ML19331E407
| ML19331E407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/25/1977 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8009100115 | |
| Download: ML19331E407 (73) | |
Text
. -
~. ~ _..
-i 8
4't, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
t MASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555 4,.....,o August 18, 1980 OFFICE OF THE
^
SEC RETARY COMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT OF:
Transcript of Discussion of Policy Decisions /NRC Authorization ~ Bill, April'~25', 1977 Pursuant to the Commission's regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act (10 CFR 9.108 (d)), it has i
been determined after a further review of this transcript that additional portions of the text can be released to the public.
Attached are all portions of the subject transcript that have been determined to be releasable.
The remaining portions of the transcript remain withheld pursuant to 10 CFR 9.104 as noted below:
Page/Line through Page/Line Exemption 3/11 4/17 10 CFR 9.104 (a) (6)
J3 Sanuel J. Chilk Sec tary of the Commission l
l 8009100 \\
- - -., - =
. -. =
4 3194 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 CEQ TESTIMONY -NRC AUTHORIZATION BILL
.=2 55.7 4
6 7
Room 1115 1717 H Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D. C.
Monday, April 25, 1977 9
10 The hearing was convened at 4:15 p.m., Chairman 11 Marcus A.
Rowden presiding.
12 MEMBERS PRESENT:
13 Marcus A.
Rowden, Chair:aan k
Victor Gilinsky 14 Richard T. Kennedy 15 Peter L. Strauss, General Counsel John IloyJe, Acting Secretary 16 17 18 19 20 21 o
22 hu 23 24
$> Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25 i
n.
-. -. = = = = - - - - - -
.==- a o
s t
I ESEEEEEE 2
Agenda Item:
Page 3
Policy Decisions 3
thI 4
NRC Authorization Bill 11 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
.(.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l
- Eh
==
23 24 9Fooeral Reporters, Inc.
25 u
3 1
ERQQkEglggS 2
(The reporter was asked to start in the middle of a 3
preceding meeting.)
h
~
5:
4 MR. STRAUSS:
(Continuing)
As ERDA remarks, 5
enactment of the bill could impede future policy decisions 6
of the President by requiring Congressional action to 7
modify the suggested prohibitions if th'at were later deter-8 mined to be a desirable course.
9 The second and more difficult issue is --
10 MR. GILINSKY:
-- That qualifies it definitely.
11 MR. STRAUSS -
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. KENNEDY:
i 4j 20 MR. HUBERMAN:
I 21 22 55 23 MR. STRAUSS :
24 i
' Federal Reporters, Inc. -
25 MR. HUBERMAN:
i
s--...
~
4 l
4 2
MR. STRAUSS:
3 E,
I h
4 5
g 7
8 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN 9
10 11 12 MR. KENNEDY:
13 14 15 1
16 MR. GILINSKY:
17 MR. STRAUSS:
18 MR. GILINSKY:
What is Udall's proposal?
19 MR. STRAUSS:
Udall's proposal is for study.
20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
The special statutory commission i
21 study.
22 MR. STRAUSS:
Okay, that's it.
I will make the idh
'~?
23 first co:mnent, then, if you will agree.
24 MR. GILINSKY:
Is Spaeth saying they need a bill?
.pederw n porwes, Ins.
25 MR. STRAUSS:
No.
He is really saying we don't
I e
5 4
1 need it.
If you look at the last sentence of the testimony, 2
he says yeu need it for the legislation as established.
3 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN':- Somehow, that got changed from 1
u_
==!
4 the time he made his original. statement and the time it came
^5 out of the White House.
6 MR. STOIBER:
That is a different time, then.
7 MR. STRAUSS:
What one would say is we agree the l
8 need for the bill isn't established since the Commission hasn't i
9 yet decided the impact of the President's policy on its 10 decisions and actions, and specifically agree that enactment 11 of the bill could impede the future policy decisions of the 12 President by requiring Congressional action to modify the 13 suggested pronibitions.
A 14 MR. KENNEDY:
I must say it seems to me the choice 15 of language ought to be commented on.
One says, "There appears s.
16 to be no compelling reason at this time to orcceed with the 17 legislation because it will probably not be required to carry j
18 out the position which both its sponsors and the Administration 2
19 suppor't: the haul?.ing of NRC licensing activities relating i
20 to plutonium and duutrium."
j l
21 That is very improperly put, it would seem.
l 22 MR. hUBERMAN:
We could make a factual statement.
