ML19318A002
| ML19318A002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8006160205 | |
| Download: ML19318A002 (75) | |
Text
w D
'Y {h eA SJA 1
m NRC 1 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 37 Parkor 3
bfm1 4
PUBLIC MEETING g
5 DISCUSSION OF ACTION PLAN P.
s 6
1 E
tL 7
)
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 3
d 3
1717 H. Street, N.W.
I Washington, D.C.
10 I
Wednesday, May 21, 1980 g
11 2
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.
j 12 BEFORE:
f 13
(
m JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission 14 y
JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner 2
15 5
PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner j
16 cd VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner d
17 !
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
18 5
EDWARD J. HANRAHAN 19 n
KEVIN CORNELL 20 ROGER MATTSON 21 j
HAROLD DENTON 22 ll d
MARTIN MALSCH 23 !
HOWARD SHAPAR I
24 i WILLIAM DIRCKS i
8006160 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
N J
2 Bfm3 1
_P _R O _C _E _E _D _I N G S 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We meet this afternoon to continue 3
Commission action on the TMI 2 Action Plan, specifically the 4
actiors proposed in SECY-80-230.
SECY-80-230 is separated into g
5 a series of enclosures.
At a previous meeting the Commission 8
3 6
held earlier, I guess, specifically -- I am not sure what day it R
7 was, a couple of days ago, Friday -- we approved actions on the K
j 8
operating license requirement.
d c;
9 We now have several papers being voted on how exactly zog 10 to characterize that.
This afternoon, I would like to move E
l 11 on to address enclosures two and three.
Enclosure two has a 3
y 12 specific set of actions that are proposed in the sense we have 3
g 13 already approved in Monday's actions, items which were listed as
=
m g
14 part of the operating license requirements.
E 2
15 However, in the same enclosure, there are a series of g'
16 actions that are recommended to be deferred.
There are a series e
d 17 !
of actions that are recommended to be taken which are the basis --
l 5
18 they are a category of studies.
There are some studies that are P"
19 recommended to be deferred, then there are a series of actions R
20 that are recommended for incorporation into the normal budget 21 development and review.
22 ;
Finally, there is an enclosure.three, that deals with i
23!
reprogramming.
I have a number of questions on some of these.
24 l I'm sure my colleagues do.
So, what I propose is we work through 1
25 those two enclosures, since I assume by now we are relatively i
i f
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 bfm3 1
familiar with them, unless someone feels the need for a summary 1
2' of them, I owuld just go to the specific questions.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would like to pose as a 4
challenge to Roger, how he would summarize it.
5 (Laughter.)
e b
3 6
You don't have to answer that.
R 7
(Laughter.)
A j
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would suggest then going to enclo-d
=;
9 sure two.
I believe we have approved A and B, including two ig 10 items, the training and qualifications for personnel and the 11 safety classification for electrical equipment.
5 Y
12 So, I would then move on to item C, which are now 12
=3g 13 items which are recommended for refer ral and consideration in x
14 FY '82 and beyond.
Are there any of my colleagues who would Ej 15 wish to modify that?
z y
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let's see.
I have some w
d 17 questions, John, which are sort of a cross cut of the processes 5
18 you described.
Let me just catch up with part C of enclosure E
19 two.
R 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Enclosure two, page three.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think you are not looking at i
23 enclosure two.
I think that is one.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, it is 9 ing to be hard to 25 put these questions together with that list.
r i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 I bfm4 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think we have people here who ought 2
to be able to answer questions.
l 3
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Let me just sort of plow l
4 ahead.
Then we can put the answers back into whatever we do l
=
5 about the list.
b 6
Roger, can you just talk a little bit about the Rg 7
schedule for radiation monitoring insturmentation to monitor 8
radiation off site?
I understand 2-F, if I have it correct, is d
=
9 instrumentation to aid the operators in following the course of i
h 10 an accident.
3 5
11 Then, 3-D seems to be the off site instrumentation and E
'd 12, the stack instrumentation, but they all seem to be group threes, E
3 13 or priority threes.
Have I understood that right?
5 E
14 MR. MATTSON:
That is generally true.
There may be some w
2 15 exceptions to what you said, but my recollection is the off site 5
16 measurements were priority group three.
Let me back up.
M g
17 There is one thing on the list you approved last Friday, 5
18 the requirement for some NRC TLDs off site as a condition of
=
b 19 licensing.
Let's put that matter aside, already decided.
x5 20 In 2-F, there are a number of instruments required in 21 basically two stages.
Some short-term improvements in the ability 22 to diagnose and follow the course of an accident, then some long-23 term changes in instruments to follow the course of an accident.
24 Those things that I have listed so far are all of 25 ;
sufficient priority that they are either done or about to be done I
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 bfm5 1
in the course of the next few months.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is on the upper list?
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
4 MR. MATTSON:
The radiation measurements off site in g
5 chapter three were judged by the steering froup to be of lower 8
3 6
safety significance, generally, than the instruments I have just R
7 listed because they talk about radiation already delivered at a Al 8
time when you can do something about it, when you can move people d
9 or change the course of the accident by changing the strategy in 2
10 the plant.
E j
11 As a result of receiving that lower safety significance 3
g 12 ranking by the steering group, their priority class was lowered 4
g 13 to priority group three, generally, so that when the executive m
14 director went to the offices -- in this case NRR -- and said 2
15 "The steering group has ranked things in priority order, you y
16 ought to put your resources on the top priority stuff fer sure, w
d 17 if you can."
d 18 NRR replied, "We have enough resources to do priority 5
l t
19 group one, but we are running out in order to do the twos and the N
20 threes."
21 They did not commit to action in FY '80 and "81 on some 22 of those priority group threes, especially those in the health 23 physics area off site.
NRR said, "To a certain extent, some of 24 -
these resources that we are reprogramming in budget space are 25 l not totally fundable resources."
i l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
6 bfm6 1
That means you can't take a person trained and expe-2 rienced in health physics and have him reviewing reactor coolant 3
pumps.
It doesn't work that way.
4 So, NRR said as they moved with implementation of the 5
plan, as resources allowed in the health physics and radiation 6
protection disciplines, they would work on those priority group R
7
' threes in chapter three.
]
8 At this stage, that is the only caveat that I understanc d
c 9
applies to the ones you are concerned about.
I gather from the iE h10 tone of your question, not being started in '80 and '81, but
=
11 that is the process by which it happened.
There is a caveat on m
y 12 it from Harold Denton that, as resources allow, recognizing that 5a g
13 the things he reporgrammed were in paper space, not in human I4 some of those resources are not fundable.
- space, 15 He will work on those things as he can.
Maybe Harold si I0 could add to that.
as h
II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does that apply also to the z
{
18 types of monitoring devices in the stack that we were talking 1
i:
g" 19 about the time after -- I suppose back in January there was some 20 question about availability of instrumentation with sufficient --
21 would that category of thing be a 2-F?
22 MR. MATTSON:
That is a 2-F.
That is in the list you s
23 apporved Friday.
The effluent monitoring gets done.
The 24l environmental monitoring ends up with a lower priority on the
(
25l basis that when you can measure the effluent, there is still ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
7 bfm7 1
something you can do about it.
So, it is of a higher safety 2
significance.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That would make sense.
Can 4
somebody put their finger on the part of 2-F that it is in?
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought we had some discussio!
h 0
about that last time.
R 7
MR. MATTSON:
If you can give just a minute.
ei k
0 (Pause.)
d" 9
~.
If you look back on the thing you approved last Friday, 10 which is enclosure one, go to the last page of it and I will
=
k Il count you back in pages.
The last page, it says "See 346."
That is f
I2 is one, two, three, four pages back.
- i l
13 There is a page numbered "5"
at the bottom.
At the l
14 top of that page it says "2-F-1, Additional accident monitoring n
15 instrumentation."
This is in the list of dated requirements.
I0 It says, "By January 1, 1981, all plants, whether they are new h
I7 OLs or already operating, have to have this list of requirements.'
=
f18 If you look down at number "E"
it is the noble gas P
I9 g
effluent monitoring from each potential releaae point from normal 20 concentrations up to 10 curies per cc.
21 That is the effluent point of interest in 2-F-1.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I tell you what was crossing 23 me up, Roger.
When I looked not at that document but at the i
24 i
longer version of the plan, itself, what I think is the equivalent
! (
25 item on page 2-F-1, it just said "high range noble gas effluent i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8 bfm8 1
from PWR steam safety and atmospheric steam dump valves."
Is 2
that a different item?
3 MR. MATTSON:
That is a different item, which is in 4
addition to the ones that I have just talked about.
I am having g
trouble on that page finding it.
5 n
COMMISSIONERBR$fFORD:
Okay.
That is what --
6 k7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It is on that page, NRC Action.
A j
8 Look under B-1-A.
O q
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's where I was -- where E
5 10 should I have been to have found the counterpart to what you j
11 were reading from from the SECY report?
m j
12 MR. MATTSON:
You might have just found a glitch in 3
d 13 the Action Plan.
If it doesn't catch a short-term Lessons E
l l
14 Learned, because the taing I read to you, 2-F-1, back in the OL
]r 15 list is from the short-term Lessons Learned requirements that
=
g 16 you approved last August.
m d
17,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought we agreed for quite 5
i 5
18 some time that as of the beginning of this year, there would E
{
19 be a way of providing a rough measure of effluents, and that at a
l 20l some poin.t --
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Better instruments to follow.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Not only did we approve that, but --
22 l l
MR. DENTON:
I think the only one that is being 23l 24 l deferred from the reading, Commissioner Bradford, that you had 25 ;
is monitoring what comes out o2 the safety valve in the event of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9 bfm9 1
a steam generator tube failure.
That presented unusual monitorinq 2
problems to try to sample the --
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You may have been stating a 4
different concern that I should have had.
5 (Laughter.)
e U
j 6
Mine went from my inability to find what Roger has E
l d
7 found in the SECY paper back into the actual Action Plan.
What n
j 8
you are pointing out is there may be a problem running the other dd 9
way too.
0 10 MR. DENTON:
Roger is correct.
If we allow for all j
11 operating plants -- if we allowed them for the short-term Lessons s
y 12 Learned, we allow them to use temporary procedures and equipment, 5
13 mobile equipment to get instrumentation on scale and that same l
14 requirement is, by the end of this year, they have to have 2
15 permanent equipment that' meets all the normal requirements in 5
y 16 place to monitor the normal effluent points of the plant on scale M
d 17 during a large meltdown type of release.
5 18 MR. MATTSON:
They way I can confirm what you've found 5"
19 as an cmmission.
If you look at appendix A, go to page A-1-9.
R 20 If you look under item 17 in the middle of that page, item F, 21 "High range noble gas effluent monitor," there is a reference 22 right below it that says NUREG-0578.
It is a short-term Lessons x
23,
Learned.
