ML19323H358
| ML19323H358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/15/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-035A, SECY-80-35A, NUDOCS 8006120422 | |
| Download: ML19323H358 (73) | |
Text
-
V :.s b40tf b xoms
~7~APG L OCo.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING 5
BRIEFING ON UPGRADE OF OPERATIONS CENTER 6
(NUCLEAR DATA LINK)
(SECY-80-35A) 7 East-West Towers Room 550 8
4530 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 9
Thursday, May 15, 1980 10 The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.
11 Present:
12 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman 13 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 14 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 15 Also present:
16 W. DIRCKS H. DENTON 17 V. STELLO B. WEISS 18 0.E. BASSET R.J. BUDNITZ 19 R. MATTSON M. HOWARD 20 L. CROPP, Sandia National Laboratories 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 8006120if.R a 7:n srREeT. S.w. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (2021554-2345
V
,.s
?
1 PR0CEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This morning we are going to hear 3 as described in the paper, an update on staff actions 4 regarding a Nuclear Data Link.
One of the results of the 5 reviews of the Three Mile Island accident, and reviews of 6 other emergency response actions of the Commission, was to 7 reach a conclusion that better mechanisms ought to be put in 8 place for transferring information from power plants to the 9 NRC.
10 One of those mechanisms -- a very early mechanism 11 put in place -- was a dedicated telephone line.
12 For some months, the staff has been working on 13 additional, far more substantial mechanisms for transferring 14 the data, and that was what we were to hear this morning, is 15 where are they in that process.
And I would imagine, having 16 read through the papers, there still remain some issues'to be 17 resolved, including how do we find the money to pay for this.
18 Do we find it in the coffers of the utility?
What 19 kind of a system ought we to be trying to design?
20 And then the last item that, at some stage this i
21 morning I would like to touch on, is the significance of the 22 recent reprogramming response we got from Mr. Udall.
i 23 Bill?
24 MR. DIRCKS:
Well, as you mentioned, this is a 25 brieifng on the current status of the development of the l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTDN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
v* _s 3
1 reports on Nuclear Data Link.
We will certainly be able to 2 tell you where we are today.
3 The whole process started off on the basis that we 4 do need a better supply of data to the agency during 5 emergencies.
We built our current thinking on the last 6 session we had with the Commission.
You will soon see the 7 roles that we outlined to the Commission last time, the roles 8 of the agency during an emergency, and we took the guidance 9 that we got from that last session and we will show you how 10 the data requirement will meet those two or three major roles 11 that you identified for us.
12 As we go through it, you will soon see that the 13 essential question that at least oxists in my mind -- and I am 14 sure in others -- is how closely this system that we will be 15 requiring for ourselvc -
9.
1 be coordinated with the data 16 requirements that the industry will be facing, how much of an 17 effort should we make towards getting the systems somewhere 18 identical, the data that we get, the data parameters, the form 19 that we get it in and the displays we can show it in, and the 20 ways that we handle the data.
21 This comes down to an essential question in my mind 22 and I think it is shared by many others who sat in on the 23 meetings.
24 With that as an introduction, I assume that Vic will 25 be picking up the briefing.
Is that right?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
^
300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3 4
o 1
MR. STELLO:
Yes.
2 (Slide) 3 What I thought would be appropriate to start with is 4 the definition of the Agency's role in the event of an 5 emergency.
There continues to be a question of whether the 6 role, as defined on this slide, is the appropriate role.
7 The question was raised in the ACRS Review whether 8 the role is or is not yet adequately defined.
9 You will recall that during our 1 meeting on this 10 subject when we went through the role, the Commission 11 requested that we develop a data link concept, considering and 12 emphasizing certain elements of the agency role and trying, to 13 the best of our ability, to not allow certain other elements 14 to drive what that role ought to be.
15 Briefly stated, there is little question that there 16 is a need for the Agency to monitor any emergency that might 17 develop aimed at a concept of understanding that the event 18 itself is understood, the data and the sequence of events are 19 understood and you can articulate, based on that monitoring, 20 what is happening.
21 There is also-agreement that clearly the Agency may 22 be placed in a posicion to advise that certain protective 23 measures might be needed in the event of an emergen~y and 24 clearly the most difficult decision that the Agency may have 25 to make is a recommendation to various state and other-ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
?>
5 o
1 agencies to evacuate.
2 That still remains, even with our discussions with 3 FEMA, as a principal responsibility of our agency, to make 4 that recommendation.
5 The issues with respect to the last three bullets 6 that are on this slide, that is the need to have sufficient 7 information for whether or not the Agency may decide to order 8 or direct a licensee to take on a different approach in 9 resolving emergencies and directing, in simple terms, starting 10 or stopping the pump, changing the strategy that he is going 11 about in resolving the emergency or whatever.
12 Those kinds of directives are believed to be things 13 that we may, in fact, need to ask ourselves whether or not we 14 ought to do it.
Clearly if we do not do it, that is a 15 decision.
16 Ultimately, assuming management control comes up as 17 an issue, this, I think, creates a great deal of confusion --
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Vic, I guess I am a little 19 pu:: led.
I thought we went through this discussion and I 20 thought that dotted line indicates where we came out.
21 MR. STELLO:
The dotted line -- and I was going to 22 get to that very quickly -- the dotted line, as I recall, was 23 in deciding the Nuclear Data Link, in trying to decide what it 24 ought to be, draw the dotted line and decide the Nuclear Data 25. ink on the basis of it was above the dotted line.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 i202) 554-2345
h 0
1 I was t ying to get to the point that the dotted 2 line was used, but it is my judgment it didn't really have a 3 trecendous impact on the requirements that we had set for the 4 Nuclear Data Link.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I wasn't taking exception.
I was 6 just saying that I would.have thought that you could have 7 shown the slide with the bottom dropped out and just said 8 that, as preliminary, that we did have this previous 9 discussion and the Commission came out that the upper two were 10 the appropriate roles.
11 MR. STELLO:
Should I then conclude the lower three 12 are not?
13 MR. DIRCKS:
Now, this was what I was referrin5 to 14 when I got into it.
We did start off with this the last time 15 around and the four -- let's say the top four bullets -- were 16 identified as things the Agency would be faced with in an 17 emergency.
18 Then we said that the first two, monitoring and 19 ad vising, let's keep the Data Link basically designed to serve 20 a s --
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, because those were the 22 functions that we --
23
.MR. DIRCKS:
I think we started off, at least in my 24 eyes,.that is-the role of the Data Link coming in.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7 1
MR. STELLO:
My point being, clearly what you are 2 going to hear in terms of Data Link is designed to deal with 3 ti.ose first two bullets, although indeed, dealing with the 4 first two bullets, we will have information that will be 5 aseful in deciding the issues relating to the last three.
's I wanted to leave this with a question of whether or 7 not some further clarification of what the Agency role is or 8 isn't in light of the ACRS comment.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, never mind in light of the 10 ACRS comment.
In light of the fact that it did not seem to be 11 clear that the dotted line was very significant.
Maybe that 12 is true.
At least I thought that we were pretty clear.
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It would seem to me.
MR. DIRCKS:
I think to make some headway in the
'~-.
15 meeting today, from my viewpoint anyhow, that dotted line is 16 important to look at the Data Link as-we will be discussing 17 it.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
And also important to look 19 at what is the appropriate role of the Agency in all of those 20.a spe c t s.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
Why don't you pick up with the next 22 point?-
23 MR. STELLO:
Okay.
24 The next thing that we want to get into is a 25 discussion of where we are and various alternatives that were f
- ~-
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET. S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
8
.1 considered, and I'll ask Bernie to make the presentation.
2 There is one particular alternative that has been 3 studied in detail at Sandia and we are prepared to go into 4 whatever detail in that particular concept.
5 The others we have looked at.
It seems as though S they would be worthwhile and it would be obvious as to why.
7 MR. DENTON:
Could I inject a comment here before we 8 look at this?
9 Having decided the need for Data Link to perform 10 certain functions, it's important that we coordinate this and i
j 11 look at the broader picture of what it means, so we are 12 looking also at what should be displayed in the control room.
13 You remember ore discussions on the safety vector and the j
14 safety conso13.
On what should be displayed in the on-site 1
15 center, the off-site center, what the display analytical 16 capability should be.
And from a design standpoint, it's i
17 important, I think, that we not let the Data Link necessarily 18 drive what's in the control room.
And' so we are looking at it 19 from really what should be in the control room, what should be 20 in these on-off-site centers and then how do we tie into it 21 in the most effective way.
22 One way is to require standardization out'there.
It 23 simplifies our end.
.The other way is to let everybody meet 24 our requirements, and then we have to have a very flexible 25 system to tie into it, so that you do not focus just-on the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
9 1 Dati Link.
I think we are really proposing a coordinated 2 program on a schedule where we define all these needs all at 3 the same time, and then everybody can move down the same 4 design path.
5 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could I just take you back a 6 minute?
You refer.ed to the ACES letter and I wondered what 7 you draw from that letter.
How does it bear on the various 8 items in that chart,?
9 MR. STEL10:
I will read from the ACRS letter and 10 the comment that I had in mind that they made that prompts me 11 to say what I said.
12
" Based on our conversation with members of the NRC 15 staf f, we do not believe the intended role of the NRC is yet 14 well-d e fined. "
, 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It could have been, "is yet 16 well understood."
17 MR. STELLO:
Or understood.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And therefore what -- I 19 d on ' t remember exactly what you said, but you said in the 20 light of what the ACRS.said, therefore we ought to be looking 21 at items below the dotted line, or ought not to be looking --
22 MR. STELLO:
No.
It is'my belief that the Agency's 23 role is all of what was on the first slide.
The first two 24 bullets were emphasized with. respect to answering the question 25 of how do you develop a Data Link.
1 i
i
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
'l 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
10 1
Well, the issue was, develop a Data Link that is 2 adequate to handle the first two bullets.
3 The question I have, is there still reservation that 4--
all of what was on the first slide is the Agency role.
In 5 my mind, at least, I cannot believe that the Agency role is 6 less than what is on the first slide.
I think it is all of 7 it.
8 But if that is an issue, then I think we ought to 9 get it clarified.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
But the ACRS letter 11 is neither hear nor there on that point.
I mean, they are 12 just saying that's what you think, and you're telling us 13 they're telling us --
14 MR. STELLO:
Well, I guess they're telling us --
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let's not get into all 16 of this.
17 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
They've told you it's not 18 well-defined.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
After talking to you.
20 (Laughter) 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's go on.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I wonder if we could move on back 23 to this morning's topic.
24 MR. WEISS:
Okay.
25 (Slide) i
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASH lNGTON, D.C. 20024 (2021554-2345 -
11 1
MR. WEISS:
Thinking we've understood our role, we 2 have decided that we needed somebody to develop the concept 3 and we went to Sandia and tasked them with developing a 4 conceptual approach to the manner in which we can acquire 5 data, transmit the lata into headquarters, and even display 6 that data and use that data.
