
9 MR. SCROGGINS:
Right.
10 DR. SIESS:
That's not to say that some things 9
11 PAS is doing are not user need related.
12 MR. SCROGGINS:
That is correct.
13 i
DR. SIESS:
And you didn't have to get formal 14 user needs on the improved safety since that was presumed l
12 I
i to have been approved when they approved the program.
And now you've got the authority -- when?
Does it begin in ' 81, or have you got it already?
To initiate projects?
- 9 20 When does that begin?
l gg MR. SCROGGINS:
The current official Commission position is that the --
I n
n DR. SIESS:
FY '81.
24 MR. SCROGGINS:
-- it'll be FY '81.
DR. SIESS:
Okay.
larfgesnam Vesaaffne Rapenfgpg, Isac as sesTw Cusfab ffl'EET. E e. surft te?
z _ h a t um
I r
o o
52 sacz sc.
6 MR. SCROGGINS:
And it's a -- we're not talking i
f
- here, user request per se, we're talking about what is called' 4
, the endorsement process, where obviously if we have a user i
4 request and we have to go back and get an endorsenent.
4 i
3 DR. SIESS:
That's the inverse of it.
6 MR. SCROGGINS:
But this redecides the endorsement 7
process.
I should note that the -- what is referred to 3
! in the answer here is the current status, vis-a-vis, the f Commission's response to our modification of the 77-130-B 9
10 process.
i 11 There is however, in addition to this, which is 9
12 not noted here, a memorandum fran the EDO to the Commission I3 f stating that in the EDO's opinion the user endorsement pro-Id c,
3 has been unbalanced, counter productive and he recom-l t'e I
mends that it be the entirely removed and that is his 14 recommendation to discontinue the user endorsement process 17 and he is waiting for Commission response to that.
Is i
DR. SIESS:
Now, what does that mean?
That you 19 have unlimited --
20 MR. SCROGGINS:
That means that we -- to initiate 21 a research program, we will not have to have a user 22 l
endorser.
+
22 llh DR. SIESS:
But there'd have to be some limit, A
/
i cause you could use up all the money on your own projects.
f i
lNMM VWBSef%8 h IMC me soune osma, trusrr. t e. marrt :er j
sameasusTen. & C. asuut j
-y
~. ~,
o-g.=
l 53 l
..., s o.
7 MR. SCROGGINS:
That we'could, we would be res-ponsible to that, to the normal line authority, to the EDO l
and the Commission, and to the other offices that indeed i
were not responding to user requests.
A This does not alleviate the desire to have user 5
l request sent to research by the other program offices.
They 6
i must -- and our need, obviously to formally respond to those.
7 But I'm saying that if indeed we wish to initiate a
l a program, that we are the ones responsible to initiate 9
' it and we'll have to stand before the Commission to justify 10 i
the need for it.
lh DR. SIESS:-
That went in effect.
They removed 12 the 10%.
The 10% linit.
13 MR. SCROGGINS:
That would be the effect of the IA l
EDO's recommendation would be to remove the 10%.
DR. SIESS:
But right now you've got the 10% limit g
- 7 which would be roughly $20 million on the FY '81 budget.
- g MR. SCROGGINS
That's correct.
t9 DR. SIESS:
Have you got any ideas as to what 2g you might initiate under that program?
21 Ed, anything been cooking?
i MR. SCROGGINS:
Not direct.
Not -- I'm sure there I
^
22 9
is a lot of cooking in the staff's mind.
I'm sure there's 24 a number of things.
n As to exactly how we would utilize that if the I
lartwasmanc>naa, VgPearras h inc aus sum,ns caMPtm fMmEET & e. marTW Te7
._. i% & & mest
C 8
54 nez.we.
8
- current procedure as approved by the Commission were to i
remain in effect, which is tne 10% limitation, obviously we would try to utilize it.
I think from more in the explo-3 ratory area where we would not necessarily want to go to a program office and get their endorsement, or wouldn't 4*
feel we need it -- want to look longer range item, look 5
at how we do the whole regulatory process.
We'd utilize 7
, it in that area.
g j
DR. SIESS:
That money -- that Ibnit -- that 10% --
i 9
that's on program support money.
Right?
10 MR. SCROGGINS:
That's correct.
llh That's program support.
12 DR. SIESS:
And you couldn't expand what you're I3
! doing in probablistic assessment except by expanding staff 1s and that's a separate item, isn't it?
l MR. SCROGGINS:
No, the program support aspect of PAS would fall into that.
17 DR. SIESS:
I know, but you could do additional contract work?
g
.g MR. SCROGGINS:
Yes, correct.
21 DR. SIESS:
But you can't expand staff with it?