55F 23 MR. GILINSKY:
Isn't it for them to comment?
It 24 is their proposal.
It is for them to decide whether --
- ce-Federal Deporters, Inc.
I 25 MR. STRAUSS:
If that is their proposal.
+
m___ _
6 1
MR. GILINSKY:
-- if'that is their objective.
We 2
may only be the objects in this policy.
3 MR. STRAUSS:
Okay.
- .7:::.
4 MR. GILINSKY:
Let me understand.
Are we sending
- . =.
5 any comment over?
- 6 MR. STRAUSS:
Yes.
The comnient just stated.
7 MR. GILINSKY:
We are commenting on their testimony?
8 MR. STRAUSS:
That's right.
That's all we have 9
.been asked to do.
i 10 MR. KENNEDY:
What proposal is before us to permit 11 reprocessing and recycling of plutoniuz.?
12 MR. STRAUSS:
The GESMO, so characterized by him.
13 MR. KENNEDY:
But we ought to make the point that 14 that is not the case because he says -- again, let me read 15 it:
"It is clear that the proposal to perinit reprocessing and 16 recycling of ;1utonium now pends.ng before the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission is in direct conflict with Presidential 18 policy."
19 There is nothing that I know of that is before the
\\
20 Commission right now which is in direct conflict with 21 Presidential' policy.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I made the observation to Pete f55) 23 before that as far as the GESMO proceeding is concerned, it 24 is not a proposal on our part; it is considering a course of
%e Fesseral Reporters, Inc.
25 action.
2 7
l 1
MR. KENNEDY:
It, indeed, is,an action taken by 2
us to refuse, based upon the requirement laid upon us by the 3
CDQ.
=:-
i=F 4
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Well, by the courts.
J l
5 MR. KENNEDY:
And by the courts.
1 6
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
We have 2 licen,se applications j
7 pending before us.
But we have already.said we are not going 8
to act on those applications.
That was part of our November 9
statement.
We had the interim licensing position.
That 10 was struck down by the court so we are in a posture now 11 where we can ' t --
12 MR. KENNEDY:
There can't be any licansing; there 13 is no proposal before us.
,\\
l 14 MR. GILINSKY:
But we were in the posture of 15 trying to get that eliminated.
And if the interim licensing were made possible again, "it would open up the possibility of 16 17 dealing with the licensing.
18 MR. STRAUSS:
That, we will come to talk about 19 next Tuesday.
~'
20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That, we are going to be 21 discussing.
22 MR. GILINSKY:
I guess 7 lon't see the need to SE 5
23 comment on this testimony at all.
24 MR. KENNEDY:
If the man is testifying to something
.ce Fe& wad Reorten, lm 25 that --
-:q
. 4-7-
1
2==-
---. =- m 8
[
MR. STRAUSS:
Doesn't exist.
2 MR. KENNEDY:
-- is not true, it seems to me, at 3
least, incumbent upon us to let the testifier know that he
- j[?
4 is testifying in error, inadvertently, of course.
5 MR. GILINSKY:
We are beyond that; we are simply 6
taking a position on the bill.
7 MR. KENNEDY:
We are saying'it is unnecessary.
8 MR. GILINSKY:
It is unnecessary, yes.
9 MR. KENNEDY:
That is what they are saying.
The 10 statements in here are incorrect.
11 MR. GILINSKY:
I also think it is unnecessary for 12 us to take a position on the bill.
13 MR. KENNEDY:
You ought not to put something on i
14 the record that is incorrect.
'15 MR. STOIBER:
One aspect of this process that I 16 think may be important is that the OMB now, the new OMB as
~
17 Opposed to the OMB of the last Congress, seems to have been 18 very forthcoming in seeking our views on a variety of issues.
t9 And if you think that kind of deference or involvement in the 20 process is useful, then every time we go back to them when 21 requested for our views and say we don't have any, then I 22 think they are inclined to probably edge us out.
23 MR. KENNEDY:
They don't have time to waste time 24 on people who aren't going to - '
ee. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Let me just tell you how you can
=-
m--m--_._--
9 1
resolve this whole thing.
Take'out this part which says, "The 2
haulting of NRC licensing activities relating to plutonium 3
'use," and insert the statement made by the President in terms
,.g.
4 of his determination,iwhich is quite indeterminate, whatever s=
5 it is.
And that's it.
The practical end reault is --
6
.MR. KENNEDY:
That's correct.