7 We told them certain things in their design concept.
8 One, the most important one, was to use existing technology.
9 We didn't want a lot of time or money spent in developing new 10 technology.
11 And also to provide as much data as was reasonable 12 to get as many f acilities as possible by January 1, 1982.
And 13 that direction was based on the fact that we were moving along 14 independent of the development of the on-site technical 15 support center.
16 We knew it existed, but we were not clear in our 17 direction and they were not clear in theirs until --
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That was all the direction 19 they get on --
20 MR. WEISS:
No, they got some more.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
22 MR. WEISS:
We also provided them with some 23 information with regard to the design pieces for that system.
24 The first was that approximately 100 data points should be 25 available for each of PWRs and BWRs.
Those were defined and ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- /
300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
12 1 that information is part of the Sandia Report.
2 The 100 data points were picked by the staff here 3 af ter having picked the larger number and then we came down to 4 that as a more reasonable number to handle.
5 We also indicated that the parameters ought to be 6 sampled about once every minute in order to keep up with that 7 changing situation, that there ought to be 30 minutes of 8 pre-event data --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where does the one minute 10 con.e from?
It doesn't sound unreasonable, but --
11 MR. WEISS:
It was the engineering judgment of the 12 sta f f, and it was a compromise.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Although there are some, 14 depending upon the rate of rise or the rate of change in the 15 parameters --
16 MR. WEISS:
Right.
That's in general.
17 There are some that we were concerned about from the 18 standpoint of transients.
We would have liked to have much 19 more frequent sampling rate, that there we were considering 20 possibly using some other method of seeing the transient 21 occur, such as peak analysis, or peak value.
22 But we were also concerned with getting 30 minutes 23 of pre-event data so that an event occurred there would be 24 stored somewhere, probably in the operations center, that 30 25 minutes of data which we could then have to do an analysis of ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET. S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
13 1 the situation.
2 As I mentioned, some transient analysis capability 3 for some of the parameters.
The capability of storing up to 4 two weeks of the event data when it occurred, as we were going 5 through the incident.
We could store it so that it could be 6 available for trending and for analysis.
7 Also we wanted soma --
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess what I was really 9 asking was did you give them some sense of what was going to 10 be done with this data?
In other words, what are we going to 11 use them for?
12 MR. WEISS:
Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Other than just telling 1-4 them, you know, we want to --
15 MR. WEISS:
We had discussions with them based on 16 our understanding of the role of the Agency and also they had 17 subcontracted with MITRE Corporation who were, at the same 18 time, developing the details of how that data would be 19 acquired and used and displayed in the operations center for 20 the people that would be there, based on our experience with 21 TMI and our experience with other exercises.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, as I recall, MITRE also 23 ended up sitting in on some of the drills.
24 MR. WEISS:
Yes.
25 So it was based on that experience.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, i;
300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
14
~
- HEARNE:
But asTfar~as the specifics of which
,g asked to transfer, that was NRC staff.
NRC staff.
5:
It really did come from people who were 1
libility in'the operations center or supporting i
ir others for information during the course of
- sients or accidents we had experienced in the 1
jsaid, the initial response was big, 300-some
- ve' went back and said, "Now, what do we 3 started to think through what kinds of l.lpected to answer, what kinds of double check-3 on the status of the plant as advertised, 3 that plant.
ijudgment based on some experience and some
]aagementandstaffastowhatoneexpects
- nns of questions to be answered, in the course 4
i kh one of these now.
But even so,'that list that we gave to them change those or we can add a'few or take.away j
l the overall cost _doesn't change.
lie' did 'ask -- another featur'e was the vent
~
hve storage here, some-parameters, some
~.f,-exceeding certain levels, this.would t
JERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
g p-e='
--7&a w*
-f N
15 1 alert the operator or the duty officer that something was 2 happening and then he could call up the data, or the data 3 would automatically be brought up.
And we were going to ask 4 that the data be presented to the operations center in the 5 standard format or protocol that would make our job a little 6 easier here with the computer, in terms of software.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which of these impact most 8 importantly on the design of the system, or the size of the 9 system, or the cost of the system?
10 MR. BASSET:
That must be the storage.
11 12 MR. WEISS:
Okay.
I guess the storage and the Data i
13 Link.
That's one and three.
The first three.
14 MR. STELLO:
Sampling time.
15 MR. WEISS:
Sampling time, too.
16 (Slide) 17 MR. WEISS:
Okay.
18 To give you some understanding of -- we are talking 19 about the 100 parameters, the. systems that we were looking at 20 and the amount of sensors per system, this could give you some 21 idea of the kind of numbers.
So that there are a reasonable 22 amount of sensors _ for each system, but not enough for us to do 23 a complete analysis and understand everything that the guy in 24 the control room does.
25 Bob?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
j 16 1
l MR. BUDNITZ:
Bernie, if you would put the previous l! slide back on.
2 My memory is if you wanted to store several 3 ;hundred parameters, say 500, it's 10 percent more, in one of the 4
ltwo largest options or if you wanted to store only a dozen para-g 5 l meters, it's only 10 percent less, provided the other things are N
j 6
about the same.
G E
7 More or less, to admit and store.
So there's no 8
factors of two in that first one, but that 30 minutes of pre-
- Jd 9
event data and the software involved in that is an importent part Y
10 of it.
That's a lot more than 10 percent, that third item.
E l
11 That's my memory.
Does that sound about right?
1 k
d 12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What about the sampling rate, s,
E 13 l Bob?
1 E
{
14 MR. BUDNITZ:
I don't remember the sensitivity of that.
l 2
15 Sam?
5 y
16 MR. BASSET:
It's data times rate and the basis is g
17 from a single telephone and that will give you a certain amount j
5 l
18 of data times sample rate, and this fits within the on-flow j
E 19 and it accommodates some more data at this sampling rate or 5
20 considerably more at a lower sampling rate, or so i
21 on.
i 22 j
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But if you drop the 50 data t
i 23 4 points every five minutes, or ten minutes, you still need the 1
24 telephone line.
25 MR. BUDNITZ:
You~still need a transmission circuit, s -,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
B
. _ =
17 j
and for reliability, you need a continuous one.
2
. COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So you haven't saved 3
canything?
MR. BUDNITZ:
There are 10 percent lying around, but --
4 i
5 i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, presumably the terminal 6
equipment comes down a little bit because you are just handling a
7
)less material, but --
4 1
.8 MR. BASSET:
We tried to use one telephone as a bound 9
but it turned out to be illogical.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Your actual hardware costs are a 11 small portion of the costs that you are investing in i
j j2 anyway.
13 (slide) j j4 MR. WEISS:
Basically what this is showing is the
) 15 situation which will exist at the site with regards to the 1
16 relationship of when there is an on-site technical support 17 center and an emergency operations facility.
There is a 18 process computer now.
19 As we understand'it, most of the licenses, in order 20 to get the data intd the technical ~ support center-emergency
~
I foperationfacilitywillhavetohavesomekindofadedicated gj l mini-computer.
They may be able to have some capability left 22 23,
ver in'the process computer, but most of them will probably 24 have a dedicated mini-computer which will the'n derive the
, 25 technical support center and emergency' operations center.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18 1
So our problem is understanding that that is there, 2 how and what is the best way for us to get the information 3 from that and set up to the operations center.
And in that, 4 we have looked at several alternatives.
5 Basically, Sandia has -- alternative number one on 6 this slide here is the Sandia concept, taking all of the 7 inputs of just before, or at the process computer, putting it 8 through some kind of a dedicated processor to a site 9 transmission unit, which would then send the data to the 10 operations center.
11 We have also looked, then, at another alternative 12 which is a modification of that in which, instead of us being 13 responsible for this site transmission unit, the cost of that 14 site transmission unit, or the engineering costs, we are going 15 to ask the licensee to put in the site transmission unit and 16 pay for the engineering costs and merely hook up to the 17 operations center.
1 18 So that would be driven by their dedicated 19 mini-computer and essentially what ccmes out in the operations 20 center is the same, it's just the effect at the site is 21 slightly different and there is a difference in costs which we
.n will show in a minute.
23 Those are the two main options.
Then there are 24 essentially two others that we have looked at to try and cost.
25 On e is, instead of us having a lot of capability here in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,iNC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINrTON, D.C. 20024 (2021554-2345
19 1 operations center, we had their mini-computer to drive a line 2 printer.
That's all we would have here at the operations 3 center is just a line printer, and then every minute or so we 4 would print out here in the operations center the hundred 5 parameters and their values and engineer'.ng use.
6 That's that option over here.
7 Or the other option is, if we had a computer here 8 that could talk to their computer, and we would get the basic 9 data also on a line printer, we would have some capability for 10 some graphic displays which they could drive at our cen';er 11 here.
12 So we have a minimal amount of graphic displays.
13 There is one other alternative which we haven't 14 really looked at very hard, but may have to be considered, and 15 that is that if eventually the licensees are providing that 16 information to some kind of an industry data link which we've 17 heard about, we may be able to get the inforr.ation from that 18 industry data link rather than directly from the license.
19 MR. DENKE:
This would be a link to the major 2c vendors, possibly INPO and NSAC.
21 CONISSIONER HENDRIE: How are they coming on that?
22
-MR. DENTON:
Let me ask Roger Mattson to describe 23 our interactions with them.
It is important-to have a 24 coordinated approach to this whole thing in order to beat the 25 in-point dates we've established for January of '80.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2()
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Also it's.important because it 2 wouldn't make sense not to.
3 MR. DENTON:
This is an example where, if everyone 4 does his own thing, it just complicates the --
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: - this is the greatest thing for 6 mini-computers and terminal hardware and software people in 7 many a day.
8 MR. DENTON:
So I'm very much in favor of 9 standardizing this connection as much as we can among all the 10 plants.
11 Roger?
12 MR. MATTSON:
Well, NSAC has got some kind of real 13 time communication capability with plants, telephone, but no 14 data link, as we are discussing here today.
They have stayed 15 closely attuned to the work we're doing on the data link.
16 There have been communications in a licensing format, a letter
~
17 from the Director of Operating Reactors to the plants telling 18 them they've been working on this stuff and they ought to pay 19 attention and stay tuned.
That kind of thing, i
20 Sam Basset, I think, has had sor.se conversation with 21 the four venders who are talking about vender data links. Do 22 you want to fill in the blanks here?
23 MR. BASSET:
Each of the user groups has-made 24 a proposal to their users and a conmittee comprised of users 25 and in each case it incorporates TSC provisos and the user ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W, REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
21 1 wants it available, the user group, the vender who is the 2 sponsor of the user group, wants it available so he can have 3 information back at his center of expertise.
The reactor 4 people want it to send to their board of directors or to a 5 central command headquarters, if you will, in the loop, E for example, Commonwealth Edison, they are going ahead with 7 direct comunications from all of the reactors through to a central station.
8 I think it is significant that each of these skills" 9 is by definition different.
The four venders have each come 10 u p, approached the same problem with a slightly different data 11 list and with the natural differences in engineering 12 outlook, so each scheme is different, and they are not now 13 compatible.