MR. SCROGGINS:
No.
i 22 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Anything else, sir?
Steve?
- 4 DR. LAWROSKI:
In the last sentence of -- up under f
2 Item 7 of page 5, it says you hope to obtain approval to t
leftcuam. V9meeffte h 34 me susWfie c.,Murfen, ffsDWT. E e. sufft t*,
-z
_. a & & mm
- -. -.. - ~ -. _ - - - -
--~~
3 55 nas sc.
9 hire a geological engineer, etc.
Is this an approval to go out looking for a I
' geological engineer, or have you already selected somebody
'and waiting now for an approval for someone?
4 VOICE:
Is this the freeze?
e
~
DR. LAWROSKI:
Which context?
6 MR. ARSENAULT:
Approval to go out -- approval 7
! to. initiate the recruiting program.
3 DR. LAWROSKI :
I thought we had stressed the needs 9
i of that particular kind of talent strongly enough that --
10 at least that part of it would have been done.
To go out looking --
12 MR. ARSENAULT:
It's possible.
I'd like to res-13 pond to that, because I'm not sure that I understand it.
Youhavestressedtheneedsforthatkindoftalentf and we agree completely with you, and put it as a high priority on our next recruitment action.
You still have 1,s to have a vacancy to recruit into, and that's what the appro-val addressed.
39
.g We can't recruit unless we have a vacancy to recruit into, and that's what approval means.
21 i
l 22 MR. SCROGGINS:
You're talking about the freeze?
n MR. ARSENAULT:
No, I'm talking about the fact 24 that right now -- that these three --
1 2
DR. LAWROSKI:
I'm talking about particularly I
i.ms
% v
- m. % e
,m ar.
.. = =.
.._cc
..--..__._,e_
'--llhe 56 l
nas nr 10 that -- the first one.
Although I don't disagree with your t
l needs for the others, too.
I
.r MR. ARSENAULT:
Yes.
DR. LAWROSKI:
But -- Okay.
It'll be quite a 1
while before you get somebody.
e~
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Are there other items on seven?
6 l
On page 5?
7 or are there things that you thought might have s
- been in the summary and want to raise questions about?
9 DR. LAWROSKI:
Well, I have another one.
10 VOICE:
There's a lot in the back.
h CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, no, but ere general in 12 nature.
Before I get into -- as time permits, into specific j
items, you want --
DR. SIESS:
I think they hit the more controver-l
- sial ones in this summary.
I thought they did a pretty g
good job of that.
g,
- g j
DR. LAWROSKI:
I'd like to know a little -- under --
under Chapter 11, 'and nothing -- I think it's on 11-2.
Yes.
79 i
- o That you could not go along with the idea or with the 21
! suggestion of doing less research relevent to transportation in order to make more available for our things that we're a
suggesting, such as -- oh, looking more into the problem 24 of radioactive gaseous waste which you know has received l
~J quite a bit of publicity lately.
And so on.
i.,,
no.v
- m. % r=
me sauna c.aseren. rf ar?. E e. surft m een.sesesTO.a. & a muut
4 e
57 I
noz se I
11 And you say the reason you cite that you can't t
do that is you have a commission concurrence with -- to i
,r
' initiate a very important transportatial motle study.
1 Now, is that a research item?
4 1
MR. ARSENAULT:
Yes.
3 DR. LAWROSKI:
It is?
6 MR. ARSENAULT:
It's the --
7 l
DR. LAWROSKI:
What would be the reserach?
Cause 3
it says this study will define alternative sets of package i
e performance and acceptance standards.
10 MR. ARSENAULT:
There's an RFP out on it.
11 h
DR. LAWROSKI:
Yes, I know, but I -- it may --
12 but is it research?
As opposed to writing --
l DR. SIESS:
I wonder -- I thought it was the same thing for rail and truck modes as was done for the air mode -
DR. LAWROSKI:
Yes.
l.
DR. SIESS:
-- and that was done by Sandia as e
la
! a technical assistance contract, and I didn't see any re-
- 9 search in it to speak of.
It was state of the art -- okay, 20 just a little bit.
21 DR. LAWROSKI:
That's what I'm wondering about I:
here.
M DR. SIESS:
O I've got a feeling you could get the 24 answer a lot quicker.
Now you can give it to Livermore i
J' and they'll start with the computer program.
Give it to M
--_..n.,
-n & & 35E
- ~ ~ _..
j#
n a s.sc.
12 Sandia, and you'll come up with some package specifications.
i I don't --
I DR. LAWROSKI:
But that's not research.
6 DR. SIESS:
The Commission could ask for research i; to do anything, I guess.
4 3
VOICE:
Well, you want to tell us --
6 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Could you tell us what it is?