Then, I would go I
7 back to where he talks about the proposal before the NRC 8
to do this and modify that to simply ref1ect the facts; i
9 that's all.
l 10 MR. STRAUSS:
Okay.
11 MR. EAGLE:
If he seriously wanted the NRC views, 12 they would have sent it long before 2:00 o' clock this afternoon.
13 MR. STOIBER:
I think that it probably went to the
\\
l 14 State Department and a variety of other agencies at the same 15 time.
I talked with Ron Dethower, and they got it at precisely 16 the same time we did.
17 MR. KENNEDY:
It was sent out in a letter to 18 everybody April 25.
19 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Open or closed?
20 MR. OSTRACH:
You are responding to a request frqm 21 OMB for confidential expressions of your views, and that is 22 exactly what you discussed.
I believe the transcript is, JL EE" 23 therefore, withholdable.
And I ask you to vote.
24 MR. GILINSKY:
Let me understand something here.
e.F.e, s mesate,, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That's not in the law.
_w.
i 10 1
MR. KENNEDY:
Understanding is not the purpose of 2
the exercise.
3 MR. GILINSKY:
One of the reasons we withhold
=.-
4 matters is because to release them prematurely publicly would 3
l 5
embarrass our agency or defeat the process of consultation or 6
whateve.
What about after the process is complete?
What 7
is the rationale of withholding it?
8 MR. OSTRACH:
Our regulations provide that after 9
the situation which made the release pre, mature has passed, 10 the material will be released.
That 's section 9.108 (b).
11 MR. GILLINSKY:
Does that mean that one 's best 12 bet --
testifies as to legality --
13 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Well, no.
I think not.
Obviously, A
14 some of the matters we have discussed are matters that we 15 would intend to, and I think properly, keep confidential in 16 terms of the substance, in terms of some of these other 17 elements.
18 MR. KENNEDY:
Those things can be looked at.
19 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
We can look at these in terms of 20 determining the appropriateness of release, but I recall some 21 aspects of this discussion which I think are --
22 MR. GALINSKY:
Well, this one, yes.
Well, take,
=5
'E' 23 for example, the ones we are about to have on budget matters.
24 I don't want to release that publicly before you present
,ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
l 25 your recommendations to the committee.
But what happens after
.g 11 1
these have been presented or after the whole process --
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I guess I would like to have that 3
matter looked at.
4 MR. STRAUSS:
We can go through the transcript and 5
see.
There will be some matters that you will want to safe 6
as against a future day and a lot of other things, it would 7
be fully appropriate to release.
8 MR. GILINSKY:
There is a procedure for going 9
through these things after the fact?
10 MR. STRAUSS:
Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
You helped approve that.
12 MR. KENNEDY:
As a matter of fact, what we are 13 going to do --
\\
14 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
If we ever get to it.
15 MR. KENNEDY:
-- will be to request 10 more people 16 in order to be able to do all that.
17 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Gentlemen, let us now move to 18 generate a record we can later review.
19 (The committee, at 4 :27 p.m., terminated one meeting 20 and proceeded immediately to another.)
-XXX 21 MR. GOSSICK:
Mr. Chairman, in order to save some 22 time, and I think maybe get rid of some of the fairly simple imE E9 matters with reference to the letter that we sent down here 23 24 on Friday, the April 22 letter, I would suggest that we woe.ra nepormes, Inc.
l 25 perhaps for the moment set aside safeguard and breeder issues I
- ...-,....n
~ _.-
3-~.=..w...---------
. = - - - - -. - -
12 1
and go ahead quickly through these other items.
2 The supergrades issue on page 3, we have again 3
communicated what we are doing to address the question of
- =
4 whether or not the $210 ceiling that we think is currently 5
right, pending the outcome of the studies, is it proper that 6
we should seek to keep that within our budget?
7 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
No, that number is not in the 8
budget, but I keep telling the staff --
9 MR. GOSSICK:
Excuse me -- to keep from having 10 any language in the budget restricting it.
11 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I wouldn't support it; I woul(n't 12 ask Chairman Udall to support it.
We just shouldn't have 13 that number in or any number in until we complete the study.
14 MR. GOSSICK:
Okay on that one.
15 On the additional inspection effort, of course, 16 you were briefed last week on the program for onsiba or 17 site inspectors.
And the number is as you see there, S6 18 million for an additional 125 people.
19 MR. KENNEDY:
That is what the committee staff hac 20 proposed?