14 However, they all face up to the same basis problem 15 and provide comparable suitabilities, 16 MR. MATTSON:
It's fair to say that there is a 17 certain amount of confusion on this issue.
We have required 18 these people to put in tech support centers, and yet we have 19 not specified yet the information that goes into those support 20 centers.
21 We are also about to specify certain design criteria 22 or safety monitor consoles.
We have talked about this in the 23 context of the lessons learned in the action plan. now for some 24 months.
25 Those criteria are going-to be issued this summer, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, RGhMfML f3TfeRTfETEMf@lHit MARHIMT@DL f0.@. KiW4 (9Rio 5 54-M -
22 i
1 or late this summer.
They are waiting for us, some of those 2 utilities, in the sense of only wanting to meet our minimum 3 requirements.
There are other utilities who aren't waiting 4 for us.
They are very anxious to get tech support centers in, 5 to get control rooms backfit and to move forward aggressively 6 in this area.
7 Their concern is that they are spending millions of 8 dollars per unit and that they'll be buying things that won't 9 be compatible with our system.
10 So the point that Harold makes about standardization 11 is a very important one.
You can see yourself, if you don't 12 get these things compatible and hooked together, having an 13 accident, or some kind of situation where one guy's got one 14 kind of data and another guy's got another kind of data and 15 the two don't come from the same place, they're not thought of 16 in the same way -- PSIA versus PSIG or whatever, leading to 17 confusion and difficulty.
18 So it's not only front-end money and confusion, but 19 possibly poor handling of an accident if they're not done 20 right.
21 MR. DENTON:
Industry recognizes this.
They do have 22 a task force put together that is working with the staff.
As 23 usual, not all members of the industry are in favor of a 24 unified approach and some venders want to break out and do it 25 separately.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
~ $87th STREET, S.W.' REPORTERS BUILOING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
23 1
I think what we really need is an agredment in 2 principle on how to proceed down this line and then we can 3 work out some of these interfaces Roger is talking about.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
DEO at one stage several months 5 ago talked about trying to have that kind of a systems data 6 link.
Whatever happened to that?
7 MR. MA'ENON:
Well, the industry has tried to get its 8 act together, to try to sort out who is setting industry's 9 policy, if you will, in this area.
10 A committee has been formed with Ed Zabrasky from 11 NSAC; Steve Howell, the Vice President of Consumers Power of 12 Michigan; Roger Newton; let's see, Ward Owen is also involved 13 because of the link to the emergency operations facility and 14 the information needs for emergency management.
15 They've had several meetings and on their committee 16 they have representatives of venders as well as utilities.
We l'7 are scheduled to meet with them on the 20th of May and they 18 are going to come in and say these are the priorities we see, 19 like put first priority on the safety monitor console and then 20 stop into the control room, aiding the operator, and then make 21 the other things compatible with that, rather than vice versa.
22 These are the schedules we think things are Z3. accomplishable on, and preliminary information we see as 24 compatible with the ' action plan, at least in so far as the 25 control room is concerned.
And we are making a similar effort 1
I
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, CWiraWdlT1 RNA RXK(RT[lR3 f5%RINfLWASHINGTONm D.C. 20024 J202L554-2345
a.
24 1 in the staff to coordinate our diverse interests, the I&E and 2 research interests.
The Nuclear Data Link and the NRR 3 interests in the control room and we will be prepared to meet 4 with them on the 20th and be prepared to solve some of these 5 compatibility questions that are open yet today.
6 (slide) 7 MR. WEISS:
Okay, keeping in mind those 8 alternatives, this chart is an indication of some of the 9 features of each one of those systems, because they don't to exactly all have the same features, and the costs to operate 11 this.
12 Alternative one, you notice, they all require some 13 kind of processing, some kind of dedicated mini-computer, to 14 get the information.
Alternative one, however, is the only 15 one that does not require a technical support center computer.
16 It was designed, as I indicated before, so that --
I'7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
By that, you don't mean that we 18 wouldn' t still end up requiring a technical support center 19 computer for the technical support center?
It doesn't use the 20 technical support center.
21 MR. WEISS:
Right.
22 It means that if we didn't want to wait, or we felt 23 it was necessary to do this rather quickly, we could go ahead 24 with alternative one.
25 All the others, we have to wait for the technical
~1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, E37th @TRM @,W. ' REPORTER @ BYlLDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (20 554-2345 l
25 1 support center for all this extra detail.
2 All of the alternatives, except number four, require 3 some type of an operations center computer.
Alternatives one 4 and two, we will be able to take the data that is stored at 5 the center and manipulate it for different and various kinds 6 of graphic displays.
7 Alternative three, there will be a minimum 8 capability for graphic displays and in alternative four there 9 will be no graphic di splays, just a tremendous amount of data 10 coming out.
11 The site transmission area that I indicated before, 12 in alternative one, the NRC would pay for-those and in the 13 other alternatives, the licensee would have that 14 responsibility and we would have to set the specifications 15 for that.
16 As you can see, the costs to install -- and this 17 would be the total cost to the NRC, not to the industry.
The 18 industry costs are highly dependent on the technical support 19 center's being compatible with that, and whether the existing 20 d a t a, the existing sensors are there, and what the costs are
- 21. to bring that information out.
22 The cost for alternative one is about $17 million 23 and the cost to operate it on 'an annual basis would be about 24 $1.5 million.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could I ask you some-questions J
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th @TREET S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 g
a.
20 l
1 about those?
2 MR. WEISS:
Surely.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are these modifications of the 4 Sandia estimate?
Let's take alternative one -- or do you just 5 back out the contingency costs?
6 MR. WEISS:
No.
We backed out some of the j
7 contingency costs, but basically alternative one, the 8 difference between that and the report is that we took out all 9 of the operation and maintenance costs, and the contingency 10 associated with that, and that brought that down to $17 11 million.
)
12 MR. HOWARD:
As well as anything that would reach 13 forward into phase teo.
14 MR. WEISS:
And essentually, alternative two is the 15 Sandia costs, but what we took out there was also the 16 operating and maintenance costs, plus all the costs associated 17 with site work, such as the STUs themselves and all the 18 engineering work that would have gone on to make that 19 interface.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But then it would be correct to 21 conclude that in alternative one, the actual hardware cost is 22 about $2.9 million?
23 MR. WEISS:
That's right.
i i
1 24 -
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So that --
t 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Were is the rest of the l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7'h STREET. S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
27
- 1. costs?
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Most of it is design, project 3 manageraent.
4 MR. WEISS:
Software.
A lot of software.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, as you go down from one to 6 two to three, most of the cost reductions occurring in 7 hardware, software, management, project management --
8 MR. BASSET:
Maybe I should address that.
9 Most of the reductions occur as we go down in terms 10 of engineering man years.
That is the basic man years. The harc%are 11 difference between two and three in terms of headquarters 12 display, and what have you.
13 But if you could analyze this task, the basic 14 problem is there are 70 reactors, each of which has a 15 different information system and it is necessary to have all 16 those different organizations brought together to transmit 17 a un1 form signal into the headquarters.
18 The alternative would be 80 sets of software at 19 headquarters, a tremendous expansion of machinery in 20 headquarters.
So your site has to be independently 21 investigated and the situation determined and appropriate 22 sof tware written to render this signal forward.
23 So that is, then, the difference between number one 24 and number two, and it is largely in there.
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What you do in the difference l
ALDERSON REPOPTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 g
28 1 between one and two, Sam, is just transfer that conversion at 2 each plant from us to the licensee.
3 MR. BASSET:
We respect that as a very heavy task 4 and industry has estimated this separately for us and they 5 think it is a heavy task per site, and that accounts for a 6 substantial amount of engineering man years.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
How do they count --
8 your difference is about $6 million here for ' 7 0 --
9 MR. BASSET:
Their estimate was on the order of 10 $200,000 per site.
11 MR. HOWARD:
You're talking about the $2 l
12 million --
13 MR. BASSET:
It's $200,000 per site, assuming you 14 don't have to install any new sensors or put in any new wires.
15 If they have to install sensors per 197 or our data list 16 exactly, it goes up to $4 million per site, because putting 17 in an individual sensor, and pulling the wires, and making 18 all the drawings and so on is a very expensive undertaking.
19 If they are to implement the sensors they have got 20 and to preserve the system we are talking about, they estimate 21 about $200,000 per site.
22 Now, I should point out that they will also have to 23 meet. a necessarily elaborate interface specification, and this 24 would require expenditure of manpower to do that, and I am
- 25. pretty sure they didn't allow for.
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
=.
Wolfa gg NRC 5-15 Connolly 1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sam, the reduction then when you Tape 2 2
go from two to three, you pick up primarily where?
3 MR. BASSET:
Well, that picks up on the f act that 4
between two and three, we built three up from four and we built g
5 two down from one.
S 6
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Go to four then.
R R
7 MR. BASSET:
So we took four --
El 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Four, you essentially' have --
d d
9 MR. BASSET:
A lease line --
- z Og 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
-- A printer.
z=
{
II MR. BASSET:
And a printer.
And we would take data 5
j 12 l in an appropriate and transmitted format and just print it up.
j 13 > And that requires an open computer at the headquarters
=
h 14 operations center, and by definition, a very small software
{
15 package.
As soon as we go up to any --
=
16 g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But you essentially are also saying A
t d
17 l you have very little engineering man-years required to do any w
E I
3 18 of the formatting at the site.
ch g
19,
MR. BASSET:
Well, we'd have to put an interface spec, n
20 and the site would have to do a substantial amount to get that 21 data into that package for transmittal over the wire.
And we 22 don't assume any of the burden for that other than dae specifica-0 23] tion.
i 24 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE-Okay.
So that's embedded in licensee 9
25 j cost.
!l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e sc 2 bh MR. BASSET:
That's right.
I t l
MR. HOWARD:
You're talking about $ 350K for software.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Per site.
Then when you built up to go from four to three, what did you add back in?
i MR. BASSET:
What we did was provide headquarters 5l e
a E
graphics capability of an austere sort; but this requires a 0
E computer at headquarters; and that computer, the software, and D
I e
uman eng neer ng e
sp ays and determining what the 8
9 functional requirements were for the display area accounts for 9
i the escalation from a half million to $8 million.
g
- z E
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So you're saying that it would take 4
11
}>.
roughly $7 1/2 million to engineer and build by the equipment E
5 at the headquarters.
That would be viewed as strictly a head-l a, 5_}
quarters cost.
4 d
MR. BASSET:
Plus sof tware interaction with the site 15 w
].
computer which we're depending on to help get out the information.
B CHAIRMAN AHEARNEi Bob.
b-17 w
MR. BUDNITZ:
If you tried to do an overall efficiency
{
18
=
and summed our cost plus the licensee's cost, one is more
{
39 "i
ef fi ient than two.
That is, if you g6 from one to two, my impres-20 l sion is you save government funds to the tune of $5 or $6 million, 2'l b
the licensee's costs are greater than that because of the way 22 f but a the task would be parceled out for them.
23 And I myself haven't understood why they couldn't get 24
?