7 Maybe I'll change my mind.
3 MR. ARSENAULT:
I was wondering.
9 The issue involved is one of characterizing the 10 accident environments of the various modes of transportation it to determine whether or not the criteria for packages --
I2 the test criteria for the packages should be mode dependent, I3 l and to establish.a --
14 DR. KERR:
What does mode depend on then?
t I
DR. SIESS:
Different criteria for trucks than id for trains.
17 You've already got different criteria for air is i
craft.
19 DR. LAWROSKI:
Well, let's ask him to answer it.
20 I'm not sure.
He's the one under whom the study is.
21 MR. ARSENAULT:
The answer was correct.
The accident environments -- truck crack, turn over, jack-knife, i
M l
lll what have you, are quite different from those environments l
,4 associated with rail --
t
!EMMD M Y N OM N
me scune C.am?qn. ITMrf. L e. sJrrt re?
~ _. _-
O o
59 asas na 13 DR. KERR:
Suppose a truck runs into a railroad i
I car?
l s'
MR. ARSENAULT:
That generally requires research 3
to decide which governs, s
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Or vice versa.
I mean, either.
It could go either way.
6 VOICE:
It depends whether it comes from the left 7
or the right.
I DR. KERR:
Well, it seems to me that's a lot more 9
like an accident, so --
to Maybe that's what you have to have the research h
n
- project for, to determine whether that's rail or --
MR. ARSENAULT:
I don't know.
We're trying to 13 1
DR. LANROSKI:
14 I'm asking, where is the research in this thing?
MR. ARSENAULT:
I'd like to point out before we g,
go deeply into the subject, the current requirements are not very well associated with accident environments at all.
gg The drop tests they have in packages now, 30 foot drop tests 79 and so forth, may or may not have any relationship to what 20 is encountered in an accident harmed by a package.
21 It's according to a standard.
I 23 So there is, first of all, a desire to find out 24 what does happen in accidents and to make the regulations i
i 3
more realistic and associated with that question is, should.
l n
i l
Iweennem Veename #spamps f ac m- _. er r.
um.,
a :.
odo 60 nar so.
14 the test criteria be load dependent.
And research --
I DR. SIESS:
But you see, we've already done this t'
' with airplanes.
Congress gave us a little kick in the tail 3
and we did it for plutonium packaged by air.
And we defined 4
tests that were very closely related to accident conditions.
And with a little help from the National Research Council 4
i Committee, we stuck a couple of more in there.
7 And Sandia said you cannot make a package that 3
will meet these tests, and six months later, they had designed 7
i it, you know.
10 And it wasn't all that difficult.
The staff did j
gg) 11 most of that work, and Sandia did the rest.
I:
VOICE:
There wasn't time to do research.
I:
)
DR. SIESS:
And I can't see that -- I know it's 14 a different problem when you go to rail or truck, but it t
wasn't done as a research project, and I didn't --
1
,d i
Now, I don't know how to judge.
They applied
- 7, the knowledge they had.
But they didn't make any tests 18 79 until we had the test to show that a package could do it.
.g MR. ARSENAULT:
In. fact what the Sandia --
21 DR. SIESS:
And that wasn' t researched.
MR. ARSENAULT:
I wouldn't argue with your con-l 1
clusion as to whether that particular project was a researchl g
24 project.
I think in fact what it was was a design and 2
i-
=,_v m. e r,.c emessee874.e..% & ama
c 61 l
noz.9e.
15 certification project.
I DR. SIESS:
No, that wasn't -- not the first part I
of it.
The first part of that project was to decide on 3
lwhatthecriteriawere,atwhatspeed,whatimpactwewanted
. on an unyielding surface, and what penetration, what fire.
I 4*
All of these things.
And relating them to aircraft charac-6 teristics -- that's exactly what this is -- test criteria 7
ll that are related to the accident conditions.
3 i
For a -- what was it?
A high altitude airplane 7
crash -- high flying airplane.
10 And I don't know who did that in the staff, but 6
i llh the staff did a good part of it, and they had Sandia as 12 consultants on it.
13 l,
Then after it was decided, the staff decided they 1.s I'
had to get Sandia to design a package to prove it could l
i be done.
Now that was clearly a straight forward non-researen 16 I
type thing.
I 1
I But the first didn't take long.
It wasn't a big deal.
19 l
DR. MARK:
It would take a whole plane body thrown
.g l
23 against a concrete wall or something.
=
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, I guess there's a question.I i
22 I guess the Committee will want to hear more on it.
- 4 DR. LAWROSKI:
I'd like to see the complete RFD of it --
1
{arfguseafwynas VNffts MEpusefWDE 18ec de un#Fhe Capr*Ca. f758EET. E e. SaffE 197
- ~ _. _ w% & & mm h"
0--jgg 62 I
nacz so.