24 This is the NTOL list that you approved in February.
t 25 It should contain, as a 1.1.81 requirement, the same thing you ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
10 bfm10 1
approved for a short-term Lessons Learned.
That is consistent 2
with the OL list to which I referred you.
It is not, consistent 3
with item 1 on page 2-F-1.
4 My suspicion is it has been inadvertently omitted from e
5 page 2-F-1.
It should be in that list of five things under the 6
g 6
description under B-1-A.
R 7
It should, in fact, be six things.
A[.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see, do 9
MR. MATTSON:
I suspect where the difficulty was we 10 did make a change in this high range noble gas effluent monitor i
j 11 from PWR dump valves.
That was a point of contention somewhere a
y 12 along the line.
3 5
13 We spent a fair amount of time whether to require the m
l 14 noble monitor now and continue work on the development of an 2
15 iodine discriminator for such locations over a long period of j
16 time, or whether to do the research, figure out what was the w
p 17 best thing to do and then put something on.
Y 18 We decided to go ahead with the noble gas monitor now 5;
19 ana do the research in parallel and maybe improve it in the n
20 future.
In the course of spending so much time on that, we 21 left out a short-term Lessons Learned.
We can put it back in; 22 it should be there.
23,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Once it goes back in then, what 24 will its -- I take it, if I understood the process right, it will 25l be a decision group A priority?
4 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11 bfmil 1
MR. MATTSON:
It is already being implemented right 2
now on all operating plants.
It would be required of all new 3
OLs.
In fact, it has already been told to all those OL 4
applicants that they're supposed to do it before 1/1/81.
This e
5 just makes the body of a plan consistent with the decision parts 6
of the plan.
R R
7 COMMISIONER BRADFORD:
I see.
'nl 8
MR. MATTSON:
It is a decision catergory A; it will be d
q 9
a priority group one, with the rest of the things that were 10 ranked in this, which I am sure are priority group ones.
E 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think most of the other S
Y 12 2-Fs are.
=3g 13 MR. MATTSON:
The long-term study that I was talking m
l 14 about, if anybody is interested in finding that, is on page g
15 3-D-2-2, this dump valve problem.
m
/
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On that same page, 2-F-2, w
{
17 adequate core cooling instruments, where does the incore thermo-a
{
18 couple data come in here, or even to have incore thermocouples?
P" 19 MR. MATTSON:
Several places, but not explicitly.
You g
20 will not read a requirement that says "Thou shalt have incore 21 thermocouple measurements used in the following way."
22 You will find them in some other places.
First, in x
i 23I the one that you referred to, this 2-F-2, the requirement there i
24 was to do the best they could by January 1, 1980 using 25 existing instruments to improve their procedures and training so ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 bfm12 1
that the operators would be able to detect inadequate core coolinc 2
So, to the extent plants have explor-thomonetry(phonetic 3
and wanted to use it in those procedures and rely on it, they 4
factored it into their procedures and told us about it earlier e
5 this year.
h j
6 Now, it may be that some plants placed higher reliance 7
on those thermocouples than other plants.
Kl 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is it up to them to take the d
d 9
initiative on this?
10 MR. MATTSON:
On this particular one it was.
We did E
j 11 not require that the thermocouples specifically be used.
One t
j 12 reason is that, perhaps, a better indicator is a level device of 5
13 l some sort that would be on a plant.
l 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There seem to be a variety of 2
15 views on this, but to my sort of untutored mind on the subject, j
16 it seems to me that that is just a very important source of data.
w i
17 I am surprised that it has not got more emphasis than it has.
5 18 MR. MATTSON:
For prompt diagnosis, to put a core
=
19 exit thermocouple, one out of fifty as a primary instrument?
l 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Isn't that the closest you l
21 can come to know what the temperature of the core is?
l 22 MR. MATTSON:
Gross temperature or local temperature?
l
\\x 23f I don't know what you are interested in.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The temperature distribution, 25 just knowing the temperature of the fuel.
If that temperature is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 bfm13 1
is low, does that not pretty well tell you that the core tempera-2 ture i: below that?
3 That is, if those temperatures are okay, that is a 4
pretty good indication that the situation is --
e 5
MR. MATTSON:
If there were 52 of the, like there Q
6 were at Three Mile Island, it would be a pretty good indication.
R d
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the situation elsewhere M
j 8
in the plants that do have them?
d d
9 MR. MATTSON:
As I recall, they reported in one of Yh 10 their documents, all PWRs have core exit thermocouples.
Something i_j 11 like 80 percent of all of the core exit thermocouples are still a
y 12 operative in all these plants.
Only one plant did not have the
=
l 13 core exit thermocouples display outside of containment.
That
=
l 14 plant was required, or told, or encouraged, or whatever to get 2
15 that indication in the control room.
j 16 The inadequate core cooling question, the question of e
g 17 what is the best instrument to rely on in a given plant, the U
18 question of installing new instruments for inadequate core coolins
=
19 was left to the creativity of the individual plant' owner, subject 5
20 to review by the staff.
21 We did not edict core exit thermocouples, just as we 22 have not edicted anything except the few, let me call them, core s
23 melt instruments in the short-term Lessons Lc4rned, plus the 24 subcooling meter.
j 25l It looked to us like a way to synthesize the kind of i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
14 s
bfml4 I
information that you seem to have an interest in and do it 2
consistently within the state of the art without a lot of 3
disruption, that is, retre.ining of people and regiring of the 4
control room is to install the subcooling meter.
5 g
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am not in a position to sort 9]
6 of press this on you, but to try to understand why the experts R
7 do not seem to regard this a important as I would have thought Al 8
they would.
Do you have any feel on this, Joe?
d 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
As a practical matter in any zo 10 control room I have been in where the information is reachable, E
11 you do use. : as a check on other instruments that indicate how y
12 the status stands.
Ea 13 The core thermocouples, you know, sitting up at the 5a h
14 tops of the elements, and there are a number of them, if you 5
15 are going to get a good picture of the core condition and 3[
16 depend on that in a derious way, you really have to sample around w
6 17 and make sure you are not reading one that is anomalously high
{
18 or low compared to the rest and make sure you have one that is C
19 functioning and so on.
g 20 If you are using it as a check on other things, like 21 the subcooling meter, hot leg temperatures, cold leg temperatures, 22 and so on, by then you can set the plant computer to just give 23 you digital readouts on one of those things.
It is a useful 24 side check.
25l The primary dependents, I think, people have preferred ALDERSON R(PORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 15 bfm15 1
to rely on the kind of signal input that they put into the sub-2 cooling meter.
That is, hot leg and cold leg temperatures where 3
the nature of the instorument itself, the sensor itself, is that 4
it is getting: (A) more representative view of the bulk core; g
5 and (B) is just generally more reliable sort of process, process R
6 instrument.
R{
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wouldn't you want a picture of K
j 8
the top of the core, if you could have one?
dd 9
MR. MATTSON:
Hot leg temperature is, in essence, ioy 10 knowing.
E g
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is one number I would have y
12 thought that if it were possible to have it, a display of X and 5
g 13 Y coordinates in the core would be a nice thing to have.
mj 14 MR. MATTSON:
The people who are coming up with the 2
15 safety console, that is the display that operators and shift E
g 16 technical advisers, and what have you ought to rely on, the e
d 17 critical safety parameters of the core -- of the plant, do not 5
5 18 have such a display, either in government or in industry.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The water level --
R
~
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand that.
I guess I 21 am trying to understand what you are saying.
I know that.
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the best way to think s
23 of it, Vic, is it is sort of a hierarchical situation.
That is, i
24 the information -- that map of the water temperatures just above
- T.
25 selected elements around the top of the core is a very nice thing l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16 bfm16 1l to have and the operators do look at that.
2 I have been in some control rooms where you can call 3
that up in fact on a CRT and get the correct -- they have all 4
the temperatures in a geometrical array around the screen.
That a
5 is very nice.
8 6
I think because of the nature of those instruments e
$g 7
versus the nature of the other instruments that they use, I think j
8 they -- the view is that that is a highly useful piece of infor-d c!
9'.tration, but as auxiliary information to instruments they regard Y
10 as more primary sources.
El 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh sure, but if one of those it j
12 numbers registers -- you have a problem -- it sure would be 5
13 nice, it seems to me, to look at that picture.
l 14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
2 15 MR, MATTSON:
We would rather have earlier warning from g
16 some other kinds of instruments that there was something wrong wl d
17-with the core, then I might take recourse to those othe kinds of 5
18 measurements to find out where in the core, or why in the core, E
19 but I would not want that map as the primary reliance.
R
-20 Remember what we have done to these control rooms for 21 the last 20 years.
We have said " Add this; add that; put this 22 in; put that in."
To the point that there were hundreds of alarms s
23 :
to go off and instruments all over.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think this would be a page 25 i you would want ot be able to call up on your console.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
17 bfm17 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Or printout.
Most of them are 2
set up to get a printout from the process computer, which will 3
then wrap out, you know, a page display of the temperatures.
4 MR. MATTSON:
What about the plant that does not have e
5 such a computer or a cathode ray tube?
Are you ready ta design En 6
it today and tell it all the things it must have, in addition R
R 7
to telling them to install one and put the --
A j
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess this is one of the d
9 problems in regulation.
Common sense sometimes goes out the zog 10 window.
3 5
11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It is more -- it is more a g
12 matter of -- it is more a matter of sort of getting the primary 5j 13 instruments and making sure that you have a sot of primary
=
l 14 instruments that tell you the essential things about the core.
2 15 Sort of as a later proposition, you might want to come g
16 around and say "How about improving the incore thermocouple to e
g 17 the display capability?"
E 18 One of the problems we deal with here is that this item.
5" 19 like a number of others that I suspect co tid be mentioned, R
20 considered by itself, and without regard to anything else you 21 are doing.
There seem very little to argue against any improved 22 display capability for the in, core thermocouples.
1 23 Now, if the process of producing that improved display, 24
~ however, sets back or just for resource reasons, impedes higher 25 levels inthe safety hierarchy of improvement, why then you are ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18 bfml8 1
not -- you know, that is not the right thing to do.
I think it f#
2 is more in that sense that it is --
3 MR. MATTSON:
Make sure another point is clear.
We 4
are not saying that although we did not do it in the short-term, 5
we do not want to do it in the long-term.
These thermocouples e
2n]
6 are in Reg Guide 1.97.
R d
7 Synthesis of this kind of regulation is in the safety 3
j 8
console monitor considerations.
You will see these things used dd 9
two years from now than you do today.
z h
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I do not understand your pre-j 11 vious comment.
I did not think they were going to be in the 3
g 12 safety console.
=
E 13 MR. MATTSON:
Not in the quick and urgent things that 5
l 14 we did in the first couple of years.
We said, every plant must 2
15 use this information because it' varies in its goodness.