9*
" ^ *^Y
^
^* "*'
25-T ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
cc 3 31 that's the way the sums seem to look.
y CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course, it's not out of reason, 2
is it, for us to do it, but to then just as we levy a licensing 3
fee --
4 M.P. BUDNITZ:
Well, that's another decision.
I'm just e
5 A
s 8
6j making the point that the inefficiencies are greater in number e
t 7
two than number one by some factor, like a factor of two or more.
8 MR. DENTON:
Well, the way I see it, we're talking u
dd 9
about as though our response center was another on-site support i
10 center some place, for example.
I envision that every plant will E
E 11 have as a minimum what we require, and they will have certain data B
g 12 in the control room, they will have certain data in the on-site 3
5 13 center, probably somewhat less data or a little differently por-E E
14 trayed in the off-site center, and then we'll have the data.
Eu!
15 And dhe fact we're setting the minimum standard, every-16 one will have this access, and I would like to see a case whereby BW d
17 we could just have a plug into their system somehow, if we can 5
E 18 get them to agree on the scope of the minimum package and the 2
I 19 '
interface requirements.
1 x6 l
20 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sam, in Harold 's description of the i,
21 l approach, if that were to be the case, would it still end up h
22 h costing us in the area of $10 to $12 million?
a 23 1 MR. BASSET:
What Harold is describing is our under-l 24,i standing of alternative two.
And the reason is that in addition d
25 to the plug, we have to get heavily into what they're doing with i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Cc 4 3d j
that information on the site, not in e director's sense but in 2
an understanding sense.
We have to lay a very comprehensive 3
interface specification on them; otherwise, point one from site A 4
will be different than point one from site B, and it will be e
5 years untangling the sof tware difficulties.
And as each site Mn 8
6l ev lves its' handling of data which --
e 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
I think I was assuming that 8
embedded in Harold's is that all the sites are doing it the same dn 9
way.
z' h
10 MR. BASSET:
They will probably have the same -- it's E
j jj my estimation that they'll probably have the same end result, but
<3 J
12 each one will achieve it with a different computer and a different N
E 13 software package.
S 14 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
They will not all be doing the b
5 15 same thing in their tech support center.
It's a point of compati-5 16 bility, more than minimum standards, I think.
There may be k
A 6
17 i other standards that we will issue which apply to tech support 5
5 18 centers or EOFs.
We might say each EOF has to have a certain E
[
19 minimum package of radiation monitoring off-site which is in X5 20 addition to a nuclear data link package, and wouldn't come out 21 for some months or even years yet af ter some experience with 22 these' things.
23 MR. DENTON:
There has been some sympathy on the i
24 !
industry side that they should all get together and write 25.
identical specs and all order the same equipment on bids and have 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
cc s 33 it all compatible; but that seldom works cut in real life, and 1
we will no doubt have these problems.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When are they required to have 3
4 What is the date for the requirement on the technical e
5 d
8 6
support center?
e MR. MATTSON:
The date that the' criteria issue or 7
8 the data that criteria have to be met?
They all have --
n N
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Have to be met.
9 z'
10 MR. MATTSON:
Well, it's a multi-stage process.
They E
j gj were all required to have some kind of tech support center by
<3 d
12 January 1,
'80.
In January 1,
' 81 they ' re required to meet z
h 13 l habitability and some other criteria that were specified in E
i j
j4 short-term lessons learned.
d 15 We've said all along they have to have information 5
16 capable to do the things that you're supposed to do in a tech g
2 support center by January 1,
'81.
But we've never issued any g
37 E
E 18 detailed specification of what that information is.
j 19 The likely outcome of this is to say here is some i
1 20 minimum set you have to have by January 1,
'81, but by some 21 further date in the future, maybe January 1,
'82, to be compatible with the control room, and to be compatible with the startup date j 22 9
t 23 being assumed in the Sandia contract.
We would say by January 1, ll 1
t i
24
' 82 you shall as a minimum b e compatible with the data require-4 25 {I ments for the nuclear data link.
That is, you'll have at least i
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
34 cc 6 that much in your technical support center.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But there are probably some 2
aren't real inefficiencies in not getting that out pretty soon, 3
there?
4 i
MR. MATTSON:
We can write it tomorrow.
e 5
~n COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
They must be going ahead.
n 6i 1
I MR. MATTSON:
If we could have'writtAn it six months ago.
E 7
We should have written it six months ago.
If we can write it 8
N d
tomorrow, we would; and we're working to the extent resources g
9 z'
10 allow to get this thing cleared up and to get the criteria out.
E!
11 MR. WEISS:
Okay.
The only other slide which we have here are some of the other concerns -- and some of them I think B
d 12 z
5 13 I we've already talked to -- that the staf f is having before it l
E can come back and ask for some kind of approval on the data S
14 15 link.
The first one has to do with should we set performance 16 3
A b'
17 objectives or specified data analysis in the trending techniques?
That's one of the things that will be discussed with industry.
18
=
We talked about the procedures for developing detailed
{
39 n"
When we specs to provide NRC with the uniform formatted data.
20 do that we're going to have to determine some kind of a timetable 21 i for implementing ~ the data link.
22 l
li 23!
We'll also obviously have to come up with some plan to 3
24j fund the project needs.
We're also going to have to take into A
25 ] consideration some of the questions that are now around about a
9 f
I l
li ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
Oc 7 35 the physical ~ location of the operations center and the space j
requirements; and we're certainly going to have to factor in the 2
ACRS concerns which we've just gotten.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How do you react to their 4
suggestion that this be approached a piece at a time or at least e
5 E
h tried out with one or two plants, I think they said?
6 e
MR. WEISS:
I think the original proposal from us 7
was that as we went forward, we would certainly have a lead plant 5
8 u
N that we would go to and implement and see how it worked out.
We 9
i were not going to do directly to 70 different plants.
We were 10 cz h
jj going to go to one or two, so that is not of great concern.
<k CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, some of it you can do on that d
12 E
h 13 basis; some of it you can't.
You can't, for example, if you're E
i 14 l trying to get the standardization approach, you have to try to a
i b!
15 reach some resolution on that, are we going to require suandardiza-5 tion.
And you can't really take a couple df plants and look at 16 3
A p
17 those and take a couple of years looking and then decide that --
w b
18 MR. WEISS :
No.
I meant strictly during the implemen-E t
39 tation stage.
Xn CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
20 21 MR. MATTSON:
And there are utilities who want these 1
22 tech support centers looking like Cadillacs as quick as they 23 can get them.
They're convinced this is a way to control access.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Doesn't this standardization i
25 [ have benefits quite apart from whether or not we plug into these l
l t
'ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
that is something one could systems? 'So it would seem to me that I go forward'with independent of just how elaborate our own system
.would be.
True, _ but it certainly gives us a CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
stronger push if we have in mind at some stage making sure that we utilize some of that data.
Well, we're certainly, you COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
thinking very seriously about that.
- know, It's the MR. DENTON:
And it's not just the data.
and it seems diagnostic and analytical capability in each center, to me the more that the industry standardizes, the more efficient their operation will be in providing codes for analysis and So I think you' re
]interpretationofthedatathatisthere.
- s There are a lot of motivations for standardizing the 4.
]right.
set of information as much as possible so it can be handled --
I would think we would COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
to go forward with that in any case.
- want And we are on a time scale to do it, as MR. DENTON
- f. Roger said, but it's not been done yet.
That would be Jgoing forward with --
i MR. DIRCKS :
With the definition of what's required h
MR. DENTON:
f
' in the safety vector or safety console in the control room.
1 L
I MR. DIRCKS:
And the number of parameters.
.MR. DENTON:
And what is the set of parameters.
lg t
our set of I think I've heard Zebrowski say that t
p
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
cc 9 l
31 1
- parameters, for example, is about 85 percent of what he recommends, 2L,. he'd add a few more in in order to meet what he thinks is a 3
safety vector.
4 l'
So we need to close on that definition of the safety e
5 I
g
! vector and then let that drive the data links on down.
l 3
6 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Of course, at least the way you're E
using the term " safety vector," that's a larger set of data than
~
n 8
8 a
we would need.
Od 9
.j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let's see.
He said 100 h
10 y
! was about 85 percent of what Zebrowski is talking about.
=
7 11 j
MR. MATTSON:
No, no.
Don't get the two confused.
The d
12 y
i safety monitor console is that set of three dozen or so P m:
13 parameters centrally displayed, specially annotated so that l
E 14 y
a shift supervisor or shif t technical adviser can see whether the
-0 15 actions being taken by operators are worsening or helping a
=
l
?
16 transient situation.
That's a subset of the 100 parameters or H
17 y
so in the nuclear data link and displayed in'the on-site technical, c
z 18
=
support center.
i e
i E
19 i
g CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
But I thought Zebrowski's 20 l description was a larger set.
I i
21 i
MR. MATTSON:
No.
Zebrowski's statement about the 85 t
22 L ll percent conformance is 85 percent of what NSAC today thinks t.
23 5.i should be on the safety monitor console is included in our 100 i
24[ii parameter list, and the other 15 percent is probably about the i 5 I i
f same scale of the plant unique parameters that won't' be on
[
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 t
I 38 tg anybody's general list.
They 'll only be derived when you look j
E 2 [ at specific plants.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess what I was trying to get 3
at, I thought Zebrowski's concern was what was required to control 4
r 5ltheplant, which is, at least in theory, a little different than
!i 6 f what -- going back to the first opening discussion.
J f
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it seems to me that 7
these decisions are to some extent separable.
They're obviously 8
1 9 l related also, but nevertheless separable, and there are a lot 10 f reasons for going ahead with the standardization of the i displays as soon as we can.
jj I
!12 MR. DIRCKS:
You talk about moving ahead, having all g
these things set up in the centers.
l14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right, in a standardized way.
I
- 15 l
MR. DIRCKS:
And the second question is how do we link them up back here.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is something we may want to
_1,/,
If
' take a little more time to consider.
18 MR. STELLO:
You mean like you might want to hook up
- g9 10 ll two and wait and year and then decide whether you want to hook' E
g*
up the rest, or'five more or ten more?
yl COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you might want to decide
- 3 just how elaborate a system you want here.
I don't know whether
.4 ;i y u need to commit yourself at this point to do that.
t.
L
'5 ;
MR, STELLO:
Well, to do any or to do one or two?
H i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3b sc 11 CHAI'RMAN AHEARNE:
You've got to make a decision, or y
1 we have to make a decision on what we want to be transmitted back 2
4
' even n a pil t plant b sis.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
4 MR. STELLO:
And the next decision you're going to make e
5
~n 3
is if you build in a system here, do you want to build it in 6
with the capability to be able to go all of the way, or would y
7 y u want the system to have only the limited capability of a 8
9 pilot plant, to handle only one?
z b
10 I'm trying to understand your question.
Do you want it
~z j
ij to look at a concept of --
<M COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I'm not prepared'to decide d
12 l!
z E
-d 13 r that now.