I 16 DR. KERR:
I'm interested that the present criteria don't have anything to do with accidents, because I thought f
2
' we had fuel tests that have been discarded because they
, don't meet the criteria.
4 And all of these new criteria --
3 DR. SIESS:
Bill, they don't though.
The 30 foot l
4 i
drop, of course, was ridiculous for an airplane, where we 7
ended up with 400 knots or something, 250 knots, I guess, t
' And it might be 250 knots equivalent would be ridiculous 9
for a truck, even for a truck and train coming together to both at top speed, you can't get the equivalent.
h And the drop on the spike -- a lot of those things.
i 12 I don't know what they're based on.
They end up giving 13 f
you a pretty good cast and one that you could run into a wall with a truck which they did.
They also ran a train l
3 ~,
I g
into one, didn't they?
- 7 VOICE
Yes.
is DR. SIESS:
It ends up giving you a pretty cast 19 but --
20 MR. MURLEY:
Just like DVA's, you know.
You design 21 it well, but maybe you've overlooked something.
22 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Let's see, Dave, did you have i
23 O
any points you wanted to raise?
I I'
DR. MOELLER:
Not at this -- I read through what
't.
they said on --
lampanam Vesaaftee Asporrent lanc f
.. om
. -= =
=
x s c --
O C
63 l
noz ec.
I 17 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Jerry, did you?
Max, did you I
want to relay at this time?
User request as well.
(
I DR. KERR:
Well, is the concern one which says 2
' that if we had specs that we could show were related to i
. accidents, then municipalities would omit ship through?
e Is that -- or is it chat there is a concern in the NRC that the present shipping cast are not very safe, because the 7
criteria aren't related to accidents?
3 MR. ARSENAULT:
Well, the context of the concern 9
I is the latter, but the concentration of shipping casts and to plutonium transport packages right here, I think misleading.
h The NRC regulates the transport of all radioactive material.
12 DR. KERR:
Well, see, I read from your statement 13 l that says paramont concern involves the consequences and 14 potential radioactive material release while in a severe accident or an adversary accident involving shipping package.
i And there is an expression of concern about proliferation of local or, dances which restrict these activities.
r g
I know what the implecation was and if the people 20 who make local ordances were assured that the criteria were 21 j adequate, that they'd maybe quit passing these local i
ordances.
I i
2 Is that --
j h
24 MR. ARSENAULT:
I think that that is an advantage I
i of having and effective set of NRC regulations.
Yes.
i larfWuseenounaa. Vaseaffas h IseC, amp supune Cap'MR. f?IDERT. 3, e. SJrft 197 eessesseSTUut & & ama
64 nacz so.
18 DR. KERR:
Cause I guess I don't think a good I
criteria will have any influence on that at all.
And I'd 1
i
- be curious as to how you reached the conclusion that they I
2 i would.
But maybe that's another meeting.
s CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
I think DOT is in the process t
~
.' of a rule-making on the subject, rather than research.
6 I
Carson, did you want to raise any questions?
7 DR. MARK:
Well, very mild.
I i
l In the six page summary, which I think is generally 9
! as Bill said, a very good coverage of the points, or at to least the basis outline of a good set of statements.
llh j
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Yes, it answers a lot of ques-12 i tions.
I really wasn't sure whether it was the right I3 i
questions.
14 DR. MARK:
There are things in the back, you see, 15 l
which are not called out in the summary, and which really represent very serious elements of departure between the 1,,
two outlooks.
3,
- 9 For example, we said they shouldn't spend any 20 more money than they had to on Surry.
They said that way i
back August, we'd planned to spend all the money we had 21 i
on,Surry.
n CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
That's not very much different, i
O 24 I don't --
i 3
DR. MARK:
And that that's a good program.
InfWuunafk3 seas '/Wenem AsPooftput IMC es EINThe C.apfen. EfWEET. L e. surft teF easessesTOse & & asum
--n
. ~ -
Q 65 l
saca se.
19 Now, they're going to figure out why Surry went l
- to pot, but they're not going to find out what it would 2
have taken to have kept it from going to pot, and I think i
l our f ault was -- look at those things.
See what happened 4
to them.
But for heavens sake, try and find out how to 3
i keep it from happening.
i And of course, the Surry reexamination is not 7
! going to do that at all.
3 Now, there's a real difference in outlook, is 9
i not reflected in the abstract.
10 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
I think that's an interesting 11 lh point, and I'll give you one other that's in my mind a little, 12 like that.
I3 i
In the fuel area, there's some caution about 14 committing to the Easier Progran.
It says, before commit-ting to the multi-national research program at the Easier 73
- 7, Reactor complex -- are convinced that there are not higher
- g priority NRC research needs.