It wx j
16 varies in the capability of the control room display.
d g
17 It varies in the complexity of the control room.
It x
18 varies with whatever other instruments they have.
So, we said, 5
19 "We want you to have procedures for inadequate core cooling.
We H
20 want you to think through one of the best instruments for your 21 plant to use.
Put all of that together, come and talk to us 22 by January 1, 1980, tell us what you have done.
Then, by January s
23,
1, 1981, add any instruments you need to do a good job of that i
24 '
if you did not have the right instruments.
l s_
i 25 "Oh, by the way, we are coming along with a safety l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
19 consolo and Rrg Guido 1.97 where these things will be given bfm19 1
further consideration." So, it may be a safety monitor console 2
when the standard criteria for that get issued, that a desision 3
is made that core exit thermometry, given what we have been able 4
to accomplish with level indicators or subcooling meter, some e
5 E
N synthesis of the 50 or 80 or however many thermocouples they 8
6 e
have ought to be on that safety monitor console.
7 I almost guarantee you they will not be or, all 50 8
N thermocouples because the safety console for hur.an factors and 9
z human cognizance reasons is probably only going to be two or 10 1
cZ l
three dozen parameters in total.
j 5
11
<3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the safety console?
Is 5
12 z
that a TV tube?
13 S
)
MR. MATTSON:
You can think of it that way.
g j4 N
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which can only call up one 15 s
Y i6 page.
k d
MR. MATTSON:
Yes, one set of defined preordained y
17 w
h 18 parameters that have been validated through a simulator ands..
=
other demonstration tests before installation in the plant as 39 R
being the key, critical, fundamental, whatever right adjectives are 20 set of parameters for prompt diagnosis of the safety status of 21 the reactor overall.
22
(
Su h things have been put together on paper, discussion:
23,
are under way of the safety monitor console.
Criteria of the 24 action plan will be issued by the end of the summer.
We expect ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 bfm20 1
that to be 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, we had better not pursue 3
this subject much further.
It does seem that we ought to, at 4
least, encourage people to have this sort of information avail-m 5
g able to the extent their plants allow it.
N 6
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Any other issues?
If I could get R
8 7
back to the item set "C",
which is in Mr. Dircks' second paper.
n 8
8 I propose to defer considering that to '82 and beyond.
Are a
dc 9
g there any --
oF 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are we on a going once, going
=
m 11 twice basis?
g d
12 z
(Laughter.)
=d 13 g
My problem is, I want to pursue this more by topic than m
h by this list.
Thus my question about monitoring devices, so that
=
b while I have -- I can ask questions at any time.
I do not
=
?
16 g
necessarily relate to list "C".
17 In fact, the bulk of my questions at this point do not.
E CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In order to get the staff to go E
19 g
forward, we do have to take action on a number of items that have 20 been proposed for decision.
21 One of them is this set.
What this paper is saying is 22 j "Here is a set of 12 items."
They are asking for deferral, then t
23 ii they would be considered in FY '82 or later.
24 We are sort of at that hard stage where we have gone 25 through -- tia staff has worked very hard coming up with these i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
21 bfm21 1
various' reviews of the Action plan.
We are now at the resource 2
allocation question.
People have got to know what things they 3
are working on, what things they are not working on.
That is 4
the issue.
e 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I understand that.
E N
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What I would propose is that we g
8 7
approve that.
7.
8 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The deferral of these items?
dd 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
That set of 12.
io g
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think I have no difficulty z.
.l 11 with that.
The one question I have that would clearly cut is y
12 across the 2-F/3-D items is the one I already asked.
I will not E
E 13 promise that some of the others will not pull us at least back E
l 14 into explanations of them, but there is nothing on the face of it f
E 15 that would have me saying that it was not all right.
5 g
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
as b'
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Okay.
5 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Victor?
=
P=
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I will say yes if I can make 8n 20 one more comment.
21 (Laughter.)
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We will accept the yes.
So, we have
(
23 approved that set "C".
All right, go back and make your comment.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If I can go ahead with the
(
25 Point, it seems to me that in the days after the accident, the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
k 22 bfm22 1
information that sticks in.my mind most, or that I remember being 2
passed around from hand to hand was precisely that part of the 3
incore thermocouples.
4 MR. MATTSON:
Not in prompt response to accident.
It j
is good information.
That is what we used in those early days.
5
?]
6 It was the best we had from Three Mile Island.
3 b
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Remember, focus on that.
One of A[
8 the reasons it was the best we had is because we did not have dy 9
much else.
$g 10 MR. MATTSON:
That's right.
The point I am making is 11 it was diagnostic.
After time had passed, it was useful to us, a
y 12 not prompt usefulness, the kind of instruments that have been 3
13 helpful in an emergency are those that are of prompt usefulness ag 14 for interceding in these events before they turn into damaged g
15 cores.
m j
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Had we had them, we would be using J
A d
17 the other information a lot sooner.
}
18 MR. MATTSON:
Yes, yes.
Nobody is contending that the A"
19 core exit thermocouples are not good for understanding what is g
20 happening to a core that has undergone damage, but by the time 21 those thermocouples generally rise, that is all of them, the hot 22 leg indicator is telling you the same thing.
You have not got s
23. ;
time to worry about distributions and things.
24 You are controlling the overall flow of water to the n
25 plant or what have you.
What we have assured is these core exit ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23 i
bfm23 1
thermocouples are available in the control room of all operating 4
2 PWRs.
They are hooked up.
There are some basic complement of 3
them to stay in the control room.
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Didn't we also --
e 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let Roger say that one again.
h
]
6 MR. MATTSON:
These thermocouples are all displayed in E
7 control rooms in operating PWRs in this country.
There is only N
j 8
one to my recollection that was not that case.
The task force d
i d
9 saw that it was fixed.
I can confirm that for you.
i h
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You can call it up?
E E
11 MR. MATTSON:
Call it up or go read it on the front of d
12 the panel or the back of the panel.
It is available and we have E=
y 13 taken one further step.
We said, " Review your procedures for m
l 14 inadequate core cooling, and optimize your utilization of infor-2 15 mation in the control room for preventing and correcting inade-5 y
16 quate core cooling."
e d
17 So, no matter where they are, either on the process 5
5 18 computer or on the back of a console or the front of the console, E
19 each plant has not only confirmed he has then, but he has thought X
20 through again how he would use them in a transient or an accident.
21 That may not be good enough.
The safety console may 22 say, "Put some kind of information processor on that information
.k 23 synthesize it, and bring me a general indication of the core 24 exit temperature and put it on the safety console _, and tell the 25 i operator something about what that indication is telling you."
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
24 bfm24 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could I suggest you pursue this 2
further --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that a requirement or just 4
simply a fact?
e 5
MR. MATTSON:
It is stimply a fact we observed.
Is 3a 3
6 there anyone here from Bulletins and Orders that could corroborate R
7 that?
K 8
8 I can back to you in the next couple of days.
n d
c 9
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All right.
Y 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Roger, don't I recall that we Ej 11 asked people to do something about range on those things?
Did 3
y 12 that ever become a requirement or do you remember?
=
h 13 MR. MATTSON:
I thought we did something.
l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can I suggest you provide -- Harold, E
2 15 could you provide us an information paper, just a summary of what 5
g 16 the status is on incore thermocouples?
How many have them?
What M
g 17 are the requirements, et cetera?
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I do not have anything more
=
19 on that.
I do have a couple of other questions.
I think they N
20 are the only two that key back into the area "C"
at all, if I l
21 can just get them out of the way now.
22 First of all, Roger, the overall 1-F classification on 23,
quality assurance.
We have had some problems recently, obviour&y, l l
l l
24l in Quality Assurance at a couple of plants.
It has a relatively I
25 '
low priority on this list, which I take it is TMI related.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
25 bfm25 1
The Quality Assurance -- I assume that does not mean 2
that the kinds of efforts that I& E is going through to learn, 3
from what they have found in the Marble Hill, in South Texas cases 4
is also put on a relative back burner with regard to --
e 5
MR. SMITH:
That is true.
That does not mean that we Ae j
6 will delay those reviews.
R 7
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am sure we are not going to delay X
j 8
those --
d d
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Not just those two cases, but zo 10 to the extent there is an overlap between what you were learning i
j 11 in those cases in terms of what needs to be done about QA-QC S
f 12 practices.
=
l 13 If we are deferring a category of things entitled a
l 14
" Expand QA List" and then a r. ember of other QA-QC related reforms, 2
15 does that in any way slow down or impair your efforts to assign 5
g 16 people and learn lessons from what is going on at Marble Hill, w
17 and South Texas.
If not, why not?
m 18 MR. SMITH:
It does not.
=
C 19 MR. MATTSON:
Let me explain.
X 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is not just'l-F-1; that 21 whole category c ~ 1-F items.
22 MR. MATTSON:
Let's start with the basic contention i
1 23, there was not much learned from QA concerns from the accident at 24 Three Mile Island.
So, this will not change anything relating 25 ' to construction QA.
There was a question arising from Three 4
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, lHC.
26 bfm26 1
Mile Island about how many things were within the reach of QA 2
items, safety grade and non-safety grade.
The level indicator 3
and the pressurizer being a good example.
There have been 4
several schools of thought as to how to come to grips with g
5 the safety grade, non-safety grade probi_4as, that is, should we N
6 make everything that is non-safety grade safety grade, or should 9
R 7
we make part of it?
How do you solve that question?
A 8
One school of thought said, "Let's simply go down a d
=
9 list of non-safety grade equipment and made some judgments as to I
10 what things ought to be on the Q list and move them over there."
g 11 That is one approach.
That was the approach originally 3
d 12 recommended in 1-F-1.
Another approach is tc take systems 3=
d 13 interaction sutdies and methodically go through the way non-safet:
S E
14 systems support and otherwise interact with safety systems, and dk 2
15 construct some discipline methodology for deciding which of the 5
16 thousands of non-safety things to add to the Q list.
Ed 1
6 17 The school of thought that has won out in the discus-i 18 sions on this subject with the ACRS with you gentlemen in draft P
[
19 two that we discussed for a couple of hours one afternoon was the R
20 school of thought that it is too simple to just start throwing 21 things over into the safety grade stack.
You need a way to 22 decide which to throw over, which are the important things that 23 !
you have to deal with.
24 So, this plan gives emphasis to things like IREP.
25 System interactica studies to define what are the things we shoulc l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
27 bfm27 1
broaden our scope and reach and pull into the Q list and defers 2
to later.
3 The revision of the Q list, after those studies, an 4
analysis and methods of development studies are completed.
It e
5 simply says -- it recognizes that to do 1-F-1 right, you ought N
h 6
to wait until '82 to start it.
^n 5l 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
Here is where my concern n']
8 arises, Dick.