=
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think what Vic is saying is 14 that it seems to him the first thing you set out to decide --
15 E-and not to imply that these are all separate and independent things 16 Mz
. that are not related -- but the first thing you decide is what q
j7 ;
'b minimum specification ought we to put on the information to be E
18 available at plants, a) on the safety monitor console, and b) in
{
j9 3
5e 20 l the technical support center.
Okay.
Having done that, you now s
gj decide, and how much of that, if any, is to be direct line trans-h i
22 [I mitted to the NRC.
I And Vic's saying_is that the decision on what's trans-L 23 i
d 24 jj mitted to the NRC needn' t necessarily be made simultaneously with i
'[
i:
25 j the 'first decisions, although I'm sure we all -recognize that when l l
+
0 i
6 l
ii ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
cc 12 40 you decide one thing, you have certain other things in mind down l the line, so there is some effect.
And I think you probably 2
were right; that is, if we go ahead and thrash out the safety monitor minimum parameter lists and the minimum information list for technical support centers and get that on the street, why, n
3 you probably provided considerable guidance right there.
0 The minimum, just meet bare minimum, the utility B
7 Crowd now has some guidance as to how far up they're going to g
s 9',9 go, and the people that want to do a lot better than that know i
that they have to at least get those things into.their package, g
10 cz g
jj and then where they go from there is probably not --
B You were leaning forward, Roger.
d 12 E
3 MR. MATTSON:
Yes.
There's a problem with the method 13 !
b you're suggesting.
I'll admit it's logical and --
p
)4 N
COMMISSIONER nENoRIE:
I'm not suggesting it.
I'm j
is attempting to elaborate what I --
^
MR. MATTSON:
That's not the approach we're on.
37 w
{
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
18
=
{
j9 MR. MATTSON:
And the reason is basically a resource 5
reason; that is, the capability of this staf f to generate enough 20 pe ple with the right expertise to write the information criteria 21 I
f r t ch support centers in the 70 operating plants and the ones 22 i
! l 23]
ming n line.
They are enough different that that is a big a
j' 24l5b-The philosophical' approach we've been following is l
25 I
i h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
i oc 13 41 I
I to say that is the center from which the chief executive officer j
or his appointed decision-maker will make the decisions, by' god, 2
one way or another involving that billion dollar facility.
3 4
Now, gentlemen, you put in that technical support center e
5 what you need to make that decision.
Now, we've got some responsi-2 6
bilities in addition to that -- the first slide.
As a minimum, h
7 we need information to conduct or meet those responsibilities.
4 I
8 Those should be compatible with what's in the tech support N
d d
9 centers.
And oh, by the way, we are going to put some require-i 10 ments in the control room, because dhat's dhe highest priority E
1 E
11 and the first place we all want to concentrate.
<M d
12 That is more the philosophy rather than the sequential z
5 13 l approach that you've described.
E s
14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, yes.
I think you come to i
w b!
15 the same place.
5 16 MR. MATTSON:
But we're using their resources in our --
B A
p 17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, but let me say -- let 5
G 18 me represent myself as Johathan McSkinflint, the chairman of the E
19 j board of the cheapest nuclear facility on the face of the earth, E
[
20 j okay?
I've never done any more than meet the absolute, irreducible l
21 minimum of the regulations, and by god, it's my intention our F
22 company never will.
Okty.
We' re doing better than that.
I 23 MR. MATTSON:
We'll get him.
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No, _ no.
25 (General laughter.)
l W
i l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Oc 14 l
42 MR. MATTSON:
As soon as we --
y l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Roger, Roger.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Hear me out, okay?
Now, what I 3
I will say to you is I don't need any of your claptrap in a technical 4
! supp rt center to run my plan.
It's safe enough for me.
And I'll 5
e 4
b 6j have to meet your minimum regulations in a minimum fashion to make o
it safe enough for you to allow me to continue to have a license.
7 Now I say to myself good, now, what is my design basis 8
N for my technical support center?
I don't think I need one, and 9
i b
10 I don ' t think I need any information in it, okay.
I'm just going E
j jj to call up the guy in the control room and say Smithers, keep 2
[-
it running; never mind all that stuf f about emergency core cooling, j2 j
13 kay.
E i
14 Now, what's my design basis then for my tech support w"
15 center and my safety monitor in the control room?
It's going to 5
16 be your list for the data link, because I regard the whole thing 3
M j7 as superfluous anyway; and so once I've met your minimum require-h 18 ments, I'm going to come back and tell you all right, you want
=
h 19 me to have a tech support center; I've cot one, okay.
X n
20 You know, it used to be the cloakroom, and I can now 9
gj put an air conditioner it it because you're talking about habita-l 22 bili ty, and you want to know what information I need in it to 3
23 W run my billion dollar facility, and guess what -- it turns out l
24 i to be your data link list.
And the same-in my control room on j
l 25 a my safety console, okay.
i l
l ALDERSON' REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
co 15.
43 1
Now you come back to me with, I don't know, Commonwealth 2
Edison's Pink Cadillac Technical Support Center and ask me why 3
I haven't done that well with 117 different parameters and $10 4
millien worth of computer displays and so on, and I'll tell you e
5 that that crowd is just having a good time with computers, and j
6 if they were interested as I am in making minimum cost electricity, i
R 7
they wouldn' t have a damn thing more than I've got.
And what
- j 8
are you going to do?
d y
9 I don't think you could get me.
I think I've met
?
10 your requirements.
z 1
Ey Il MR. MATTSON:
Well, I think you've --
3 N
I2 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So in a real sense, in a real
-5 I
13 i sense I continue to say that this list, whether we label it as z
5 I4 our list for data transmission or you label it as here's what 15 l we think the minimum tech support center parameter list is turns -
f 16 l out to be a significant --
^
I7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But, you see, now you've come full 18li 5"
circle back to that we have to really make this decision on what C
I9lI 6
kind of information we need.
It's this data list.
g e
1 20 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But you could also make it in 3
1 2I [
the sense of here's what we think they ought to have in the tech f
22[supportcenter, and later on decide whether we're going to take j
t 23 ) all of that in here or not.
24.i But I recognize what you' re saying, Roger, in terms of l
25 _ j the approach to this.
{
l I
l 1
i
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
ec 16 44
~
I Let me say one more thing, and that is that whether you 2l look at it the way Commissioner Gilinsky was looking at it or 3 j the way you would go about it, it seems to me this fundamental i
4l decision that's going to come up has got to be made pretty soon.
I s
5i It seems to me the fundamental decision is are we going to have N
6 a data link system or aren't we going to have a data link system, R
7 and are we just going to get along with the telephone lines,
sj 8
okay.
o y
9 If we're going to have a data link system, then I
?
10 don't see a great deal of merit in waiting and sort of drawing j
11 the whole thing out:
All that means is that it will be two B
j 12 additional years or one additional year or whatever before you
=
h 13 get in place whatever system it is you're going to get in place.
i 14 If the system is useful -- and I presume it is or we wouldn't --
Ej 15 that there is merit to the argument that it is, or we wouldn't
=
j 16 all be here talking about it -- if the system is useful, then we s
17 l need it yesterday.
That is, if the system is useful, then there
=
{
18 is a high premium on getting it operational.
C 19 So I think we're propelled forward here by logic and n
20, events and just need to get on and make some of these decisions 21 and go for it.
n 22 [
MR. DENTON:
Our current efforts would call for i;
23 ] decisions on the control room information and the on-site support 24 j center information in a couole of months.
In other words, we i
25 d think we can work out the difference between their list and ours
'E il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
cc 17
- 40 in Mbout that timeframe.
j 2
I certainly support the idea of a data link that ties into it.
It's just that I can't quite foresee yet which' one of 3
4 the various options is the most societa11y effective way of tying into it.
e 5
But I'd see this system where we would require some E
6 sort of compatibility among all plants, and we would have a data e
l
=
{
1 7
link, and utilities would have at least that much information 8
available to them in their own off-site centers.
u N
And I think we can proceed to work out these details 9
i 10 if the Commission concurs to move that way, recognite that the
_E g
jj costs will probably,be up at the high end of the table that was
<M shown.
d 12
~
h 13 MR. DIRCKS:
And I think it's linked to who moves out i
E first.
Alternative one almost is our moving out first with our E
14 du!
15 system and the industry catching up.
I think what we 're talking 5
16 about is getting them out front, and we link into it.
B J
M g-j7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Listen, that chart with all D
E 18 the -- the blot diagram chart, is that lef t out of my printout
- {
j9 package deliberately or to keep me confused?
Why don't you go 20 back on the screen with it?
21l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On which of the executive models 22 y did you-build Brookhaven's reactor?
c 23 ;
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Heh?
]
.i 24f COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On which of the executive models 4
-25 did you build the Brookhaven reactor?
ii il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
+
Oc 18 40 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Which of these you mean?
y COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, no, the skinflint or the 2
Pink cadillac?
3 4l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Bv god, McSkinflint.
The (l character I iust erected doesn't come unnaturally.
e 5
l
~
9 I
i COMMISSIONER BRAT' FORD:
It seemed to have that flow.
I N
6$
p f
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I inherited a proinct or took j
7
.~.
E over a project which on its first day had a $10 million authoriza-8 M
l N
tion from the Congress and about a $13 million cost estimate came 9
i
- (
5 10 in the next day from the preliminary design Trident.
Well, but 2!
11 !
that's another story.
Now, back to this one.
12 i Actually, you know, on that reactor, why, our technical J
a 5
13 support center consisted of the operator would look at the control E
A 14 j board, go out onto the balcony on the operations floor and holler l
C!
15 hey, Bob.
The chief had an office dows. over there, so it worked
- g
)16 fine, as a matter of fact.
w I
g 37 I'm curious why alternative one took us all the way
- s 18 back in at the sensor inputs to the licensee's process computer.
=
h 39 MR. BASSET:
I'd like to address that, Commissioner f
x M
Hendrie.
20 21 l At the time we kicked this program off we had no j
Il and we designed a data link.
22fdefinitionofTSCwhatsoever, I
23 that would accomplish the mission witnout any reliance on a i
24 ti dedicated mini-computer for other purposes at the plant.
l i,
25l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Or even the process computer ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
cc 19 47 that almos t all --
MR. BASSET:
Well, in looking into the sources of data it became readily aoparent that we could not rely on the process computer outputs, especially during the time of accident r incident, because it had a history that indicated it could-5 barely keep up with its regular tasks.
Demanding of it to process 7l and format and ship data at the same time was n6t feasible.
So it became readily apparent that you'd have to acquire your data --
8 n
9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
On the front end.
9 i
10 BASSET:
Out of the input, maybe out of the input E
memory of the process computer, or maybe all the way back to j
j) the sensor.
We weren't certain.
But in any event, we had to
,d I2 z
~
l g
13 l pr de acqdsMon of data and a dedicated computer to process n
g!
it, and this is a stand-alone system that could be imp 11.emented,
~
d and we could roll forward with it and get it in at this point 15
[.
g now by the end of '82, the fall of
'82, without any further 3
25 action; but it would be a unilateral sort of implementation.
g
- s b
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, Sam,'then does alternative E
two assume that there'll be improvements in the process computers?