79 Even, say, in the fuels area -- anywhere in the
- o research program.
In writing this, what we see is about how good 21 Easier is and so forth, and they expect us to participate 22 U
h in it.
It doesn' t mention that Easier is controversial in Europe, if I understand the situation, and was agreed 2
t to on a political rather than a technical basis.
%% v n % %
,n. m.=,mer.
...um..,
..u
G 3
66 f
nez.sc.
20 From what I read, the French agreed to do it I
because otherwise the Italians wouldn't support diffusion i
or something.
i l
I think where there are important disagreements, 4
j it might be helpful to put them up front where the e~
Commissioners can see them.
4 MR. MURLEY:
Could I comment?
Unfortunately we 7
kind of are seeing this for the first time ourselves, the i
report as it's been put together.
9 DR. SIESS:
It is a draft.
10 MR. MURLEY:
It's a draft and I would agree that, llh well we have to pull the fuel thing up front.
I think that 12 that was disagreement.
I wasn't aware that we were in great 13
?
disagreement on the steam generator, but if you think we f
were, we'll pull that up and and tell the Commission as I
well.
g DR. SIESS:
I think the Surry steam generator g.,
la p ints up the problem of the user office that initiated that is only interested in one thing and that's setting 79 j
o criteria for plugging tubes.on the basis of eddy current 21 inspection.
It's a very narrow regulatory viewpoint that is gg entirely safety related, but is a very narrow viewpoint.
a 24 More detailed understanding e what's going on i
'd l
and a way to prevent it is a long-range improvement in
- ~ v-,,.
- i, de Sihtfte C.aprfth, fMBEET. E e. sufft 107 eassesesTgua & & m I
l - -
'7%8 67 nor se.
21 safety, which industry should participate in and they are l
participating in that to some extent, aren't they?
Or DOE 7 l
i The Surry steam generator examination?
Isn't Effry involved l 3
in that?
4 MR. MURLEY:
Not yet, but 1 think they intend 3
to be, yes.
4 DR. SIESS:
But you see, the viewpoint of the I
! user office is very narrow, and I think it's up to research a
if they could see real longer range research benefits in 9
something like that to bring it up.
Maybe under your ini-to tiative you can do it, and maybe you can go back to user h
office.
I:
And I guess what I'm saying is we'd like to think I
more like we do, i.L CEAIRMAN OKRENT:
Max.
I DR. CARBON:
I have a question to raise on page id
- 7, 9-2, the next to the last paragraph, the last sentence.
- g It says the ACRS believes that specific attention should
- 9 be given the study of alternate containment system, and
- o the studies of systems for retaining molten core.
Il This is in the chapter relating to advanced re-l actors and in general we'll. be dealing therefore with i
3 LMFBR's.
ggg 24 In the last paragraph on that page, the response i
2 is, the work recommended by ACRS being carried out in l
lsrtepugeah Vgteenes h jaec me um,pe caer?m. sTupeu?. t a. sWrt to?
o o
68 l
nog sc.
22 FMP, Zion and Indian Point.
It's not really true, is it?
t
' You may be doing work on alternate containment systems, e
i and molten core retention and so on, but the problems on e
i
~
' light water reactors are quite different than those on LMFBR's 4
i
'with sodium.
3 And so your response there isn't true.
6 MR. MURLEY:
Yes, you're right.
I think we have 7
l to take a look at that.
There is a limit to what we can I
3 l use the LMFBR results for, and that's not clear yet.
But 9
there's much extrapilation at all to --
10 DR. KERR:
I would appreciate seeing the better --
11 O
MR. MURLEY:
Yes, we'll take it j
VOICE:
There's always a possibility I of cooling Zion with sodium.
DR. CARBON:
Give it a try.
Mix the water with g
the sodium.
g g.
VOICE:
I'd prefer helium.
tg CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Yes, I agree that this is a draft, but I am, I must say, bothered by sort of a consider-19
- o able number of things.
And I think the one that Carbon 21 gave is a fine example of how whoever it is that's prepared these sections, has. responded either to the wrong question i
22 or suggesting that, in fact, you're dealing with something I'
when you're not.
I i
l It -- I must say, it makes me think of an SER l
me sum,no C. MME. STWSET. 3. e. msf75 ?tF
_ - & & mm
, ~ - _ _
4 69 l
... se.
23 telling the ASLB that they're meeting the ACRS letter, except I
that's more polished.
I DR. KERR:
I don' t want to defend the NRC, they 3
don't need defending, but it's conceivable to me that something one learns about a molted core and water reactor might have some application to LMFBR and vice versa.
0 I guess it isn't the kind of response that we 7
- would want.