You are familiar with the fact that in both of d
9 those cases where we have had problems, one of the explanations ic g
10 why particular items did not matter was because they were not i
g 11 safety related.
m j
12 I assume that the list that is being used to decide E
d 13 whether something is safety related or not is essentially the E
l 14 pre-TMI list.
t 2
15 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
It is the'Q list.
g 16 MR. SMITH:
Yes, it is this list.
W g
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But Peter, the QA related 18 problems of recent times that, you know, come to mind call less 5
[
19 for a new set of requirements than --
N 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
A different set of practices.
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
THan effective implementation 22 of the present set.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is right, except -- just l
24 l to take a hypothetical case, if you came across a practice that 25 j seemed dubious but involved auxiliary feedwater at a plant under I
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
28 bfm28 1
construction --
2 MR. MATTSON:
It would be on the Q list.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It would be on the Q list?
4 MR. MATTSON:
All new plants, the aux feedwater system 5
j is a safety system.
9!
0 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The Q list differs --
R
- S 7
MR. MATTSON:
This is ground for the years.
It was A2 8
M not just Three Mile Island that gave it inclination to --
d 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There has to be a hypothetical 10 that works out right, doesn't there?
=!
II (Laughter.)
3 E'# 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
By definition.
3 13 j
That was your question?
l 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
g 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I agree with Joe.
The real difficul a
j 16 we found in those two different cases you mentioned, the weakness M
h I7 seemed to be in one case the organization itself just did not hav 5
II 3
any strength in it. 'In the second case --
P" 19 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is certainly right, but M
20 at the same time, when particular flaws showed up, one of the 2I mitigating factors was that this was not safety related.
MR. MATTSON:
Just as you can find some that should not 23 l be a proper excuse, there are some that should be a proper excuse
.I 24 The question is how do you draw the line between the two.
That 25
~
is where the argument comes down, what should or should not be on ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
29 bfm29 1
the Q list.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
3 MR. MATTSON:
Although we have made some decisions 4
piecemeal as we went along, the decision to do it all piecemeal g
5 just to make arbitrary judgments on the basis of today's N'
6 knowledge on what you should do to expand the Q list was not R
a 7
the one that won out.
A 8
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You said you had two?
d d
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
The other one has to do 2io N
10 with item -- here it is 2-F-5.
E g
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
2-F-5 was moved up last time.
t y
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Oh, okay.
5 13 MR. MATTSON:
That is another one we decided to do j
14 piecemeal.
2 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
Good.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay?
E ai 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
a:
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Having approved "C"
let us move on 2b 19 to "D."
8 es 20 (Laughter.)
21 D was a set of so-called studies.
I say "so-called" 22 because it was not clear that all of them really fit into the
(
23 category of study.
The request is to approve this set.
I guess 24 I had one question on it.
25 I noticed in reading 3-A-1-A, it says " interim recommen-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
30 b2m30 1
ations will be made by April 1980."
2 (Laughter.)
3 MR. DIRCKS:
It is coming down to --
4 (Laughter.)
5 g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There was a different calendar --
a j
6 MR. MATTSON:
We had some difficulty in --
^n 7
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Dircks is still working on X]
8 February.
He is ahead of schedule.
d d
9 MR. MATTSON:
There were some things in here that always E.
h 10 had their deadlines changed to one month beyond the date of the --
=
5 11 the steering group in March got unhappy with that.
in y
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
15 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have, if I understood it I4 rightly, I have an even more_ pointed example of that.
It is 1-D-(
15 which is, I think if I have understood it rightly, recommended g
16 for -- it is allowed to slip for at least two years before a6
(
17 deferral.
It is a conference that occurred in January of this a:
{
18 year.
5 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, that actually --
20 (Laughter.)
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Have I' misunderstood it?
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You misunderstood, because that is
~
23 A-1-D-6.
That is something that says "These are actions previous-24 ly approved by the Commission."
25 They are scheduled to be initiated in FY
'80.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31 bfm31 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What I think is a priority --
2 it is a priority three, is it not?
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Nevertheless, on our list it is --
4 it says it is number "A" already approved, and scheduled to be e
5 initiated in FY
'80.
An 3
6 MR. MATTSON:
It does not say -- they are all priority R
7 group one.
Al 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If it is priority group three, 1
d d
9 then is it not by definition --
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- allowed to slip for a couple h
11 3
y 12 of years?
5 13 MR. MATTSON:
No, some are but not all.
l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This is.
2 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is not of great importance, 5
j 16 but it seemed to me to be an odd category.
In fact, to put it w
d 17 in the Action Plan at all, given that it occurred fot.P months 5
18 ago seemed a little odd.
5 I
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It was one of the responses.
R 20 MR. MATTSON:
It was a response to the President's 21 statement of December 7th that FAA and NASA and DOE should cooper-22 ate with NRC to transfer technology from advanced electro-tech-23,
nology in other places into --
24 CHAIRMAN AHERANE:
Let me --
t -
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It was not something I intended ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
32 bfm32 I
to raise, but there was another item in that same category.
It 2
does though perhaps bear mentioning that some of these items 0
which re being called part of the plan; there are a bunch of 4
others will, in fact, have been completed before the plan itself g
5 becomes final.
R 0
MR. MATTSON:
Seventeen short-term Lessons Learned on R
- E 7
operating plants.
]
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is right.
- J 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That is consistent.
z 2
10 j
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
With several things.
=!
II COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
My concept of the Action Plan is d
12 E
has always been to have in one compilation a -- when people say,
- i g
13 "What did you do at TMI?"
m l
14 "Why, here it is."
$j 15 So, there are things in here -- a wide range that is
=
ij 16 already done, and --
as h
I7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
As we have said so many times in 18 this, we assume some things would be done at the same time.
_c i-II COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The conference predated the g
20 priority system, actually.
2I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are there any items on list D?
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The 31 items?
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The 31 items.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How much effort is required for 25 the whole lot?
Does anybody have any idea?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
33 bfm33 i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
To do the studies?
l 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you have any idea?
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It is not negligible.
4 MR. MATTSON:
If you want to know, we can go get it.
3 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Just roughly.
8 6
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The studies we are talking about, R
7 there are different kinds of so-called studies.
For example, K
j 8
the nuclear data link effort --
U q
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Counting agency man years --
zc 10 can you express it in dollars?
E j
11 MR. MATTSON:
No.
t j
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Including the contract money?
c j
13 MR. CORNELL:
We can do that.
m l
14 MR. MATTSON:
We can have a rough estimate before the E
2 15 meeting is over.
E g
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How did you decide to put some e
g 17 of the seven --
E 5
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We are going to get to that -- do
=
U 19 you want to take it at the same time?
R 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't you go ahead?
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I had a question.
There were two 22 items that you are proposing to defer, which go into group s
23,
category 8, namely the first two that I would have -- I guess i
24 my own view would be they ought to be up there.
25 i MR. MATTSON:
Operator licensing?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
34 bfm34 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the licensing of operations 2
personnel.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How do you decide to put that 4
off and keep something like the Office of Public Affairs will g
5 devlope agency policy, provide training for interfacing with the E
6 news media and other interested parties?
R 7
MR. DIRCKS:
1-A-3-2, that talks about operator traininc A]
8 and so forth, regional training.
r):i 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It has a little bit more than that.
i O
g 10 It is a study of the staff in operating licensed qualification anc El 11 training and so forth.
it y
12 MR. MATTSON:
I'm sure Mr. Denton made his decision 5
d 13 that we could not afford that.
It was purely resources in that E
l 14 area of his staff than he could more meaningfully expect to hire 2
15 with that expertise to do the other things he had been asked to j
16 do in the next two years.
- r)(
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then the --
lii 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Who made this division?
?
{
19 MR. MATTSON:
The office directors, n
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The office directors?
21 MR. MATTSON:
It would be Harold Denton on these two.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This --
23 MR. MATTSON:
The assignment of these actions to a 24 priority grouping, the weighing cf safety significance of all of 25 these things in consistent way was an action by the steering ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 bfm35 1
group, but the decision on which of the priority group ones, twos 2
and threes and so on --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Some of these do not deal with 4
NRR.
There is something about Public Affairs here.
e 5
MR. MATTSON.
That would be a decision by the Office E"
]
6 of Public Affairs.
R 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see.
Kj 8
MR. MATTSON:
Where the steering group interceded was d
d 9
where we saw things that were deferred that we did not agree 10 with or we saw things that were started that we thought should be 3
i j
11 postponed.
m y
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess what I am saying, is at c
y 13 least from my one vote on this side, I would not agree with a
E 14 1-A-3-2 and 1-A-3-4.
as 2
15 MR. MATTSON:
Could I talk about 1-A-3-4 for just a g
16 minute?
w(
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would certainly agree with Bill's 5
18 point.
I was not so interested in the operating branch examiners.
E 19 I would agree with postponement of that.
I 20 The part I would not agree with postponing is basically 21 the study, the staffing, the qualifications of examiners.
I thini 22 we ought to be really moving ahead on that now.
Yes, Roger?
(
23 MR. MATTSON:
1-A-3-4, there is a technical basis for 24 deferring it slightly.
That is this question of remember we had in here the physician task analysis and the revision of training 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
36 bfm36 1,
for non-licensed operations personnel.
2 The whole area of what kinds of training, what kinds 3
of qualifications, what kind of reliance to place on INPO as they 4
get into these areas for non-licensed personnel is something there g
5 has to be some learning on.
j 2
6 We have to see how it goes on several kinds of machines R
{
7 with several kinds of operating organizations.
You probably get A
j 8
a lot more for dollar invested in the study of licensing these d
c 9
additional personnel after you define what their training and i
O 10 qualifications are prior to deciding what they're training and E
5 11 qualifications are to be.
<t y
12 You can go ahead an study licensing now.
You know 5
j 13 much less about the technical requirements of that licensing n
l 14 than you will two years from now.
t.
2 15 MR. DENTON:
I just want to make sure we've jumped 16 through D and and we're down to E.
k M
6 17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We have not jumped through.
I have 5
5 18 established my point, but the others have not had a chance to say E
I 19 what they think about it.
N 20 MR. DENTON:
In some of these, there is a rationale 21 such as in these other people other than operators.
We are 22 having an effort under way to describe what their past functions 23 were, the task activity.
24 MR. MATTSON:
Position task analysis.
25.
MR. DENTON:
Based on that, then we thought we could 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 37 bfm37 1
move into the qualifications.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
To me, that sounds like a reasonable 3
connection.
4 MR. DENTON:
That was one that bothered me that we g
5 weren't doing anything on, but I am satisfied with the task 0
3 6
analysis being a reasonable start.
We can afford that effort.
R
{
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I withdraw my objection to the Kl 8
Operations personnel.
My vote would be to move at least a sectior.
d d
9 of that operating licensing changes to the --
Y h
10 MR. DIRCKS:
I can say that, too.
Reading it again, I g
11 certainly -- we should move that into a much more --
y 12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Since you are dealing with a E
13 finite staff that has to do this, they already have a lot of l
14 operator activities going on.