39 E
1 5
MR. BASSET:
No, sir.
It assumes that they will make 20 a similar access to the data for their own purposes using the 21 li ensee dedicated --
22 23l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So the dedicated mini-computer goes il i
24 l back around --
G
.l 25 h MR. WEISS:
It's really up here.
i:
}
i l'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
k -,.
e oc 20 48 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That's it.
The line's not I
really correctly drawn.
MR. B ASS ET:
And this achieves enormous advantages in terms of lack of duplication of site work, and that accounts for
~
e 5
e i
3 MR. WEISS:
Including software.
0 i
E COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Say that again?
I f we ' ve got 5
7 a dedicated processor in there, why, presumably in principle we 8
'd could take a parallel outlet from that and pipe it to their 9
i N
10 technical support center and charge them $10,000 a year for E
E applying their information.
j p
11 MR. BASSET:
Yes.
That would be another way to do that.
c.
12 3
3 That would be another way to implement it, but in terms of the 5
13 :
=
site --
i 14 l wg w
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And we could add to our enforcement c
15 w
package pulling the plug.
3 1
j7 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:' That's right.
An intermediate.
w b
18 S me place between plant shutdown and --
(
j9 MR. DIRCKS:
We could go to the Treasury and borrow the Xn m ney and have some -- we could pay it back in a revolving fund.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Did you get that under Moynihan's 21l i
t staffer?
22 i
MR. STELLO:
Ther'e's a real difference, though, I think 23 between one and two, aoe.
The concept of one is looking at our 2, 3 Twowillhaveourneedsf 25jneeds, sizing that process for our needs.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
e oc 21 gg plus the things that if, you know, he wants the pink Cadillac, it has that, too.
It will have hopefully a lot more.
So there's a strong incentive --
3i l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But our needs would be a subset, and 4
5l in the McSkinflint option there would be only one subset --
e E
l 6{!
MR. BASSET:
It would be the same.
n
^
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, it would be one set.
Neverthe-7 y
less --
8 nj MR. S TELLO:
But I'm pointing out that there's a real 9
i incentive to want to try to go with alternative two, since it 10 cz j
y; now allows him to build in a system that will do all the things 6
]-
he wants, and ours being a subset of it.
So there's a desire 12 E
t want t g
this standardized way.
The concern I've got in E
13 :
trying t do it is how much time have we added, and I don't think E
14 d
15 we really know the answer.
E 16 l MR. BUDNITZ:
I just want to make one comment, and that a
A i is that the date in ' 82 that has been assumed here, the key part g-37 2
b 18 f
11 this, if you're willing to wait another year or two, 1
{
j9, why, a whole lot is different; and yet, I understand why 5
h 20 l one wouldn' t want to be linked to this delay at all.
(
\\
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What is different, Bob?
What j
gj L
22 ; do you do differently if you've got another year or another i
23 two years?
MR. BUDNITZ:
Well, I'm talking about for the stand-24 25 alone system, for the option one.
ll
,j ii 0
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l;
e oc 22 50 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don' t understand it.
Please 3
explain.
2 3
MR. BASSET:
The reason for option one's bounding condi-tion is that we need a set date for the quality of data.
}
4 MR. BUDNITZ:
' es.
Independent of the TSC and every-e 5
6 N
6l thing else.
I l
MR. BASSET:
This meant getting into 70 different sites,
{
7 doing 70 dif ferent site application engineering iobs, if you will, 8
N and getting is all into a common format and getting it on the 9
z' line.
And that is an enormous amount of work, and that accounts 10 E
j jj for the high number one option estimate.
<3 If we cah phase it, which appears to be logical, with d
12 E
the TSC such that the site-specific engineering is done by die 13 2
h 14 vendor or by the operations center, then that savings is there and r
d what goes with it is :"e delay necessary for each one of them 15 5
to do it and to come up with the signal.
So it will take longer.
16 2
A COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Okay.
That is, you say if you g
37 a
18 hadd't a January '82 date in there, you wouldn't have had alternative one.
You would have started with what is now j9 5
alternative two.
20 MR. BUDNITZ:
Or it would have been reduced a good gj deal.
22 i
l 23 !
MR. MATTSON:
I think we've been glibly saying one and taeo probably had the same end date or assuming that, or some 24 25 [ assume they have the same end date.
When you turn over, what
-1 a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
oc 23 51 we were going to do wit.h one contractor, albeit a very qualified ntractor to do for everybody, and say now we're coina to let 2
70 different contractors do it or people that control contracts 3
dates aren't going to be met.
l that aren ' t us, then some of the a
4 MR. DENTON:
But even one, even one, though, has the 5
e k
I disadvantage, even though idealistically it might go a little N
6 e
bit faster, it would require an awful lot of signal conditioning 7
E 8
at the station to be sure w'e were fed right.
It seems to me ei N
that as time goes by, you'd have to keep that information going 9
i!
10 in ur system updated and modified and so forth.
And with system E
two whereby the" utility undertakes to keep the thing constant and j
- )
?#
current and we just feed off that.
p 12 MR. STELLO:
No, Herb.
Our system assumes we're going 13 E
back into the sensors and as a complete package, so we're completely E
14 5
15 independent on that.
5 MR. DENTON~:
But just the number of amendments we 16 l 8^
\\
d 17 l process each year tells me that even the sensors show that things 18 l change enough that there'd have to be continuing some modificationj i
b 19.
to a front-end package over the years.
A 20 MR. STELLO:
Well, that's if you change your mind on 21 what you want in the nuclear data link, and that comment applies l
22 j with all systems forever.
Il i
MR. DENTON:
My comment was I didn't see an ability to 23 24 l walk away from a single electrical hookup very long.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Bernie, can I get back to the 25j A
l
'f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
oc 24 I
52 ACRS letter? Bernie said that what you were thinking about doing y
was compatible with what the ACRS was suggesting; but as I read 2
the letter, they ' re really saying that -- they say, "We recommend 3
some type of data link be installed, but we suggest that an early 4,
installation considerably less elaborate than the one described a
5 4
l to us should be installed initially in order to gain experience N
6 1 i
e 7
needed to specify a final system."
8 Now, that doesn't sound like what you were suggesting.
e.
N You were saying rather that, sure, we're going to go in first 9
if it alth one or two sytems simply because there's got to be a first E!
11 ne, and that will aid us in shaking down the s~ystem.
But they ' re
<w g
j2 talking about trying it out before specifying a final system, z=
l E
and I assume not the system at the reactor or at the support 13 l 5
g j4 center but the system that ties us into --
5!
15 MR. WEISS:
You keep talking about different systems.
5 3-16 The alternative one whien is part of the Sandia report, when
~
A d
17 you are talking about a stand-alone system, that was the concept 5
5 18 to go to a few lead plants and get a feel for what the situation
=
b 19 was.
But that was independent of the technical support center, 5
20 and therefore, we were not depending on it.
If you thlk about 21 alternativa two, then that's a different concept.
We 'really 1
22 j haven't looked into that in detail, and that hasn't been consider-23 ed.
So I was really just referring to alternative one stand-l l
1 l
24 alone.
ii
'i 25]
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
But if we're talking
)
h I
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
oc 25 53 about plugging into the utility system, then it seems to me what 3l 2 l the ACRS is talking about is rather different than what I hear P e talking about here.
l 3
P MR. WEISS:
The intent was for the set of parameters 4
the parties specified to go to one facility, one util.ity and have a
5 e
them feed into the system, so it was just prototyping rather
~
6 o
^
than changing parameters. -
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can you tell me why they're 8
e N
wrong?
9 i
MR. MATTSON:
They only looked at alternative one.
With h
10 z
j gj alternative one what they say, we agree, makes sense.
They never saw alternative two.
That's something that's come up as we've d
12 z=
q s
13 a tied together these things in the last few weeks.
We haven't E
s 14 1 1
ked at whether it makes sense to do pilot plants with I
5 alternative two.
15 5
What it means on the surface at least is it slows 16,
,s I
g j7 - down implementation of a tech support center using the --
j
- s b
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don' t see why it slows down 5
t 39 tech support centers.
It's going to slow down implementation A
i 20 here.
2;h CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The ACRS letter, unless you've got
!j 1
i more discussion from them, is not crystal clear, at least to 22 h
23 me, about their --
d COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you going to pursue this j
24 li a
i I
25 j any further with them?
l i
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
cc 26 54 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
Let me -- it's hard to ever decide
)
what the ACRS says in letters, but when I read the letter I guess 2
I walked away with the --
3 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Gee, mine used'to be crystal.
4
- I*
- ?
e 5
e
{
6l MR. STELLO:
Really?
e e
y 7
(General laughter.)
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I remember Humuer once couldn't to N
interpret a letter that he had written some years before.
9 i
h 10 MR. STELLO:
The way I read it is don't go out and z
j jj hook it up to every plant right away.
Try one of two 'first and
<k d
12 kind of see how it goes, and see if you're going to change the 3
h 13 role f the agency, and maybe what you'll be looking for several E
14 years from now is different than what you want now.
s!
15 That's the thought that I had, and that's why I started 5
16 out this meeting talking about the role.
If we think three or
]
2 j7 four years from now we're going to be talking about something b
18 different than we are today, we might be talking about a different 5
t j9,
system.
But I still viewed it as just one or two plants rather A
20 than all of them, and we would go that way.
We would start out b
21l with getting it hooked up and seeing how we work with one or k
22 g two plants.
We' re not going to hook up all of them all at 'the same time.
23
.1 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bob?
25 MR. BUDNITZ:
Wait a minute.
I think I understand t
a.
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
ac 27 55 what they said, and I want to say that if I do, I do not agree jl, with it personally.
What they're saying is that early installation 2
l f a considerably less elaborate system than the one described i
3 to them should be installed in order to gain some experience 4
before you specify the final system.
e 5
e It s unds to me, rou go out and you do some early work 6
e I
before you specify the fine.1 system.
Now, if that's what they
)
7 are saying, and it sounds like it, I don't agree with it.
y 8
N N
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, there's only way to really 9
7:
h 10 find out, and that's to talk to them and --
z j
jj MR. BUDNITZ:
I know.
But specifically, I don't think
<w d
12 any of us who have worked on this -- and I haven' t been as z
5 13 involved as, for example, as some have, would agree with that, E
and I think we're going to have to get back to them and clear E
14 d
15 that up.
I don't think it's ambiguous.
5 i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
I don't see why it's
?
16 3A necessary to spend a year hanging up some rinky-dink four pres-d 17,
h 18 sures and a temperature link.
What are you going to learn from E
that?
[
j9
=n MR. BUDNITZ:
That's just the way I feel.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, you'd be ' older and l
21 l
l wiser in a year, but that's going to be because you're a year 22 23 l Ider, not because you sat there and looked at three pressures j
l 24l and a temperature off a little cheapie.