21 MR. GOSSICKi No, sir.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
They proposed 10.
gg=
~
MR. GOSSICK:
Ten and roughly --
23 24 MR. KENNEDY:
And 226 additional people.
sco-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
300 was the number that the"
13 1
used, to answer the question.
2 And as Ernst described in his program, I think that 3
in order to assimilate and proceed on this program, it is his 1.==
~
R75 4
view and'I think it is probably realistic about the proper S
number of sites we have to deal with.
6 MR. KENNEDY:
Can we in fact acquire and assimilate 7
125 people in this time frame?
We are talking about a 8
year roughly.
9 MR. GOSSICK:
I think we can.
10 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
We asked Ernie that, and he 11 said we could.
12 MR. GOSSICK:
I think the most we have ever 13 assimtlated in I&E before is -- John, do you remember?
14 VOICE:
40 percent increase.
This represents a 15 30 percent.
16 MR. GOSSICK:
In terms of what we have already got 17 on board which, of course, helps us with regard to the 18 assimulation.
But I think it is doable.
19 MR. GILINSKY:
Have we ever commented on about what 20 we are going to do in this area where the President has l
21 requested us to act?
Do we acknowledge this in any way?
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Other than informal comment with EEk 23 the White House and discussion with OMB, the answer is no.
24 Now, we did have a public briefing.
sc e m m e ng o m m.inc 25 MR. GILINSKY:
Should we --
l
t 14 1
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Well, when we get to the point 2
of the moment of truth like writing a letter, I think that 3
would be the first formal position we have taken, and it has 4
to be cleared with OMB to get Administration support.
They 5
are behind us in this regard.
6 We have not formally decided.
You see, it is not 7
a question of we have formally come; we have not formally 8
dec'ided.
1 9
MR. GOSSICK:
OMB has asked us for a budget 10 amendment which I guess they know these numbers.
11 MR. KENNEDY:
Now, wait.
I am lost.
OMB has 12 asked us for a budget amendment in this regard.
j 13 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
(
o 14 MR. KENNEDY:
And you have given them these numbers.
15 But we just got through saying we haven't decided.
Is that 16 right?
17 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
The Commission has not formally 18 approved this.
19 MR. KENNEDY:
I just want to be sure that I under-20 stood where we were.
21 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I think it's pretty clear in 22 terms of what we have seen and --
.=.
... =
'~
23 MR. KENNEDY:
When are we going to get to deciding 24 it and getting it on the road?
a ceww agonm. inc j
25 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Because at the conclusion of
-- - -.=__. _
15 I
the last briefing, Ernie said he would get a paper up to us.
2 What was it, 10 days to 2 weeks?
3 Now, it t.w been about a week since that last 2h 4
briefing.
As soon as the paper comes up, we can act on it.
5 I would like to act on it no later than next week.
6 VOICE:
We hope the paper will be before you this 7
week.
8 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That's an item you better look 9
at the agenda.
10 MR. KENNEDY:
It is not there, is it?
11 MR. EAGLE:
No.
12 MR. KENNEDY:
You better talk to these guys about 1
13 another paper, John.
14 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What I am suggesting is that we 15 have to be careful we don't shortcircuit the process.
That's 16 all.
That's one of the difficulties with writing letters.
17 MR. BARRY:
What OMB asked me was what numbers is 18 Ernst recommending to the Commission.
And I told him what 19 the numbers that he recommend to you were and the cost.
20 MR. KENNEDY:
Did this include numbers only for 21 this one year and the budget amendment would be for 1978?
22 MR. BARRY:
Yes, fiscal '78.
dE=
23 MR. KENNEDY:
So, therefore, there would be no 1
1 24 action on this in 1977.
!m-Federal Reporte,s, Inc.
25 MR. BARRY:
Correct.
16 1
MR. KENNEDY:
Okay.
'I guess we would have to be
-2 prepared to explain why we were going to postpone taking any 3
action on this until next October first, isn't it?
That would 2.h
%Ei 4
be point one.
So I guess we need to do something about that.
5 And I guess I don't know what the answer would be, but 6
presumably the paper will tell us.
Right?
7 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
It better.
We better be pre-8 pared to do the right thing here and not just move bodies on 9
to these sites.
10 MR. STRAUSS:
Would you then tell the committee 11 the same thing as OMB has been told that they are going to 12 vote on their markup this Wednesday?
13 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
All we can tell and all we can
(
14 tell the committee is, (a), that the staff is preparing to 15 recommend this; the Commission hasialready had a public 16 briefing; and the Administration is obviously in sympathy 17 with this approach.