2 15 What do we trade this for, is the question?
g 16 COMMISSIONER GINILSKY:
Probably licensing of M
g 17 operators.
5 5
18 (Laughter.)
E 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is the fundability issue.
En 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that is what it boils 21 down to.
22 MR. MATTSON:
You will be speding dollars to study it 23, from the outside.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You could spend dollars to study it.
25 I mean, that is not --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
TF
~
'bfm38 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Since the -- since this area 2
is one of high interest to that new outfit in Atlanta, INPO, is 3
there a way to get some useful activity out of the other side?
4 MR. MATTSON:
I do not think so because this is a 3
5 study of how our examiners ought to be improved.
E 3
6 (Laughter.)
R d
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think you might get some Al 8
input.
d 2
9 (Laughter.)
,zo 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I do not think you would be in j
11 favor of -- I gather you would not.
it y
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the reason that we see 5
y 13 these lists, do things now, do these things in a year, to these
- n l
14 things in two years, do these things in three years.
This is 2
15 not because these things down at the bottom here -- it is just g
16 that, you know.
as 6
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, but --
!E 18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You want to move a piece of 5
19 this one, 1-A-3-2 up, what are you going to move down?
M 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think that is what -- we find out 21 where that impacts.
That is part of the rearrangement that 22 Harold is going to have to go through.
23 If there is any purpose for us addressing this list, 24 '
it has to be to agree or disagree.
If we disagree, we have to 25 adjust it to where we agree, otherwise, there is no send -- we I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
39
'bfm39 1
might just as well let Bill do it.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am perfectly willing to ask Harold 3
to take a look and see what his costs are in moving it up and l
4 what he has to move down for a piece of this to go up.
That is j
l g
5-perfectly fair.
j 8
i 6
COMMISSIONER GINILSKY:
I thought Bill was saying, at R
8 7
least part of that --
A]
8 MR. DIRCKS:
We can go back and take a look at it.
I l
d d
9 do not know what is going on there now.
I imagine we are doing ie g
10 something to look at operator errors.
E g
11 How we formalize that -- we can come back to that.
It t
y 12 is strange that it is in there.
E MR. DENTON:
Let's take a look at how the manpower 13
=
l 14 breaks out.
We estimated resources for that entire action.
It 2
15 is about a man year each year.
That is more task than the part Y
j 16 you are most interested in.
W g
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is fine as far as that.
I 5
18 have a couple of other questions about the D category generally.
5 E
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
A 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Roger, what -- what is really 21 going on with the studies in the 4-E section?
The rule making 22 issues, assess currently operating reactors planned for early s
23,
resolution of safety issue.
Those are studies of what, several l
24 years duration?
25l MR. MATTSON:
MOst of those are more immediate than
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
40 bfm40 1
that.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are they studies that are under 3
way already?
4 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
I have an SES contract out on a e
5 couple of those, myself.
The people that work for me -- this a
6 fits into 4-E-5.
R 7
Something associated with 4-E-5, 4-E-2 is really the s
j 8
charter of the Safety Program Evaluation Branch in my new dn 9
division.
At least, that is who it got assigned to.
Y 10 4-E-4 is standards activity how to make better use Ej 11 of rule making.
That is not a new topic, it is perennially 3
d 12 restudied.
We have some new ideas in light of Three File Island 5a 13 and a list of requirements, I suspect, on what to do with l
14 rule making.
b E
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask a question that U
16 really bears on those but also on this section generally.
How g
e d
17 long would you guess it would be before agency action is concludec 18 on the bulk of these items?
5 C
19 Are we looking at things?
In some cases, obviously, N
20 they are going to go on.
21 MR. MATTSON:
The requirement to report to the 22 Congress within 90 days of the bill, that has to be done soon.
23, 4-E-2 has a deadline of this year.
24 Basically, that is given some new safety issue; how 25{ does NRR identify it, prioritize it, and decide it is an unresol-i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
41 bfm41 1
ved safety issue or decide it is something that does not deserve 1
2 resources tind ought to be put off.
That is something -- the 3
criticism of the Ratchet Committee by Rogovin and others said i
4 we ought to do better with, f
5 Given a new organization -- we have a chance to come to e
i
.E 6
an answer to Ehat afresh.
We may have an answer to that in the
{
7 next couple of months.
There are probably others that are like
%l 8
perennial questions, better use of rule making.
That is d
d 9
something we can afford to look at every other year and try and Y
E io do better.
E g
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
E y
12 MR. MATTSON:
Financial disincentives, some contend E
(
13 Rogovin did everything that needed to be done there.
All we have l
14 to do is be sensitive to it.
2 15 So, we are going to look a little harder.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
They raised the issuei
- W 6
17 MR. MATTSO}L', Yes, on all of these.
You know, these w
18 are category C.
It says, "Do some defined study then come up
=
19 here with some pros and cons and alternatives and think about 20 where to go from there."
21 We may decide on a five year program, on one or more of 22 those others we may decide to drop it.
(
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Any other questions on D or E?
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
4-E-3 fits pretty much 25 i into that same category, doesn't it?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
42 bfm42 1
MR. MATTSON:
We have a problem with 4-E-3.
Everybody 2
has said we ought to defer that.
On the 9th of May, we received 3
a message from the Secretary that said, "Do you think we ought 4
to proceed with it?"
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You know Sam, he just gets an e
U
]
6 urge every once in a while.
9 2
7 MR. MATTSON:
This is the advance notice of rule sl 8
making.
He said we ought to go forward with it.
We are taking d
d 9
advantage of the slight confusion in the Secretary's memorandum Y
10 to ask you whether you want to do the impact assessment before 3
5 11 or after --
y 12 (Laughter.)
(
13 I am hoping my manager will let me come back and let l
14 me come back and talk to you about it.
I think you have moved 2
15 this one, in effect, from E to D.
U y
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is the way to do it.
M d
17 MR. MATTSON:
We may decide to just go ahead and do that Mr. Hendrie, in 18 or to come back and contend with you a bit.
E 19 his comments on that commission approval, raised the comments gn 20 of whether in relation to the resources of the Action Plan we 21 could afford to really do all of the things associated with t..
22 advance notice.
That is basically what we are saying, also.
We
' l flwa t4 23,
can probably talk to you more about that.
24 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ParkCr Lupt2n 43 NRC 5-21 Tp 4 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Any other questions on those two t
2 items?
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would assume that pending --
s 5
Harold, you will get back to us, or Bill, on that one on the 6
operator training, but without exception, we approve the two e'.
N.,
7 sets.
Al 8
MR. MATTSON:
With the understanding that 4-E-3 d
d 9
is in conflict with something you just said a couple of weeks 10 ago, and we will get back to you and straighten that out.
E g
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I also assume that these it y
12 approvals have to hang somewhat loosely until we have dealt with
~m 13 the reprogramming and the real money involved as well.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course.
I mean, it probably a
2 15 will end up meaning that there are two sets of statements, the j
16 deferrals then going ahead.
Deferrals will probably stick.
d g
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That sounds as though it 5
5 18 makes sense.
h 19 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Number F was just to set off --
n 20 Jim?
21 MR. BUDRITZ:
It appears that approximately 40 man 22 years and $4 million in 1980 could be devoted to those studies; 23 30 man years and S3 million for 1981, which are already 24 rebudgeted or in reprogramming.
25l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the 31 Decision Group D there is
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
44 a set of items that are proposed to be put into the normal y
2 budgetary program planning cycle.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you explain what that 3
means?
4 5
MR. MATTSON:
That deserves an explanation.
If you e
U 8
6 recall how --
e 7
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
These are the ones they threw 7.j 8
out.
N (General laughter.)
9 2i i
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But --
E 11 MR. MATTSON:
There are two ways an item got onto the 3
list.
It was either already ongoing and did not need to be
- i 12 3
reprioritized or offset by Three Mile Island or just
(
13 S
E 14 acknowledg'd so we could show how it was responsive to one of a
2 15 the recommendations for one of the principle studies.
Y 16 Another way you could get on here was, that was as 6
17 normal agency work.
It was something we would have come to with 18 or without Three Mile Island. We would have expected to have it 19 be picked up in the normal budgetary cycle. It is more than R
20 two years.
Also, that is 1982 or beyond.
And it was put into 21 this Category D.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So the fact that something is 23,
in Category D tells you nothing about its priority?
i y
MR. MATTSON: That is right.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEAFNE:
We are basically saying, it is a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t
S l
45 j
bookkeeping -- I think it is a bookkeeping --
MR. DIRCKS:
It is a recommendation from the various 2
study groups.
3 MR. MATTSON:
You know you are either already doing or 4
e 5
were planning do or it in some way relates to recommendations b
8 6
from studies of Three Mile Island, even though you were doing e
f7 or might have been doing these things even if there had not been 8
a Three Mile Island.
n N
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the sense of the historical 9
z h
10 compendium that was talked about, that here these --
Ejj jj COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY:
And they were formerly on some E
list.
4 12 Z
_c s
13 MR. DIRCKS:
Being done, for example, the enforcement E
E 14 policy will be coming down shortly.
You have already seen part
&u f that.
We will come down again on that.
I mean, we have been 15 5
7 16 working on that.
E cd MR. MATTSON:
Expanded research and qualification g
j7
- s b
18 f safety decision-making.
~ct-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Maybe the description -- There 39 2M 20 are a couple of sentences after F.
They don't seem to quite 2;
categorize it in the way you described.
3 MR. MATTSON:
Maybe it is too cryptic.
There is a
\\
23 definition of Category D along the lines I have been using.
If y
you turn the page, the Decision Groups A through D are defined.
25 j You flip over the D items, et cetera.
I think that captures it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
46 j
CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Any objections to that list?
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That would be a hard list 3
to object to.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
e 5
(General laughter.)
3 6
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Let us move then to the e
$g 7
harder issue, which is reprogramming.
Ml 8
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
They are getting more money.
d d
9 CHA.TRMAN AHEARNE:
As we turn to reprogramming, we Y
g 10 ought to keep in mind a couple of items.
i5 5
11 (Whereupon: Commissioner Gilinsky left the room at
- 5 12 3:14 p.m.1 E
E 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
One of the items that has come up 5
E 14 to us, there seem to be primary concentrations -- correct me if U
k 15 I am wrong, Kevin -- on FY 1980, a certain amount in FY 1981, but N
3.-
16 a recognition that there is -- depending on which page I looked wi g
17 at, it is either $8.4 million or S9.4 million, identified as hi 18 needed but unreprogrammed.
That is, resources are not--
~_
19 MR. CORNELL:
If you are talking about dollars, R
20 we looked at 1980 and tried to solve that problem in 1981.
We 21 looked at it but we did not come up with a solution.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And then we ought to keep in mind 23,
that the Senate Authorization Committee appears to be cutting us 24 5 percent.