It seems to me that i
6 if W8'f* g ing to do this thing, why, we know enough and are l
25 P
I O
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
cc'28 50 1
beginning to understand enough of the diffic 11 ties and advantages 2
and various options to scramble around and make a decision.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Peter?
t i
4 l.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You're not going to ask me to i
I
_g 5 i pick an option or anything.
a j
6l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, no.
I was just going to ask --
R 7
Victor, and Joe and I have made a number of comments here.
I
%j 8
just wondered whether you had any comments.
G 9
What I want to get to is I want to ask Bill where he 3
10 intends to go from here.
This is a status report they were M
h Il giving us, and we've been giving them some advice.
a j
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask a question about 5
a g
13 timing, and if you covered it at any point, I'll just read the z
- 3 I4 transcript.
5j 15 You've,got the general requirement that licensees
=
]
16 have to call us within an hour of things going wrong, and pou've w
i b.
17 got a proposed capability to recall the thirty minutes before an W
i
=
{
18 accident by way of data.
j s
19 Now, supposing the licensee waits 45 minutes before R
20 informing us.
Is that going to cancel out the capability of 21 l! recalling any information before the incident has started?
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No, because you're on line 0
23 j all the time.
- i 24h MR. HOWARD
You have the alert proviso.
O 25 :l MR. BASSET:
The alert proviso would give us an alert
?
I i
3 I
0 l
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
oc 29 57 and cause him to call him if he should fail to call us.
1.
I 2
MR. MATTSON:
The telephone is not the trigger in it.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Furthermore, once you get as far 4
as they've talked about here, you've got the system on line all e
5 the time and it's got the previous 30 minutes stored in it.
And R
6!" some or a couple of parameters get spooky and trigger the alert N
e i
f7 thing, and the thing goes beep, and our guy goes over and calls E
3 up, what's going on at X plant and says gee, that's interesting.
n Gd 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
And it's those parameters I
6 10 going off that freeze the 30 minutes?
E 5
11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, the 30 minutes is just
<k d
12 ' there all the time.
E I
E 13 MR. BASSET:
It starts the ongoing event recorder 9
i 14 l also, da!
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And it's no great shakes if 5
16 you want to make sure that you don't lose any of that 30-minute
- W d
17 history that's stored to have i thing where you press a button 5
5 18 and just shoot that on to tape, and then it is there permanently
=
H E
19 whenever you want to snap it back.
5 20 MR. DENTON:
A reactor trip could be a signal to stop i
21 '
the erasing.
22 l
COMMISSIONER HEND.RIE:
And so there are all kinds of
{
I i
23
- ways to -- once you get into this. kind of system there are all 24 g kinds of ways to make sure that' you. don't lose the history.
{
s j
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
My only concern is to 25 I
O l}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e ec 30 58 1
make sure that some such way was built in and then that you 2
didn' t get into a situation where the call or alert coming in 3
i 45 minutes af ter was the firs t alert.
i 4
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, once you get to the 5
eg inves tigation level of alternatives one and two, why, I think you e.
6 do, but well, you've got enough stuf f there so that you can go e
E 7
that extra step without a great deal of trouble at that point.
N S
8 N
You get in four anc'. all you're getting is just line printer off 0
9 j
his stuff back at the plant, and there you don't have that kind E
10 E
of control on it.
=
E 11 j
MR. HOWARD:
You don't get it automatically.
You have d
12 i E
i to ask for it.
I f
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And what happens if things E
14 5
go wrong in two different plants at the same time?
At the second k
9 15 2
plant use the telephone?
x
?
16 If things go wrong in two different plants at roughly H
17 2
the came time, does that overwh61m the --
x 5
18 MR. WEISS:
It doesn't overwhelm the communication U
19 g
system.
It may overwhelm the staff.
20 (Laughter.)
21 But we have several lines on the rotary which are 1
22 i
dedicated just to those phone lines coming in from the plant.
23 ;
MR. STELLO:
No, Bernie.
His question was if we had 24f the NDL and an event occurred at one plant and the NDL was doing 3
25 [ its thing, then how do you deal with having the second accident h
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
cc 31
- 59 occur now five minutes later?
Can the computer take it?
j 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's design criteria.
I mean, you 3
make a decision on what you want out of it.
E 4l MR. STELLO:
We originally had in the system the i
5l capability to handle two events.
To try to minimize cost we've e
5 l
8 6,l taken out that capability simply because the cost numbers are e
R 8
7 now high.
3 You dould design that into the system to take it.
And d
d 9
what was the cost numbers?
Is Sandia here?
How much was that Y
E 10 extra feat;are to handle two events simultaneousl'.
E 5
11 MR. CROPP:
It was about another four or five million.
<3 12 MR. STELLO :
We went out and decided that wasn't a Jz=
E 13 l feature we wanted to add because of already the high cost.
But 2
A 14 you're right, that would not inhibit us from using the phone E
15 system to deal with two events at the same time.
I don't think 5
16 I'm too concerned over the issue of two events at the same time.
k A
d 17 That's one of the reasons for --
5 18 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But the fundamental answer is it's
?-
C 19 a design criteria.
x5 20 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
The fundamental answer is $4 million.
i 21l MR. BASSET:
It's about a linear increase in headquarters
'4 22 ' of improvement per reactor head.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
That's why it sounds a l
'1 24 l little high.
1 25j MR. BASSET:
Well, there is one thing.
We provided I
i a
0 11 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
cc 32 60 I
a redundant computer at headquarters in our original design.
2 And that's a major part, and we took that o'it.
So but if that 3
were provided it would increase reliability and also be a long 4l way towards handling two reactors.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me understand this.
Is it E'
I
~
1 6 l at all times storing 30 minutes from all reactors?
g E
3 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
U 8
- 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would it make a lot of differ-d6 9
ence if it didn't have to do that for all reactors?
In other l
.j E
10 y
words, if you simply --
=
E 11 g
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Sure, because you've got a big d
12 3
storage capacity.
=
=
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In other words, suppose you z!
triggered the system by some event at a reactor and you then i
e 9
15 g
started storing information only from one reactor, from that
.~
16 g
one reactor.
N 17 d
MR. CROPP:
It doesn't make a big difference, because
=
E 18
=
what you're doing is storing 30 minutes of data from each 19 g
reactor.
You have a further requirement that when something 20 happens, you have to store two weeks' worth of data from an 21 individual reactor, and that drives your storage requirements, I
i i
22li rather than the thirty minutes' storage from all reactors.
l 4
23 "
And the real problem with handling two incidents at one 24h-time is not necessarily so much data storage as it is being able 1
25 4 to retrieve it and display it without. getting (inaudible).
The
_ l4 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
oc 33 61 gr retrieval and display times become limiting values, and the i
end tp 2 software that you need to do to provide redundancy.
2 3
4 5
51 3
6 e
N ji 7
sj 8
do 9
z'=
i t-10 E=
g 11 a
d 12 z
f E
13 i n
a A
14 0
2 E
15 x
3 g
16 i
d 17 j x
2 5
18 E
t-39,
ma 20 21 16 22 i 23!!
li
.I j
24 ri r
1 25j i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6x pe 3 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bill, can you say where you intend if C'
2 to go from here?
15/80 i
3 MR. DIRCKS :
I think what we would be doing, as we 4
discuss the four options, we would be thinking along the lines t
e 5
of Option II.
That requires a burden of work on the part of E
j 6
Harold as far as standardizing the design features for the off-R OE 7
site centers.
And the premise is that we'd, basically, feed Aj 8
off those, those off-site centers.
O o;
9 The work load in Harold's group, in specifying the z
Og 10 design features for the data going into those centers in the E
11 consoles is, I guess, basically in Roger's operation, and 3
j 12 we ' re talking about two to three months to get those features
=
13 firmed up.
We'd be able to come back, we don't have to wait for m
h I4 another session of the Commission in two to three months, I
{
15 think we could come back in another six weeks or so with --
t d
16 starting with Option II.
l N
17 There may be other options, but the basic premise is 18 standardization and -- and feed off that standardized require-E I9 g
ment.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When you talk about standard-21 ization, Bill, what will you do about Fort St. Vrain?
A one-22 unit standard?
l 23 f I
MR. DIRCKS:
I don't know. -We've only talked about i
24 {
I just -- I don't know how --
I I
25 [)
MR. DENTON:
Haven' t really thought about it.
It would L
l h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
63 i-2 1
have a different set of parameters of interest.
It would have 2
to be a special case.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Have you talked about the e
5 relationship of all this to the move?
N r
h 6!
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Only Bernie just mentioned that, R
7 pointed out that that was one of the issues that's going to have sj 8
to be decided.
l dd 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I have a couple of questions.
Y 10 The first one is, is it clear that our requirements E
1 g
11 for information go beyond the -- what's on the safety vector S
y 12 panel and will contribute to --
E l
g 13 '
MR. MATTSON:
I think it is.
The safety vector
=
14 probably doesn't have much radiation stuff on radiological I
2 15 '
(inaudible).
w=
j 16 CHAIRMAN AhEARNE:
I going to have to comment what
-A g
17 l you list in here doesn't have much radiological stuff, either.
5 18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It talks about three points 5[
19 (
out of a hundred R
i 20,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I went through, though, your list 0
21) in the Sandia report, at least.
I was kind of surprised not I
22 l to -- well, among that list, let's look at the one that you've h
23 i got at the back of that.
f 24 4
(Pause) 25 j:
Well, I couldn' t find anything, for example, I was d~
a p
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
o 64
-3 1
kind of surprised not to see some kind of a measurement at the 2
site boundary.
3 MR. DENTON:
There are7't any instruments.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This doesn't preclude putting an e
5 instrument there.
N 6l MR. STELLO:
Oh, no no -- yes, there.
Any additional r
R 7
instruments is a separate issue.
And many of the instruments Aj 8
we're talking about here do not exist in all plants.
One of d
9 the comments made earlier, that is a significant increase in I
E 10 cost to the utility, as to how even adding those that are here.
E g
11 Now, going beyond those, the Reg Guide 197, that's an out-3 j
12 standing issue; that decision hasn' t been made yet.
E y
13 MR. DENTON:
But that issue is being considered in
=
y 14 the context of emergency planning.
E 15 MR. BASSET:
We have to allow for it in designing.
5 y
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would hope so.
d I
(
17 MR. STELLO:
We have, what, up to the capability to 5
5 18 go to 500 points per plant?
As far as the NDL,that's-kind of k
19 the trivial issue.
It's getting the instrument there.
Once 5
20 l it's there, it's not hard to put it into the system.
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yeah, well, I remembered the k
22 h list wrong, so it's useful we got that back up, b
0 23 -
MR. DENTON:
Well, it seems to me that the on-site 24 center and the off-site emergency center, too, have somewhat r
25 differing data requirements.
Or, the way it's evolved is, the d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
65
-4 1
on-site center is more concerned with the state of the reactor 2
system itself, the off-site center would be more concerned with 3
the environmental aspects of the accident and the need for 4
evacuation and so forth.
So we're still in the process of a
5 separating that out, as to what data is most needed where, A.
6 rather than just being merely redundant.
R 1
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I don't know, more points s
j 8
are nice, but it's always a question of what you're going to do d
d 9
with them.