We have discussed it informally with OMB.
18 I don't see how we can send them a letter saying, "Do this,"
19 until we have formally approved this.
20 MR. STRAUSS:
But you could in telling them that 21 specify the levels which you are going to be recommending.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That the staff is recommending
~
23 to the Commission.
24 MR. STRAUSS:
That's right.
co-Fedecc) Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. KAMMENER:
They already know the recommendation
-m_
17 f
from staff to them.
)
2 MR. GOSSICK:
Can we go on to generic issues?
3 Here are the subcommittee bills identifying $12.5
- I[})
4 million put on unresolved safety issues.
And looking at this 5
and within the constraints of the $292 million we get back
(
6 to later on, the number that NRR has arrived at here is
(
(
7 about $2.5 million and a total of 15 spaces that they would i
8 seek to bolster this effort.
That $12'.5 by itself is more l
9 money than they can use.
(
10 They do need manpower in order to use additional 11 funds.
And depending on perhaps other actions or other 12 decisions with regard to some of the other items, I guess my l
13 feeling is that we might be able to add somewhat to this.
{\\
14 Is that correct?
(
15 VOICE:
Yes.
16 MR. bdSSICK:
But probably not significantly.
17 VOICE:
Perhaps another million.
18 MR. KENNEDY:
Add what to what?
I 19 MR. GOSSICK:
Add 15 people and the $2.5 million.
20 VOICE:
My view is I can take another million 21 dollars contractual assistance without asking for more people.
22 MR. GILINSKY:
And use it well?
i:#=
~
23 VOICE:
Use it well.
24 MR. GILINSKY:
And accomplish something?
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 VOICE:
Yes.
But no more than that.
18 1
MR. KENNEDY:
So what you are saying, then, is, 2
what, that you would prefer $3.5 million and 15 people, is 3
that --
4 VOICE:
That'c the problem with this whole process; 5
there is --
6 VOICE:
It is depending on other offices that I' 7
can't take into account that Lee has in coming up with this 8
number.
9 MR. GOSSICK:
If we are going to provide the $6 10 ndllion --
11 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Where is your confidence level 12 the highest -- the $2.8 million?
13 Look, I am really concerned about a by-guess-and-14 by-God approach to this thing.
The Agency is going to get 15 into trouble next year.
There is a reason for a budget review 16 process; there is a reason why it goes through this, as 17 Painful as it is.
And we are really shortcircuiting that 18 thing for what everybody believes to be a desirable goal.
19 But I believe it is going to be a high price to pay later 20 on when they look at what is accomplished.
21 VOICE:
Certainly, I.am confident with $2.8 22 million, which includet 15 people.
23 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I mm also concerned about achiev-24 ing something if indeed it is desirable to achieve it.
And
- co-Federal Coporters, Inc.
25 you have got to have a basis for getting this through the l
19 1
Appropriations Committee, not just the Authorization Committee.
2 Now, the $2.5 million and the 15 people was part of 3
a recommendation --
n.
Msr 4
VOICE:
$2.8.
5 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
$2.8, was part of a recommendation 6
that --
7 VOICE:
That had previously been gotten.
8 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
-- you had previously made which 9
was staffed out.
And OMB -- or I don't remember how that 10 sequence was, but at least that was a staff program.
11 MR. KENNEDY:
It didn't go beyond us, or the total
- 12 didn't go beyond us, and decision was made that that is where 13 it would be cut.
We cut that?
14 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
No, I think that Ben set his 15 Priorities, and he said that is where it would be cut.
I 16 think that is a fair way to characterize it.
17 MR. KENNEDY:
,We did not eliminate the 15 people i
18 for generic issues.
19 MR. CASE:
Not specifically.
20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
NRR said that their order of 21 priority.was operating reactors and --
22 MR. GILINSKY:
But in effect, we did.
==
~~
MR. KENNEDY:
No.
We said, " Set your priorities.
23 24 We say that you ought to have X number of people; set your AceJederal Reporters, Inc.
25 priorities."
The priority was set by him which eliminated the
20
[
15 people for generic issues.
We didn't.
2 MR. CASE:
That is correct.
3 MR. GOSSICK:
It was elsewhere.
qhh:
4 MR. KENNEDY:
Wait.
What have we decided here?
5 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Well, I made a proposal that if we 6
are to indicate our amenability, and I think we have to be 7
careful how we indicate that amenability, it ought to be a figure which has been staffed out and ' looked at in terms of 8
9 our ability to use the money productively within th i next 10 fiscal year.