The House Authorization Committee has.just cut us 25; 2 percent, and we do not yet know what the Appropriations i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
47 1
Committees will do, but I guess we are now looking at at least --
2 no more money than 2 percent below what -- and it may be more 3
than that, further below, and it may be much further below, f
4 because in addition to cutting they may direct us to cut places e
5 that we did not have in the budget.
h 3
6 So, the 1981 problem -- from my own view, it is now e
Rg 7
becoming sufficiently stark that I would guess that the five j
8 gentlemen or gentlewomen that sit on this side of the table lates d
=
9 this year will have to go and plead for a supplemental.
I do not Y
10 think it can be handled any way without. it.
E 11 MR. CORNELL:
You have to be aware there -- it would d
12 be very difficult if not impossible to get a supplemental 3=d 13 authorization..
It is just not --
5 E
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is probably true, Kevin, but w
2 15 I think that the Congress. is tending to the level where they 5
16 are going to constrain us to the point where the agency will not
- d g
17 be able to carry out their responsibilities.
18 MR. CORNELL:
My reason for raising that is that we do 5
19 have an indication that the Senate side woGId be receptive to 8n 20 an mmendment for the authorization bill to raise it above the 21 5 percent level, to add some money back in.
If you miss that c
22 opportunity, I think it would be harder to --
\\
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am sure we can get a busload up i
24 there to argue that --
~
25 MR. CORNELL: We have a proposal that is coming down.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 48 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
-- given the sort of stark 2
situation.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
May I ask a couple of question:
4 about this list before we get into reprogramming, just so that 5
I will know --
=
3 N
8 6
CHAIRMAN ABEARNE:
Which list are we talking about e
R R
7 now?
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This is about everything that d
o 9
we have already approved.
One of them has to do actually with I
h 10 an item that we have taken out of the draft decision on electri-E 5
11 cal connectors, with the understanding -- especially because I
<t d
12 think you felt it was covered in the action plan.
Maybe I ought E
h 13 to ask you where in the action plan you found assurance that E
E 14 the electrical connector problem was being dealt with.
The only d
15 place I found it was this 2-F-5 which we bumped upward in 5
16 priority, the general qualification of electrical equipment, but
- W 17 I am not sure that takes us very far beyond TMI.
=
5 18 MR. MATTSON:
I am not sure of what you removed.
~
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't have it in front of 19 R
20 me.
You probably don't remember.
Let me just pursue that 21 one separately.
I want to make sure, though, before we put out 22 that other decision and before we approve this one that --
i i
MR. MATTSON: Can I say a few more words about what 23 ;
24 2-F-5 is?
25l MR. DENTON:
We were doing a lot of things, safety i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9 49 1
related, before TMI came along, fire protection equipment 2
qualifications and so forth.
I see this action plan as being 3
mainly a response to the investigations of TMI, the TMI accident 4
and the recommendations that are in here.
We do have in our s
5 budget the manpower required to carry out those reports on 8
6 safety issues that were under review before TMI occurred.
R 7
So, I do not think actions on the action plan will n
j 8
impact fire protection reviews one way or the other.
We have d
d 9
a dedicated group working away at that.
Likewise with other i
Og 10 issues on the table.
E E
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
<3
- i 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is that all?
3=
d 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Also, there is a large E
l 14 category of decisions in the action plan which involve E
9 15 initiating design reviews of items that we are going to want g
16 to be one, to be two, these kinds of things.
I do not find in w
g 17 the plan deadlines for when we actually expect to have them in 5
5 18 place in the operating plants.
=H" 19 What process do you all see?
R 20 MR. MATTSON: There are deadlines for every requirement 21 that is in here.
There are not deadlines for implementation of 22 the results of studies, but every requirement that is in here, 23,
there is a deadline for its implementation and operating plans.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Shall we look at 2-B-1 for a 25 second?
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8 50 MR. MATTSON:
That has to be implemented by January 1, 3
1981.
I do not know what it says in the plan for us to 2
require that. Does it say that?
The letter is referenced on 3
4 Page 2-B-1, issued to plants under construction, and the e
5 operating plants contain that deadline.
Back in the licensee R
8 6
section it should say January 1, 1981.
It may not.
e 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That means that the vent 8
itself has to be installed in operating plants by January 1, N
1981, or --
9 2i 10 MR. MATTSON:
It has to be installed by -- It says E!
11 that in the letters. that you approved last fall, and with the I
,j j 2 OL requirements you approved last Friday, it had to be in place 2
13 before full power, January 1, 1981.
I am sorry.
No, it is 5
E 14 full power -- I ought to keep reading -- design plant to full
- s 2
15 power.
U 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The same answer for 2-B-2?
us j7 MR. MATTSON:
That has to be done by January 1, 1981.
b 18 That was another short-term lessons learned.
Complete the I
design review by January 1, 1980, and complete implementation of j9 X
20 plant modifications by January 1, 1981.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And that will be done against 21 22 the SD Reg Guide?
MR. MATTSON:
There is no SD Reg Guide.
23,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The last sentence is,"SD 24 3
will issue the Reg Guide for comment by January 1, 1980, and the l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
51 j
effective Reg Guide by January 1, 1981."
2 MR. MATTSON: For comment by March, 1981.
That is afte:
3 the operating reactors are required to conform, so the intent wi.
4 be to take whatever experience comes from that first implementat; e
5 and see what sort works and put them in the Reg Guide and put it 9
8 6
out for comment.
e Rg 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess the difficulty I am Al 8
having, and I think you have answered it for me, is that the d
d 9
reference that went into these -- when it says schedule in the i
10 plant itself and references, that is what you are saying, is that E
~
g the letters themselves will contain schedules that --
jj "J
12 MR. MATTSt.i. :
Yes. Under NRC action there is a 3
description of what we have to do and a schedule of when we are 13 E
E 14 going to do it.
In those letters that we issued is the W
2 15 requirement.
Wz 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:. That is where it is -- I see.
3 d.
g 17 Thank you.
- =
5 18 MR. MATTSON:
If you go back to Page 2-B-12, there i
I 19 is Part C, which is the licensee action, and under implementation R
20 we state the implementation deadlines contained in the 2j requirements that we scheduled off under NRC action.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
23 MR.MATTSON:
Had we to do it all over again, we would 24l organize it somewhat differently.
t 25 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is well organized for the.
r ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
10 52 1
amount of data it contains.
It takes some practice walking 2
through it to learn the maps.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can we move on to reprogramming?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The other question I have is i
5 just a prelude to that, and maybe we ought to hold it to the 4n d
6 end.
I do want to get some feeling for how the plant is e
7 going to be monitored, and how it4.is going to fit in.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think I would rather get to dg 9
reprogramming first.
2f h
10 Gentlemen, what comments would you like -- I gather E
s jj Kevin is the --
<3 j
12 MR. DIRCKS:
Kevin was, but I think we have to make E=
13 clear when you are talking about 1980, as you point out -- When E
E 14 it comes to 1981 --
w b!
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Go ahead.
7 16 MR. DIFCKS:
-- we have not factored in the 5 percent 3
cr3 17 cut when it comes to the reprogramming package. We are in the b
18 process of doing that now.
It is going to take another week
=
{
j9 before we -- before we can see the damage done.
A 20 MR. CORNELL:
Yes.
A couple of things I can say in 21 addition to the general statements I made two meetings ago.
22 We have received a mark on the FY 1980 supplemental which cut us some $20 million.
23 ;
Most of that cut in the FY 1980 supplementa 24 was related to waste.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There was some research money cut.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11 53 1
There was a big chunk in waste, but there was a lot of research 2
m ney cut in the supplemental.
MR. CORNELL:
In addition to that, there was 3
4 research money cut.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ten million dollars,and the S20 e
6 8
6 million cut is partially waste, and it is about 50-50, I thought, e
7 waste and research.
E 8
MR. CORNELL:
That is right.
That has been one change, n
N and if you want to get into the impact of that on research, I 9
i g
jp would ask that the Office of Research answer that.
That is one z!
11 change we have not had before.
There is also the issue of the d
12 nuclear data link, which is an unfunded item which I mentioned N
2 13 before, and we have had one meeting on that, the unfunded 5
E 14 requirements of that, depending on what decision is made and w
2 15 how much will be allocated in 1981.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: That is the 1981 budget.
- W j7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are there a number of those, b
18 that is, the items we approved as studies.
Eventually the E
staff will come back with recommended actions?
39 R
20 MR. CORNELL:
There are two that are significant in 2;
our view, the nuclear data link being one which could range up 22 to $20 million over the long term.
23 MR. DIRCKS:
But we did have S3 million in 1981.
24 MR. CORNELL:
Yes, we probably have budgeted S3-25 milli n towards the data link.
The only other one that is of i
I i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
54 1
major dollar importance is expansion of the IREP program which 2
could range up to Sl.4 million.
3 COholSSIONER BRADFORD:
So what you are saying is 4
that the others -- there is not a likely outcome of those e
5 studies that would wind up costing a lot of money if the h
6 Commission decided to go forward with any of the alternatives?
R 7
MR. COENELL:
Those are the two significant ones.
N]
8 If you decide to go ahead with data link on an accelerated d:i 9
schedule, you will have budgetary problems.
Yg 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is true.
We already have g
11 budgetary problems in 1981, so this is an additional budgetary 8
p 12 problem?
5 13 MR. CORNELL:
That is right.
l 14 MR. MATTSON:
Any one of those you decide to implement 5
2 15 out of Category C, you are going to have to be asking yourself 5
j 16 about budgetary resources.
It is a very tight budget a5 6
17 rearrangement.
U 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What about the Roman Numeral
=
Y g
Five items which were essentially put off to the Commission for 19 n
20 decision?
21-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE.
That is separate.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right, but can we -- Are there 23l any of those that have dollar impacts so large that we ought to l
24l! decide them before -- either before or concurrently with the I
25 reprogramming?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
55 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would argue on Number 5 we do not 2
even have anything on which to make the decision.
The 3
recommendation OPE has come up with is essentially to have 4
them review those recommendations and update what the status is, e
5 because if you recall -- what the action council was told R
N 8
6 some time ago was just to freeze that.
And then the second is e
R 8
7 where it is appropriate to make recommendations to the Commissio2 A
g 8
on action.
I think it is a fair question to ask, is there d
c 9
poc2ntial for resource allocation, but I do not think we can Y
10 really afford to hold off to make a decision on the actions E
5 11 because the work has not been done.
d 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The form of the question was 3
-l 13 really the same as -- These look like the ones where we said, m
E 14 settle them and come back, only here we were telling OPE to w
b!
15 study it and come back, and again, I would just ask the question.
E 16 are taere a lot of dollars tied up?
E M
d 17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I do not recall if there are more 18 procedural type things we should do that -- There is no really 19 large manpower or hardware type.