I 3
DR. SIESS:
WEll, I don't -- I think one thing 9
i is, it seems a little too defensive and I don't really object 10 to that, but I think in some cases you are defending a user
}
request for -- you really don't need to defend a user 12 l
request.
Put the blame on them.
If they ask for something that we disagree with.
Id 1
And second, I think it ought to bring out as clear
! ly as possible, areas where research disagrees with the ACRS.
There's plenty of room for disagreement.
We're not i
1.,
I the repository of all the wisdom.
There's some residual that we'll allow other people to deal with.
g, I
3 But if it does bring out the differences, the 21 l real differences of philosophy or specifics, then that pro-vides a basis for some discussion in the sub-committee meet-n ings where those differences might be resolved, or one side (Il 24 or the other convinced.
i 2
And I think an important thing here is not to i
larf41sseaftCumaa. VEpaartas Agpssyrgist f asc age SBl#TW Cam'T4pn, STIDW7 & e. BAfft ?t7 J-= 1 & mm
. - m
f 70 sacz.ye.
' make it look like you're agreeing completely.
If you don't.
24 i
But to make those differences clear so we can bring them out and discuss them.
3 And if we're not clear on something, say, we don't 4
, understand it.
Or as you said, this is what we think you meant, and if it isn't, tell us.
6 Let's get them out in the open and discuss them.
7 It'll do everybody some good.
3 f
DR. CARBON:
Bill, I just have to reply.
Certainly 9
you can learn something by core retention, studying LMFBR's 10 or LWR's and back and forth.
11 k
But this statement here -- this isn't correct.
l They're not doing the work that we recommended.
They're doing some other work.
\\
DR. SIESS:
That's known as transferance.
i g
g CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, then if I can pose a dif-
- 7 ferent kind of request to Mr. Bernero since he's here.
In the past I have frequently had the sensation that resultsl tg 19 that were being obtained in probablistic analysis which 20 would be a potential interest to the Committee, had a long 21 l
time reaching the Committee.
I can document examples if you wish.
Since --
t U
I don't know why and I guess I don't care too much to know l
k
.d why if -- if I can see a change in the future.
s Well, I must say, I'm going to be very unhappy i.,=
n=v m.=.a.m tc de SEIhrne OsrMA ETurErr, & e. Rsfft te?
- ameeseenpa, & & Jamma O
O 3
71 I'
nas sc.
25 if it continues --
I I'm not trying to single out public analysis to i
i say that they happen to develop lots of interesting infor-2 mation maybe at a more rapid pace, so the effect shows, 4
at least to me more clearly than maybe from other groups.
t
~
But let me issue a general request that in fact you -- if 3
6 I
we don't have and develop an ongoing mechanism for screening 7
the results that are being obtained and calling them to I
l the attention of the ACRS as well as to those people in 9
the NRC staff, that you may be alerting them to.
10 MR. BERNERO:
Dr. Okrent, I'd just like to comment.
The staff which I now enjoy, I find when I look at the 12 history of their operation, there's a great deal of working by telephone and crash consultations and a frequent resort totheuseofdraftreportswithouteverpublishing--with-f a
out ever completing a report.
t' g,
Probably the most singular example of that is
- g
- the auxillary feed water system study.
I defy you to find 79 a PAS report on that very significant effort.
It was all 20 done with a draft, and then a draft was given to someone.
l 21 So I would like very much for --
22 DR. KERR:
Tom, there was a paper given, an ANS I
22 meeting, however.
j 24 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
U DR. KERR:
So somebody wrote up something.
{
terre 4 % vese fue Asparrosa lac 419 Soldfle Cp'TQE. ff5PgET, & g, ggffg 167
- emessuGT428. & C. amt
' ^
o o
72 nas see 26 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, but they -- what should have i
been done is that there should have been a formal documen-2 tation of the work right then and there when it was done 3
and the results shared, spread out in that coherent fashion 4
a lot more effectively.
I CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
All right.
Writing a draft I
and getting it into a final report can sometimes become 7
- very quickly -- it sometimes takes a year even with good 3
intentions.
Sometimes results are important enough that 9
they don't need and shouldn't take the writing, an issuance 0
of a final report is what I'm saying.
11 g
And in fact, there are things which not only were not written up in a report, but in fact weren't made
!3
' available to the ACRS at the Sub-Committee meetings 14 and so forth.
So I'll just --
MR. BERNERO:
I hear.
id CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Are there other points people want to raise?
14 DR. SIESS:
I want to make a future one.
19 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Chet has indicated the thinking i 0
4 g
that -- except for special things that you want to call
=
to your attention, we can meet another 15 or 30 minutes l
l 1
23 as you wish.