11 MP.. GILINSKY:
0; e could argue here just as in 12 the fuel cycle there have been changes, there have also been 13 changes in light water reactors.
And the greater stress on i
14 making sure they run right.
And I think one could argue that a s 15 one is sort of. shif ting the direction of the nuclear program, 16 that there is a greater emphasis on making sure existing 17 plants --
18 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What are we going to do with the 19 money?
20 MR. GILINSKY:
Well, that's for Ed to respond to.
21 He said he thought he could use more money.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I haven't seen any program to 23 utilize the money.
I have a public responsibility, too.
24 MR. KENNEDY:
He said his confidence level is l
.p.e.re c. con,,,, ine, 25 high at $2.8.
- a _.
=-
- ' 21 MR. CASE:
There is no doubt in my ndnd I can come 2
up with contracts to handle an additional million dollarsi 7
havewishlistsfrommydivjsiondirectorswhicharewell 3
4 beyond that.
5 MR. GILINSKY:
Are these frivolous matters?
Are 6
these matters that are going to resolve outstanding generic 7
proble:s that have. plagued us all this' time?
8 MR. CASE:
No, they are not.
They involve the 9
outstanding generic items.
10 MR. KENNEDY:
I am a little confused; I guess I M
am sharing the Chairman's expressed concern because in 12 principle, I agree with Commissioner Galinsky, but I thought I heard you say that your confidence level is high at $2.0 13 14 million, but not so high with the extra million.
15 MR. CASE:
Not as high with the extra million.
16 MR. KENNEDY:
I don't know what that means.
17 Mx. GILINSKY':
Confidence in what?
18 MR. CASE:
Confidence in getting results with the 19 funds that can be shown after a year's use of these funds.
20 Programmatic results.
My confidence is higher when I only 21 have $2.8 million than I have with $3.8 million.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Why don't we just lay it out
?=-
23 straight.
I don't know what the mechanisms for indication 24 is going to be.
We all think it is a good idea, but I think
.-Fee rei Reporters, Inc.
25 we all agree that --
22 1
MR. KENNEDY:
What you are proposing is too much 2
or it couldn't be used.
3 MR. CASE:
It's more than we can assimilate.
=2:.
'~~""
4 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Obviously, the amount they are 5
proposing exceeds by a rather significant margin what we can 6
effectively use next year.
7 MR. KENNEDY:
And moreover that the important thing 8
is to provide authorization for additional personnel.
9 Now, let me point out that in doing that, if in 10 fact the committee
.re, and we were to be authorized, to 11 have those add..onal personnel, we have to think very hard 12 about a reassessment of priorities when and if we are faced 13 with an Appropriations committee action later on down the 14 pike which does not provide a total funding level which would 15 equate to an additional 15 spaces.
c.
16 We will have committed ourselves then to shift 17 resources from some other program into this program.
18 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I don't know if we will or we
~
19 won't.
How does the process work?
20 MR. KENNEDY:
Be very careful about how it is put.
21 MR. EAGLE:
It in part depends, I think, on whether 22 the line-by-line authorization carries through the full eEE 23 Congress.
24 MR. KENNEDY:
Be very careful about how it is put.
co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. EAGLE:
If the authorization process carries it
_ _7 _ _ _
23 1
through as the proposed bill from the Udall Committee -- the 2
subcommittee, I should say --
3 MR. GOSSICK: Your concern is that they should vote (h) 4 the program support money, but not go along with the spaces.
5 And, of course, the money that they always provide the funds 6
for the spaces they authorize.
7 I.think, as you say, we would have to take a look 3
at the priorities and decide how best to do this with the 9
manpower that we now have on board.
10 MR. KENNEDY:
But when we go in and say, "Yes, we 11 want the money and people and know just what we need to do,"
i 12 and they say, "Okay, this is it," We have to think about 13 then if we don't wind up in the appropriations process, we have 14 to be very careful we don't have unwittingly trapped ourselves 15 into something we can't do or given the priority assessments 16 would really rather not do.
17 MR. CASE:
It is a question of effectiveness.
18 I can always allocate the money and do a-much better job in 19 getting results if I had 15 people to follow the work and take 20 it into account.
21 MR. KENNEDY:
Okay.
So what are we saying --
22 15 people and --
E" 23 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
$2.8.