I can see where it'd be useful to have the vendor 10 who is advising the utility have a list which will run like this.
Zj 11 If you stop and think that we now sit with one --
k d
12 hopefully, one -- of our people on the far end of the telephone z=
13 line and another one on this end and they talk to each other,
\\
l 14 and then the guy at this end gives a summary to Officer B, who 2
15 then reports to Division Leader A, who eventually comes in and w=
g tells the emergency management team what's going on, you know, 16 e
g 17 even 20 parameters direct-lined out of a plant and flashed on a j
M 18 screen would be, you know, if I got ten parameters would be, a
.c
(
19 s taggering s tep forward -- and the 40,, 35 or 40, that you, or i
n 20 30 or 40 that you, talk about on the safety vector panel, plus 21 just a couple of radiation levels, you know, is -- would be a 22 monumental step forward in where we are with information now.
23 MR. MATTSON:
The person who's controlling any evacua 24 h tion or emergency steps of f-site, though, would not be in the 25 control room in the way these centers are envisioned.
So the 4
s b
l 1
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
=
00
-5 1
likelihood that the safety monitor console is going to have --
2 if that's where you're headed with the three dozen or four 39 dozen parameters rather than a hundred -- it's not going to have 4
sufficient information on it to execute those responsibilities:
e 5
hence, not suf ficient information for us to monitor and advise En 6,
on those decisions.
Rg 7
That really adds a fair number here.
It's 30 or so of 3
8 8
the hundred.
n d
d 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I raise it as a question, 10 recognizing that the associated swing in system cost between a E
5 11 list of thirty-odd and a list of a hundred-odd is not large.
<k j
12 Next question.
Option II seems to come out somewhere
=
E 13 around a S12,000,000 installation cost.
That breaks out into S
l l
14 what kind of hardware, sof tware, and other engineering?
Anybody 5
2 15 got a, got some kind of rough numbers?
5 16 MR. BASSET:
Yes.
We've got about $2.1 million' worth g
M 6
17 of headquarters hardware.
We have no substantial other hardware 18 costs included the way Option number II is put up.
We have a
=
C 19 major amount of engineering involved in sof tware of the head-5 20 quarters equipment and in software interface with the center.
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Where do the -- do the phone 22 lines show up in the operating costs?
i 23 MR. BASSET:
They show up under operating costs.
l 24 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
t 25,
MR. BASSET:
It's about a half a million dollars.
!i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
61
-6 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Because they're leased lines.
2 MR. BASSET:
And then there's maintenance on top of 3
that.
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
Now, what have we got in g
5 our wallets?
E 1
6 MR. STELLO:
Three million dollars is what's in the j
E 7
budget for ' 81.
Where the supplemental, which it's got a lot of s
j 8
-- you know -- but it's $300,000.
And that, if I recover'any, d.
1 o
9 3,
is for part of the study that we're doing; it's paying for the 10 Sandia work.
E II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But the costs they're talking about B
N 12 are costs spread over three years.
=3 5
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Are costs over?
=
T 5
I4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Three years.
$[
15 MR. STELLO:
Through
'82.
What is the '81 cost?
Do z
j 16 you have it broken out for the 12 -- for the 11.6?
A d
17 MR. BASSET:
We have it about eight million in Option N
w 3
18
-- before we reduce the price to get Option I.
So I would guess O
19 g
it would be of the order of six and a half million.
K 20 MR. STELLO:
For
'81.
1 2I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I was going to say, you tend to 22 have pretty high firs t-year costs, where you have a high engineer-23
- ing cost and you've got to get tha t done.
24l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So Option I'had -- yeah, it was h
25 eight million in '81, of which two million is contingencies.
L b
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e 68
-7 I -
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
So the three in the '81 budget l
2 isn't good enough, A, and B, we're not going to get the '81 3
budget, in any event.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
But would Option II come along that e
5 quickly that we'd be forced to cough up heavy front-end costs a
6l in fiscal '817 R
\\
- E 7
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I would think so, because you're 3
j 8
f ar enough away from October 1st now so that you can get a pretty d
d 9
good running start and do, be doing an awful lot of that i
,?
10 engineering and so forth.
{
4 I,*
MR. BUDNITZ:
You're going to have to commit the hard-5 y
12 ware in order that it get there.
And you're going to have to do E
I 13!
a lot of engineering up front.
~
h I4 MR. DIRCKS:
Would a lot of work have to be done by E
g 15 Harold's group in the standardization program to get the data x
j 16 results through?
A N
I7 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think realistically the answer is t
5
{
18 that the work will be phased to meet the dollars.
E I9 g
MR. DIRCKS:
I think so, yeah.
But even if it were, I n
20 think '81, we wouldn't see the major impact in
'81.
2I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I think Joe's point is that 22j' the dollars would be tied very tight to --
l i
23 '
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I'm just wondering if the I
24 l practicalities of government' funding in --
!j 25 3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Remember, one of the reasons that i
- l.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Su
-8 I
dollars, where they stand, they stand there because we have a 2
very uncertain program on which we based those dollar estimates.
3 Those were rough plucked numbers.
4 Well, the reason it's three million in the '81 budget 5
g here is, you see, it's a plucked number.
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's three million because you G
b 7
threw some number in.
And I don't remenber whether that was Mj 8
your starting number or a modification.
da 9
1
~.
It seemed like a pretty good pitch at the horseshoe.
z O
g 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It was, the number was, chosen by,
i5 1
=
II 4
I tried to guess what was the largest I could get away with.
I g
12 !
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, question -- if we decide, i
13 5
as a decision of the Commission, that we' re going to go down 1
14 !
the Alternative II path, are we going to find ourselves stranded j
15 on a financial shoal here pretty quick and be unable, in fact, I
d Ib l to execute the Commission's will?
- ss j
h I7 I MR. DIRCKS:
I think we now may be moving ahead of E
3 18 where the rest of the people are.
I think we, when I said c
I9,
Option II, we're doing some thinking, concentrating our thinking n
20 on Option II.
As we pointed out earlier, Option II came along 2I fairly -- fairly late in the process.
There may be alternatives f
22 beyond Option II that we might want to take a look at, that would 23 '
have cost impact downward.
24h CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Also, I think that one of tii 25 j aspects of Option'II that hasn't been fully thougnt through is i'.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
'10 0-9 1
to what extent, if these are elements that we believe are 2
required in order to regulate nuclear power, to what extent is 3
that a cost to pass through to the licensee.
Which is a per-4 spective that might also assist us in being frugal in the e
5 application of what we put into it.
d 6
MR. DIRCKS:
That's why I said --
R 8
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yeah.
A j
8 MR. DIRCKS:
-- we'd be back in four to six weeks G
q 9
with another part, the costs.
2 og 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess, for myself, I'm -- I think j
11 that you're going down the right path.
Clearly, you do have to
)
W y
12 do more work.
Joe's points on the dollars are important.
I
=m g
13 think that the -- I ' d like, for myself, to restress I think that
=
i j
14 that dotted line on the first chart is a very firm line and that R
15 is the perspective that ought to be taken.
I think your j
16 standardization approach is right and necessary, and it's the i
d 17 only logical thing to try to get standardization in the approach.
E 18 I would, I guess, like to ensure that as you' re going down the
=
19 route of looking at what kind of information you're transferring g
n 20 back, recall that on that chart one of the -- it's the advisory 21 that you have that are -- and one of the principal advisory J
22 l '
actions, as Vic mentioned, is the question of protective action i
23l to be taken.
And that does require at some stage knowing some-l 24 l thing about the radiation released.
And I think that you are 25j going to have to get to l.97 issue and you are going to have ta d
I i
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
71
-10 1
try to incorporate some of that data in, because, at least, from 2
my own view, this is not a center to run the reactor, it's a 3
center to provide the necessary advice.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I agree with that -- both, what s
5 you last said and also the dotted line.
8 j
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And unless there are some other R
S 7
points, I would encourage you to continue working hard, Bill, E
j 8
and all these guys, pulling it together and get back to us in dd 9
six weeks.
i O
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Let me just add that, for my-E_
j 11 self, I think Alternative II is about the right place to go.
's j
12 And I probably will continue to argue with you about details,
=
13 about how many of those things have to come through and one
=
h 14 thing and another, but --
2 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Joe, how do you come out, 5
/
16 though, on the point you raised before, which is funding it in w
d 17 the absence of funds?
5 5
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I guess in a way it's a 5
{
19
" chicken and egg" thing.
If we sit here and begin to get trembly n
20 about going and doing something dnat without the financial 21 worries we would think a good thing to do and we get trembly 1
22 about it because the dollars, we may have trouble getting the 23 !
dollars, why, that will have a large influence in assuring that 24 l our position is sufficiently uncertain so that we won't get the I
25,
' dollars.
And I must'say, it seems to me that, as I say, i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e*.,
74 3-11 1
in spite of the quibbles I have about details, that this is a 2
very desirab e step and that we ought to go forward with it and 3
that, in fact, against the scale of the enterprise involved, the 4
dollar numbers here, for us, in any option, or the dollar numbers e
5 for the licensees under any option, the to tal o f i t is no t --
An 6
it's not a big piece of financing for the kind of enterprise R
S 7
that we're talking about here.
And I think if we don't do a sj 8
thing, I think the nuclear industry would be just as mad as a dd 9
hatter not to go ahead on its own with this, at least, each i
h 10 vendor and his plants have one, so tha t, by God, if you've got E
4 11 a Westinghouse plant and some funny thing happens, big or small, k
g' 12 in your plant, you jangle the bell and there are Westinghouse 5
y 13 enginee rs back there, at Pittsburgh or wherever, who are ready n
14 to bash in and run the kind of analyses that you want to have E
2 15 results fr7m to know what to do next.
And so -- and so I think g
16 the enterprise is, I think the project is a highly desirable A
g 17 one.
5 18 Neve rtheles s, the Congress is being just as mean as a C
19 coot about money, and I think we' re going to have trouble pro-a 20 ducing the dollars for it, for our part of it.
But I think what
)
21 we ought to do is to continue to develop the det: ils down the 22 Alternative II line and, if we haven' t already sort of implicitly '
1 l
23,
made a decision, make it and make it explicit and just put our 24 l heads down and go for that funding.
You know, I'm prepared to
?
i 25 ;
go to hearings and really -- well, you know, they holler at us l
[
Il 1
-l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
c'..
I 73
-12 1
and holler at us, and, by George, there's no better comeback you 2
can have than to say, you know, "I need this much money to do 3
this.
And if you won't give it to me, what right have you got 4
to sit there and be self-righteous on the high side of that c
5 bench?"
I'd be glad to say it.
6l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Intervenor funding if the g,
S 7
Data Line falters.
Aj 8
(Laughter) dd 9
(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the meeting adjourned. )
E 10 E=f 11 a
d 12 3
b 13 l E
E 14 6
i r
15 s
j 16 A
6 17 18
=
C 19 M
i 20 21l N
22 'j
!i 23 1 1
24 4 L
25 i,
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- '>i L