R 20 MR. BLAHA:
There are some reallocation -- that is 21 on --
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We know that.
s 23 MR. DIRCKS:
We have already mentioned that, Bob.
l 24 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Study the need I'or an independent I
25,1 nuclear safety board.
Study the need for TMI-related legislatior l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, 14 56 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The one that might at least 2
hit some people is if we decided to go forward in a hurry on 3
a statement of a safety goal.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, but -- I think developing a e
5 policy statement on safety is different from developing the An 6
quantification levels.for safety which are already in another R
7 one of the action plan items.
El 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
d
- i 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
A lot of the research required to 10 do that, to develop information, is imbedded in some of the 3j 11 other work.
For example, that is one of the items that 3
y 12 research is already working on.
The Commission is willing to 5
13 use that in developing --
E 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It seemed to me one way of d
h:
2 15 doing it would probably be to go through a common process.
This E
16 might take up some additional manpower, but I do not --
a cr3 p
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, yes.
This could clearly have 5
i
!5 18 manpower and dollar -- My comment was, it is not the large 5"
19 millions and millions of dollars that --
i 8n 20 MR. HANRAHAN:
Thousands of dollars, not millions of 21 dollars.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right now we are probably going to 23,
be running short, on the order of $40.million, and 100 people 24 tied to the thing, and that is -- I do not think --
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Forty-one -- 101.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 57 l
t j
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, yes.
2 Given the uncertainty of 1981 in the area, would it l
3 make sense for us to be approving -- I can see the necessity for 4
the 1980 reprogramming approval, but I am really puzzled on the 1
1981*
e 5
M N
i 6
MR. DIRCKS:
Given the worst case, the 5 percent e
7 cut, what we want to do is go back and see how the 5 percent --
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Don't you have to come back to N
us on 1981?
9 i
b 10 MR. DIRCKS:
We were just talking about the 1981 E!
11 5 percent cut.
This came to pass in the last week or so. We
<k d
12 are going to have to take a look at it.
We have already 5
13 g tten for them the candidates of what would go with a 5 5
E 14 percent cut. What we have to do now is to see --
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I remind you that you did not even i
16 add the 59.4 million or S8.4 million.
W MR. DIRCKS:
When we came here last time, we g
j7 18 identified that.
E CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I know.
So not only where do j9 2M 20 y u take the 5 percent. At some stage you are going to have to find that $8.4 million.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
That is part of the package that will 22 23 be coming -- that definite quantity, that $8.4 million has been g
24 l identified.
We are coming down with that.
25 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
All right.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
16 58 1
MR. DIRCKS: We think we can get --
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes?
3 MR. DIRCKS:
We might also be able to talk to --
4 MR. MATTSON:
Mr. Chairman, I think since the g
5 steering group is pretty much disbanded and not going to be 0
6 around when some of these 1981 decisions are made, a flavor you R
7 ought to have in the view we had of this reprogramming'is that E
8 we have deferred quite a lot of things out into 1982 and beyond ce d
- i 9
that were very important to the Kemeny Commission, to Rogovin,
-i h.
10 and our own internal studies, and one should not automatically E
g 11 go to the list we just approved.
that would begin in 19'10 or is 4
12 1981, to find only there things to cut because of budget E
13 cutbacks.
I think you have to look at your other items in the m
l 14 line pretty hard.
2 15 MR. DIRCKS:
I think that is the point we were trying E
j 16 to make. When we did have an incurring of the 5 percent cut, we as y
17 did go back and say, here are the things that are going to have
{
18 to go.
At the same time, they knew what was being reprogrammed h
19 and wanted to cut.
I think what we have to do now is, see how 8n 20 the two would mesh.
21 MR. HANRAHAN:
What has been done to reprogramming so 22 far has all been done.
23,
CHAIRMAN A,HEARIE:
Bob?
BilD$lT*Z j
24 MR. 4WdfA:
I want to make sure people havc done those 25 ]
sums the way I have done those sums.
The worst case goes as l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
g-59 1
follows.
We lost S10 million in the supplemental.: That is 2
Assumption Number 1.
We asked for $20 million or so, and it cami 3
up $10 million.
Then we put out $18 million that the Hart 4
Committee would give us lower than what we asked for.
Then we i
add $15 million or so because we are being told to do fast e
h j
6 reactors to the tune of 20 or more, and we have five.
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The Hart Committee is telling us s
8 8
to do S15 million.
3 5u0U/T2 ;
- s 9
MR.WJdfA:. In total it makes $43 million, and then we 10 are shy for what you call the lab loaner program, and you know, 5
g 11 you are going to get $9 million -- I am going to think hard W
y 12 about what I would do if you asked me for that.
~=
y 13 (General, laughter. )
'j3uDU trz.:
=
l 14 MR. M ANA: That is fair.
I am not objecting, I am
$j 15 just doing some sums here, and then you may decide to go ahead --
a j
16 We are talking about $50 million or S60 million.
I think e
g 17 realistically if you want to do those things and cut us back, 18 you will have to figure out what to dc or ask for more, and I i
i k
have to tell you we are planning on that sort of thing, and it 19 20 is painful.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bob, for myself, before I would
(
22 agree to go and ask you to kick up all-that money, I would have s.
23 to go back to Congress and --
3vI)U14T
~
24 MR. %AHM Thank you.
25 (General laughter.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
60 3dDMIII j
MR. -BtPSA : Of course, it is our obligation to think 2
very hard, to think about things we might commit for 1981, and 3
we are just fit to be tied. I do not know what to say.
It is 4
real trouble.
g 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bill, back to my question, it N
8 6
appears to me that the only thing that really makes sense for e
7 us to do, for the Commission to do, is to address the FY 1980 5
8 reprogramming request that we have to agree to, and then agree n
dg 9
in general that you have a hard re-examination requirement for i
h 10 FY 1981.
s g
gj MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
A lot of factors bear on that.
E c5 12 How close do we come on the 5 percent cut list,and also, how E
E 13 strong our proposal will be to get some restoration.
E g
j4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But does that --
N 15 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we -- I do not want to be too 5
16 optimistic.
E ad j7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you need approval here from b
18 today -- would you need approval for 1980?
MR. DIRCKS:
The 1980 reprogramming.
j9 En 20 MR. CORNELL:
I could say a number of things about gj l 1981.
First of all, the shortfall funds for 1981, those are y
sort of assumptions, no cuts, and so forth.
That is on the 23 rder of S3 million, S2.5 million.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right, right.
i MR. CORNELL:
We are going to get into the staffing 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
61 i
reprogramming. At least we can lay out what the parameters of 2
the shortfall are.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am not following what you are 4
saying.
e 5
MR. DIRCES:
We know what the staff --
h j
6 MR. CORNELL:
We know what the professional staffing R
R 7
requirements are.
On the dollar situation, we have to find --
Ml 8
All we can tell you at this time is what the total shortfall d=
9 is, 5 percent,plus 52.5 million, plus $7 million.
Y 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What do you need approval from us E
E 11 on?
What kind of approval?
'i 12 MR. CORNELL:
Staffing.
E=
y 13 MR. DIRCKS:
1980 reprogramming plus staffing for a
E 14 1981.
nx 2
15 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
When you say staffing, do you mean kd b
17 allocation of staff to various projects?
I come back to the
~
5 18 point that you do not know that that is where you are going to Eh 19 allocate the staff, for two reasons.
First, you have a built-in R
20 assumption that you are going to be able to get the certain 21 amount of help from the National Labs versus the Iab Loaner 22 Program.
If for some reason you cannot do that, you are going l
23 ;
to have to reshape, but more than that, you also have built in 24 here certain allocations that staff -- for example, if we are 25,
required by the Senate and the House to turn certain amounts l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
20 62 1
of people onto fast gas and onto reactors, some of those 2
people are Harold's.
3 MR. CORNELL:
I think the one difficulty you are 4
going to have --
e 5
MR. DIRCKS:
The 1981 appropriations is -- We know h
6 there will be both dollars and personnel --
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And I feel quite -- I have no A]
8 problem with agreeing with your-- for myself, your 1980 d
m 9
reprogramming request.
I have no difficulty saying, yes, I
,zc h
10 agree with the general thrust of what you are proposing in 1981, E
j 11 but I cannot agree with what you are proposing in 1981, because 3
y 12 I still think there are too many uncertainties, and I do not see
=
E 13 i the need for the decision at this time.
5 l
14 MR. DIRCKS:
I agree.
All we can do is to show you 2
15 generally where we -- the priorities that we need are, which j
16 programs we give up and which programs we keep. As we are w
g 17 getting more news in, the options that we have are being E
18 drastically cut back.
5
}
19 MR. MATTSON:
If there is a lack of resources, the M
20 things we are worried about losing are things in this action 21 plan.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, no, no.
23,
MR. MATTSON:
The next thing is r
l 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter, I know you have some problems 25l with reprogramming.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
21 63 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Primarily, at least, the one 2
having to do with the qualification testing of electrical 3
connectors -- electrical cables, generally pointed out in the 4
OPE memorandum.
It seems to me we have been long enough in g
5 attempting to get that program started, and I would hate to j
6 defer it further.
R 6,
7 At this point, in fact, by my own calculations, it al 8
should have been under way some time ago.
d i
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you care to respond?
10 MR. DIRCKS: I can only go back to Harold again and 3
{
11 the statement he made.
He has dedicated people and dollars E
y 12 into that thing, apart from what we have today.
Harold, is
~=
=
13 that right?
5 E
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It would at least be easier,
- a 2
15 I think, to make that decision rationally, if we could just get g
16 the basic paper outlining the program.
as g
17 MR. DIRCKS:
We can package that up and tell you how 5
Ni 18 many resources we have going into that, and what the schedule E
19 is.
En 20 MR. SMITH:
I think what you are talking about is 21 qualification of electrical cable.
We have a Reg Guide on the 22 street that we think is adequate to carry us through the rest 23 of the fiscal year.
The only thing we are talking about is 24 not starting until the end of this fiscal year.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What then is being reprogrammed ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
22 64 1
Ray, if the Reg Guide is going to carry us through this year 2
anyway?
3 MR. SMITH:
We were going to start work on the 4
revision of the Reg Guide this fiscal year.
Now we are not e
5 going to start until next fiscal year.
8 3
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Maybe I misunderstood this e
Rg 7
proposal entirely.
I thought that what was being deferred was s
j 8
the program for testing of equipment.
d d
9 MR. SMITH:
That is a separate issue.
Y h
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
And that is not being 5
5 11 deferred?
d 12 MR. SMITH:
Right.
E=
s 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
E E
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me ask this --
w e
.3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Having cleared up one mis-
=
j 16 understanding, now let me make sure I have my understanding w
d 17 halfway right.
Is this still an item that is -- how to pu t E
5 18 it?
-- part of the effort to close out the action plan on the
=
19 Browns Ferry fire?
This is not cables -- this is not fire 5
20 protection related?