24 MR. GOSSICK:
On the next item, the developmental co. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 safety research, $13 million that they were proposing that we
24 i
1 spend on carrying out -- that would improve safety research, 2
we are simply taking the view on this that until Congress 3
sort of acts on this proposal as to broadening our charter
- L
\\
igp-4 or broadening the scope of our research program, put the onus 5
or charge NRC and ERDA with getting together and coordinating 6
a program and come back with it, that we think this is just 7
premature.
8 MR. KENNEDY:
But isn't this precisely what they 9
are propcsing to do?
The effect of this would be to revise 10 our charter.
And isn't the question then whether in a 11 philsophical way, do we or do we not feel concerned about 12 that?
13 After all, isn't it appropriate for us to tell them
(
14 that the Commission was established in the first instance 15 in a climate and with a legislative history?
It very 16 clearly separated developmental effort from our own.
And 17 that this would represent a significant departure from that 18 as we understand its language.
19 MR. GILINSKY:
Is that a desirable or undesirable 20 thing?
21 MR. KENNEDY:
That's precisely the question.
That 22 is the question we ought to give them some guidance on at E
23 least from our own viewpoint.
24 Let me add one last sentence.
It seems to me m-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 inappropriate, given that Commissioner Gilinsky's point is
precisely the question that he is answering, to 1
that question hanging in the air, impliedly to s 2
really ought to discuss this with OMB and ERDA.
3 5h_$
I 4
MR. STRAUSS:
I thought the directiol l
l recommendation was to say that the desirability <
3 l
in the NRC's mandate is something which should bt 6
I i
in conjunction with the President's overall enerc 7
8 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I guess my approach 9
touches a couple of other bases.
And I think the here is perhaps a little too negative.
10 My own vi that reasearch of this type is a good idea.
11 12 There are 2 basic questions.
Who shou 13 And what should be done?
Those are important que.
those are the sorts of questions that ought to be 14 15 NRC and by ERDA in terms of the "who."
There are which they may think of as developmental which ma3 16 17 out to be developmental.
18 Sol can give you a list I am sure of th i
19 could do within that category and beyond that.
I Congress should just throw money at us for project 20 21 r ot defined.
I think we ought to develop the proj<
- a. gain in a decent way, come back and seek the authe 22 23 through a budget amendment.
24 MR. GILINSKY:
- Am-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Why not suggest some mode 25 of money to do that?
I l
x_
r-u.
26 1
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I wouldn't ask them to give us 2
money to do something I know not what.
I just don't think 3
that's the righi'wsy to go about it.
55!
4 MR. KENNEDY:^ Nor would I ask them to give us ' money 5
without a clear understanding of what constitutes a develop-6 mental program and whether, indeed, in undertaking a program 7
which could be seen or described that way, this Agency might 8
Possibly in some eyes, at least, those who were party to its 9
original birth, might see such an action as being inconsistent 10 with the basic role given the Commission when the Commission l
11 was created.
12 MR. GILINSKY:
I think where this f16ss from is 13 from the Ford Foundation Report.
14 MR. KENNEDY:
I und,erstand that.
15 MR. GILINSKY:
I am not sure th.at ought to be 16 characterized as developmental.
17 MR. KENNEDY:
That's the point that has to be made.
18 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
If I had doubts about that 19 generic funding getting through the Appropriation Committee, 20 I have no doubt whatever what is going to happen to this.
It 21 will just never make it through either the House or the 22 Senate side.
.::i.:.
EF 23 MR. KENNEDY:
It seems we need to be very careful 24 how we support it or indicate our willingness to accept it m a n.oon m,inc.
25 or whatever.
.i
..a,
- -- - - w
=-
27 1
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
There is : way to go about this 2
that to my way of thinking is a p^rfectly valid way.
I 3
personally support the idea that something like this should hh 4
be done.
It will probably have to be done by the government.
5 The committee can support this either in the bill or in the 6
report accompanying the bill, direct NRC and ERD to submit a 7
report to it, making recommendations.
8 And then in the light of those recommendations, 9
projects can be developed, and we can submit a budget amend-10 ment, we or ERDA and/or ERDA can submit a budget amendment 11 to carry out those projects.
12 It seems to me that that is the rational way to 13 go about it.
We are not going to get any money.
\\
14 MR. KENNEDY:
Provided that -- I agree with that 15 100 gercent -- in making this known to the committee, this 16 view, we also point out to the committee that we want to be 17 very careful that there is not seen to be creation of a new 18 conflict of interest, the conflict of interest which was 19 originally washed out by the legislation.