- 4 But we'11 try to work through the longer document I
- s in this group.
Just those things that you want to single larfgesmartgenaa. VgpeaMw Mamiengst last age subdTW Cprmi. f?WERT & e. SJft-J 'TF eassetsuSTUse. & & M
73 i
O O --
74GE NC.
27 out that I --
DR. SIESS:
I just wanted to make a comment about the format and the content of the report we'll be writing I
, in July.
4 It should look generally like Chapter 3 of the
=
l
~
' one we did last July.
If you remember last July, the first 6
chapter was " Implications of TMI" and the second was a 7
comments on the FY'80 Supplement, and the third chapter 3
was the comments on the FY '81.
9 So what we prepare should look pretty much like to the comments on the FY 1981 Budget, divided up probably in the same way as we did the Congress report.
The same e
headings, which will be slightly different.
But it will M
I be divided up according to the budget.
It will -- it will stem from a table and we will expect to get from the staff i
a budget break-down down to that level.
Right?
We did
,4
?
last year.
g,
- g Down to the decision unit level.
- 9 VOICE
Oh, yes, definitely.
20 DR. SIESS:
You know, not the nine levels but 21 the several levels under it.
Now, that's clear cut, but there're some of the i
22 items, the items that were in Chapter 1, are really in l
lh 24 Section 1.2 in the Appendix to the Congressional Report.
'd The recommendations for new directions and research.
l i
no v
n- % =
t u.
_.w u
f Cp8 noz.sc.
74 Some of those as we've seen today, don't fall into those other categories very well, and we've got to i
6 be thinking a little bit as to how those get addressed and 3
the comments on next year's budget.
1 You can't let them drop.
We addressed them last 3
year.
We addressed in the Congress report, and we expect 6
to see somethi ng about them here.
7 So I think the Sub-Committees need to find where I
! those items fit within their assignments and Dave probably 7
can sort of oversee the whole thing and see that they don't --
10 if any fall through the cracks, we put them somewhere spec-11 G
i ial.
12
'3 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Well, this is a very good point.
Maybe we should ask the staff if they could prepare some-thing which indicates how their FY 82 budget addresses not just the three, but the nine or ten, or whatever they were.
l g3 DR. SIESS:
All the items that were --
g7
- g CHAIRMAN OKRENT
And then all the Sub-Committee t9 memebers will have it and they can see then whether they 20 want to raise questions and the Sub-Committee --
21 DR. SIESS:
And then they'll be accounted for.
l 22 And then we can keep the thing narrowed down to the budget 22 items without having a separate section which will narrow j
G 24 the focus of it.
l t
U DR. LAWROSKI:
Were you talking that we would Isrvummationnae, Vesaattes 4tportant !suc me same CMamm, fTatET. E e. surrt ter eamcasuaFUu,& & aus
- h3 75 l
nas nc.
get this sort of thing from the staff?
I DR. SIESS:
We had that much detail last year, 2
and we expect to get that much detail this year.
And when 3
you have meetings, you should try to break it down into that level of detail, whether you've got the dollars or not.
I 4
I DR. LAWROSKI:
This is a little farther than de-7
- cision units.
1 i
DR. SIESS:
Well, that -- yes.
I don't know what 9
you call those.
S ub-units.
10 But the internal budget is broken down that far.
llh The Congressional budget is not.
The Congressional budget 12 doesn't go much below decision units.
i CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Okay.
Then presumably Sub-14 Committee chairman can ask for still further detail.
i DR. SIESS:
Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
-- or whatever, as they wish?
1,,
DR. SIESS:
But that's what we're aiming for.
Something that will look about like that.
- 9
.g DR. McCRELESS:
We might get a time for the staff 21 to provide that breakdown, because we've got some Sub-i 2:
Committees that have scheduled meetings within a month.
23 DR. SIESS:
As near as I could tell from what
- 4 Tom said, the formal official submittal we'll get at the
~J time it goes to the --
%no v
n- % r,.c.
me suarne caerna. rn.as? s, e, sarm ter
76
'%8 f
nox so, i
VOICE:
EDO.
I DR. SIESS:
-- EDO the first of --
l i
No.
June 1.
But if you have a Sub-Committee 1
2 meeting before June 1, if the Branch Chief or the Assistant Director has any preliminary information, he's free to dis-e
~
cuss it with the Sub-Committee.
I DR. McCRELESS:
Recognizing that may or may not 7
be --
8 i
DR. SIESS:
That's right.
That's all we can do.
9 But there's no imbargo on it --
10 MR. MURLEY:
Well, the only problem with that, Chet, is the following.
That if it were up to our staffs, 12 we would have a $400 million research budget.