21 MR. SMITH:
No, it is a separate item.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
l s'
23l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Dick DeYoung, it mentions in here l
24 l that I&E tends to provide a significant portion of the i
25j requirement by selective use of overtime.
Do you have the money i
i l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
65 i
to pay for the selective use of overtime?
Voluntary overtime.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Most of my questions really ended 4
up being FY 1981 questions.
In the CP's you have an item under e
5 NRR to reprogram
-- this is in FY 1980 -- to reprogram Enj 6
resources previously budgeted for CP reviews which have 7
subsequently been cancelled.
You go on to say, remaining six l
8 in-house applications have been issued SER's and therefore our d
d 9
reprogramming should not affect these schedules.
I would just Y
10 like to make sure I understand.-
15 5
11 Does this say you are taking the four people that you d
12 have on those six CP's away?
z l
13 MR. DENTON:
No, we are maintaining that level of r
a E
14 effort on CP's as being estimated by the level of effort to --
W 2
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We are in the process of reviewing 5
16 response, I guess, to Mr. Hatfield.
it ad d
17 i, MR. DENTON:
We have left in our budget that is still lii 18 in there that money.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
My question was going to be, if we RM 20 are going to be sending a letter back to the Senate Appropriation 21 Committee, I would like to track -- I don't want to send him one 22 letter and--
s 23 MR. DENTON:
I probably think that --
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
25 ;
Dick, another question.
This is FY 1981.
I realize l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
66 1
it is not so much a question of approval.
I was just curious.
2 You are going to rsduce a portion of the pre-planned inspection 3
work for senior resident inspectors.
Now, since the people are 4
full-time at the site, that must mean that they are going to be 5
d ing something else rather than +, hat.
e U
8 6
So, you are reducing part of what they are doing.
n Mg 7
What is the other thing they are picking up?
A 8
They would probably pick up the work n
J 9
that is being done by regional people now, and the regional i
h 10 people would help us with the other tasks.
25 s
jj CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
I might say a. word about that page N!
13 that you have now. Last week we heard a lot of words about a E
14 living document.
It is still living, and it is changing.
It U
f15 keeps changing, and we will have a changed page -- since you are z
l 16 not going to approve it, I won't spend'theftime going through.
l is i
m M
17 the changes.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
E b
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
At least while you were 1
20 almost still on your feet, Dick --
21 (General laughter.)
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- the item referring to 23,
reduced headquarters inspections and evaluations, how does that 24l trade off between what people will not be doing and what they 1
25 i will thereby be freed up to do?
I guess I am not clear on what i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
25 67 j
the headquarters people will be doing under the revised 2
program.
What will you be putting them to work on?
Cnd 4 3
4 e
5 An
]
6 a
7
=l 8
ed 9
iob 10 f=
j 11 is J
12 5
E 13 5
E 14 a
2 15 j
16 e
6 17
=
18 k
19 R
20 21 22
(
23l l
24 l
25 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
You asked how we were going to review
.nl 2
this plan.
Roger is going to get out of the business and we are i
3 all proposing to develop our own plan in I & E.
We have one that 4
is about ten pages long.
So, it is hard to give you a response e
5 right now where we would use specific people.
h j
6 It is being reviewed.
We have to come up with the man R
~
7 years.
We think we can get it from the sources we have.
Now we Kl 8
have to do the detailed review to see where we can fit them in, d
9 what topics on that plan they will work on.
E g
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me make the question a litt3 j
11 more precise.
As a general matter, I would have said that the y
12 Action Plan tended to focus, at least in the I & E area -- the 5
(
13 bulk of the activity would be in the regions and in the plants.
l 14 I was not sure how freeing up headquarters man years 15 was going to help you in that respect.
Upgrade emergency preparedness, for M
6 17 example.
We had man years in there.
That is headquarters work, 5
18 that is not field work, item after item we have of that type.
=
C 19 It is not all field work.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see.
I will have to look at 21 the details a little more.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What I would propose to de is to s
23 conclude the FY '80 reporogramming and await further word on the 24 FY '81.
25 MR. CORNELL:
What kind of assumptions would you like ut to make?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
69 bfm2 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
FY '81?
I think you have to look at 2
the inter-office -- the squeeze is too tight not to.
3 MR. CORNELL:
We can make an assumption of a five 4
percent cut with no additional money.
My own thought would be to g
assume a five percent cut but add back in S7 million for the 5
n]
6 lab loaner.
That is counting on getting that.
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, that would be fine, except in 3l 8
doing that, I think you ought to sort of keep a track of the next d
o; 9
set of items they are reprogramming out so that we would at least zog 10 have a chance to be able to argue in any kind of conference E
11 committee.
R I
12 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we will have to give you some of 5
13 the work we think might happen and what we think would happen if
.g 14 we don't get any.
2 15 MR. CORNELL:
Give you the worst case.
J 16 MR. DIRCKS:
I think that is what we have to do.
E g
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
The worst cast.
5 18 MR. DIRCKS:
I am not beyond leaving --
h 19 (Laughter.)
R 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, no.
' 21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Are you sure you can define a 22 worst case at this point?
23f (Laughter.)
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We have not heard from the 25
. appropriations --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
70 bfm3 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Get back at the appropriation --
2 the authorization committee stage.
That is pretty mean stuff 3
because you know that means you are beginning to bleed and you 4
have not even started down Death Valley yet.
g 5
(Laughter.)
8 3
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are you willing to along with FY '80*
R 6,
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
j 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
d 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We have approved that.
I think I z}
o 10 will ask then -- Peter, you had a question on how do we track --
3
-y 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
As Roger's group 3
y 12 dissolves itself, what have we got by way of a continuing 5
13 monitoring system?
14 As it happens, a fair number of deadlines either, as E
2 15 we were remarking earlier, earlier stages of some of these things 5
y 16 are due over the next month or two or three.
It seemed to me it as ti 17 might be useful to plan to meet periodically -- the Commission 5
18 meet every five or six weeks just to find out how we are doing 5
{
19 keeping up with those of the items that have dates coming due n
20 during t'
.t time anyway.
21 Then, also, there must be some process under way of j
22 folding the Action Plan :.nto the budget.
23,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Before you describe how you are 24 folding it in, I would like to say, I think we really have to I
25l free Roger at some stage from continuing responsibility.
He l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
71 bfm4 1
has other responsibilities.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
1 would assume monitoring would 3
pass over to Bill.
4 MR. MATTSON:
The plan has Deen for some time to have e
5 g
NPA pick up some of it.
That's why there was a NPA representative 8
6 on the steering group from the beginning.
E";
MR. DIRCKS:
That is our intention.
We will fold it N
8 8
into the -- that program when we get enough chunk there to be a
d d
9 visible.
j oH 10 i
What we will try to do is identify the critical items
=
E 11 g
and give you a report whenever you want it -- at a specified d
12 3
interval on how we are doing.
9 D
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then, we could -- Bill could come E
14 g
back, say in six weeks and let us know how the schedule and k
E 15 everything is.
ax g'
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would think that would be 6
17 very useful.
In fact, I guess I would suggest you do it in six ax 18 weeks and then again six weeks after that.
=
19 j
MR. DIRCKS:
Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
By then, we will just about 21 be at the budget anyway.
(
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why don't we commit to coming back s
23 here periodically, the first one in six weeks and then figure 'ont 24 how it looks?
It might have to be sooner than that.
25 i The other item -- is that acceptable?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
72 bfm5 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The other item I would like to get 1
3 Commission approval is to approve OPE's proposal on chapter five.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Somehow, that has escaped me e
5 entirely.
U 6
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Chapter five?
R R
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Chapter five, where the action is
%l 8
directed to the Commission.
We froze in this Action Plan -- they d
d 9
carried it on as just frozen.
Y 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What is the proposition?
E g
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ed has proposed that OPE and OGC is j
12 review that and provide to us an update of the-status of them, 5j 13 then any recommendations on the actions that should be taken.
e m
l 14 Some time ago, we told Roger that was not really'an 5
2 15 Action Plan --
j 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
ai 6
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There are a couple of items in S
E 18 chapter five that seem to me to be of some importance, especially 5"
19 the first one.
I 20 So, I guess I would like to propose that we put a 21 particular length of time on that and plan to meet on -- just to 22 meet on chapter five some time in the next few weeks as well.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me ask Ed when he thinks he coulc 24 get a paper to us on it.
25 MR. HANRAHAN:
Two weeks.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7 -3 bfm6 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
2 COMMISSICNER HENDRIE:
What are the prospects then for 3
completing and publishing?
4 MR. MATTSON:
There are 3000 copies being printed right 5
g now.
I don't think the prospects are high.
e!
0 (Laughter.)
E I
- E 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What are you doing with part A!
O five, Roger?
- .5" 9
~.
MR. MATTSON:
We left it the way it is, except adding 10 a note, the exact language which I can probably read to you.
It E
E II says: "The decisions required in this chapter will be made by 3
N I2 the Commission.
The Commission's staff will review the status of 5"
13
(
j each and prepare the necessary decision papers for future action m
E I4 by the Commission."
g 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Clever work.
x E
I0 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I must say, I would not consider
~
us h
I7 '
the NRC ActionPlan complete.from my point of view until we have z
18 filled in those lines as to chapter five.
h I9 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I will take exception to that.
That M
20 is certainly -- you have your right --
2I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I understand.
22 (Laughter.)
23 ;
CHARIMAN AHEARNE:
We gave the direction to Roger as 24 the Commission many months ago not to take further steps.
s.
25l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I did not expect Roger to do I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
74 bfm7 1
any more with it, but I thought as an agency, we would deal at 2
least -- obviously, we could not achieve all of these things, 3
but we would at least have filled in the schedule and the 4
prospects for things line an NRC policy statement on safety, s
5 every bit as much as we would have the prospects for a vent on 9
j 6
the pressurizer relief valve before we consider the plan to be R
7 in final form.
I did not expect Roger to do it.
A j
8 MR. MATTSON:
Generally, that is --
d o;
9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We may find it appropriate to zo 10 publish an amended chapter five.
E II MR. MATTSON:
It is being printed loosely with holes 3
j 12 punched in.
=3 13 (Laughter.)
g m
l 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
A very fore-sighted effort.
$j 15 (Laughter.)
a:
y 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I suppose it is already too as 17 late to put on the loose-leaf binder concession?
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I will call this meeting closed
=s 19 unless others have anything.
20 (Thereupon, at 3:57 p.m.,
the meeting was closed.)
21 22 23 !
I i
24 1
25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
O.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.T4ISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedin5s before the in the matter of:
PUBLIC MEETING - DISCUSSION OF ACTION PLAN
- Date of Proceeding:
May 21, 1980 Docket llumber:
Place of Proceeding: washington, D. C.
were held as herein appesrs, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.,
David Parker Official Reporter (Typed)
~~
/
(
N tw-x Official Reporter (Signature)
.t.j
-