13 DR. SIESS:
No, but --
I4 i
MR. MURLEY:
They don't come in to you with 13 preliminary numbers showing that they're responsive and 14 it may or may not be something that we wish to defend, and g,
it --
3, DR. SIESS:
Well, that's all right.
But I still g9 20 think that they Sub-Committees have got to have some numbers 21 to be looking at.
i 2:
MR. MURLEY:
Okay.
t 23 DR. SIESS:
See, they're smart enough.
They know
- 4 what it was for '80.
They know what it was '81.
They see
'J what's being proposed for '82, i
IsrTWeseaficunaa. Vgpeaaffas Mgmpefget f asc me SERJThe CaettA $**G*. & e. SufTt ITF eaenesuGTCue. & & amt
~ - -
l
77 o
o naos so.
Now, you know, if it doubles in '82, that's absurd.
I MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
s DR. SIESS:
And really what the Sub-Committees 3
' will be looking -- that's what they got last year, was like 4
'80,
'81,
'82.
This is what we've been doing.
This is how we plan to continue.
I L
4 MR. MURLEY:
Yes.
7 DR. SIESS:
But they've got to have some numbers a
as a starting point.
Because if they don't get them until 9
June, or we don' t get them until we see the July 2 thing, 10 you can't get focused on it in the time we have.
g 17 n
13 t
f la 13 l
t Id 1
17 18 l
I 19 t
20 21 l
U 1
i
- 4 O
I e
N Y
eB M CRMPCt.f*WEET.Ee.SurTEfff
- m. u -
m2 78 p.NDP l
q saar so.
MR. SCROGGINS:
I guess I better mention again, I
it was sort of alluded to, Dr. Siess, that we are in the process of recommending a modification to the decision unit 3
structure.
4 The -- it'll be a significant modification if it's approved.
Obviously we're only at the stage of making 4
the recommendation at this stage.
7 There'll be much lesser number of decision units.
3 I
They will be grouped differently.
The basic sub-elements 9
of things that, you know, you have seen before, will all to be there.
11 G
The problem may be that we -- may want to get 12 in contact with you, let's say in a week or so when we have I3 i a better idea where we stand on it.
14 i
The process is that the structure that we are I
proposing for the Fiscal '82 Budgetcycle may be significantly 14 different than the Sub-Committee set up that you have.
And in that sense we may have to -- as soon as we get a
- 9 better feel as to when it looks like it's going to be when og you hope to in about a week or two, that we could at least 21 l get in contact, I guess through Tom or --
2:
DR. SIESS:
You either get in touch with Tom or n
me directly.
And I'll see what the impact is on the 24 Committee, and we'll work out --
i
'J We have to shuffle things among the Sub-Committees I nms
.ie 6 v
- m. e i e
- m
=,,,
--- _ m a. a. m
_. _., _. ~..
C C
nos so.
79 or we may have.to something different.
I But we can -- I don't want to discourage you, i
because you need it.
CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
The other thing that would be s
, helpful is at some point by June, in any event, if we could have your thinking on, you know, priorities among the various, 6
l major units, whatever they will be.
Whether they're the 7
l old ones or new ones.
3 In other words, you'll have some total recommenda-9 tion and then you'll say whatever -- $20 million here and to
$80 million here and so forth.
$h And I think it would be helpful to have in some n
way your bases for your decision on how you would allocate i
- the total amount among the various major decision units.
MR. SCROGGINS:
Now, you should be aware that l
the ZBB process calls for such arranging.
Now, where that, g
g, you know, has problems is you have to rank discrete
- g j packages.
- 9 In other words, for example, if you have -- in g
a decision unit has three levels, you have three packages 21 and let's say you have 10 decision units, you have 30 l
packages.
22 So we do have to rank the 30 packages, 1 - 30.
j I4 Now that gives you a relative priority, but obviously it
'd doesn't mean that you would drop everything under weight I
w n
v,
n- % x me seWMe CAFN36 STIDW7 E e. surft it?
I
--_ m a c. -.
y__-
- ~.. _ _ _
mlb NDP i
q g
80 KAGE NC.
30 to do everything at --
I l
DR. SIESS:
We got it last year.
2 CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
All right.
We'll get that again?
3 MR. SCROGGINS:
Yes.
A i
l CHAIRMAN OKRENT:
Anything else tonight?
I Okay, thank you from the staff and sub-committee 6
members.
7 l
[ MEETING CLOSED AT 6:10 P.M.]
i l
9 l
l 10 l
h 12 1
i I3 14.
I i
1
$b I4 17 I
18 l
19 J
i i
n
)
1 22 i
i 23 Ou
\\
25
.n
% v
- m. m i e.
ao soune caamm. rrimest. s. m. surre ter wassesseT4pe. (L C. Juust
-