20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That is the question of who bhould 21 be doing it, I think.
We might come to a different conclusion 22 on that question, but the concerns that were originally
- is"
~
23 expressed, I think are valid concerns.
24 MR. GILINSKY:
But they are kind of remote in this sco Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 case.
t l
28 1
MR.. KENNEDY:
We don't know.
WG don't know what 2
it is.
3 Mh. LEVINE:
I think we can prepare a -- in fact,
((3 4
we't, working on preparing some ideas on what we think we 5
can do within our current charter and some things that might 6
additionally be done if our charter were revised.
7 I don't think we need-any contract dollars to do L 8
this.
I think we know enough about wh'at is going on.
9 MR. GILINSKY:
In fact, we do this kind of work in 10 areas outside of the safeguards area.
We in faci do 11 analyze this kind of activity.
We don't simply review or 12 conduct research to get an assessment of an existing safe-13 guard system.
We are really working on developing new ones.
t 14 So I think the line has been crossed in many ways.
15 My question is:
how far beyond this should one go?
16 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I guess I could distinguish 17 national security from safety considerations.
Whether we 18 could conceptually distinguish it or not --
19 MR. KENNEDY:
Especially since the whole research 20 program such as light water reactors is concerned 21 in some eyes has been a sort of 6:Embie favoring the industry 22 which many believe all this time should have been doing more ik5 23 of this themselves. -
24 And now, all of a sudden, it would seem to those woo.re r ooner., ene.
25 people that here this Agency is once again picking up the o
_m
___.-..__m_
29 1
task which the industry long since should have picked up.
2 And what I am saying is that the basic credibility of the 3
Agency then comes into question again.
.==
".5_??
4 And it was precisely to avoid that that the charter S
of the Agency v?s no drawn as it was in 1974.
Now, I am not 6
arguing the philosophy now whether we should or not because 7
I think that is something we ought to think through.
I am 8
only saying that we ought to make this point to the committee 9
so that the committee doesn't put us in a position --
10 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
We ought to recognize what the 11 reason is for the limitation that is in the Energy Reorganization 12 Act.
13 MR. KENNEDY:
And the committee should recognize it.
l i.
14 And if the committeen then says, Energy Reorganization Act 15 notwithstanding, we believe you should be doing this, that is ;
16 in the province of the Congress.
But the Congress ought to 17 understand when it does that, the implications of its action.
18 And it may well be som, measure of the credibility 19 of the Agency.
20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Can I just add the pragmatic 21 ohservation if we really want to mount a program in this 22 regard or the government wants to mount a program, it is not 23 going to be moved foward by this mechanism.
It just wouldn't 24 get past the authorization by this committee.
Maybe it will p ederet Reporte,v, Inc.
F l
25 pass the House as far as the authorization bill is concerned, 1
i
- -.. _ - - -...... - _ =.. ~
. ~ _ - -.. -
30
[
but knowing our authorization committees, I cannot believe 2
that they would give us money -- the Appropriations Committee,
3 I can't believe that they would appropriate money for projects
'Z 4
which haven't been reviewed.
5 MR. KAMMENER:
What about the question of OMB 6
in that regard as well; it.hasn't gone through the scrutiny 7
of that arm of the government.
8 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That's right.
9 Well, how do we end up on this?
I made a proposal.
10 MR. GILINSKY:
Why don't we follow your recommen-11 dation?
12 MR. DENNEDY:
I would agree with that provided, as 13 I said before, that in so doing, we inform the committee of 14 the very serious concern that we not, the committee not, 15 take an action which can damage the credibility of the Agency 16 however meritorious the principle may be.
And it ougl:t to 17 reflect upon the legislative history which created the 18 organize. tion.
19 MR. GILINSKY:
Well, you know, there is a point 20 there, but I think it can be overstressed, too.
1 21 MR. KENNEDY:
I don't.
)
22 MR. GILINSKY:
This isn't like having the breeder 55:1:.
~~
Program within NRC.
23 24 MR. KENNEDY:
I don't think it can be over'stresse.d Ace Federal Repo,te,s, Inc.
25 a bit.
I think the people who saw conflict of interest, and l
31 1
I think the people that are intervening in our light water 2
reactor pgorams and proposed licensing are not concerned with 3
the breede.is.
They are concerned with nuclear power, and they fjh!'
~
4 are concernsd with the credibility of'this Agency.
5 And I don't want to see anything done that is going 6
to distroy the credibility of this Agency which I worked 7
very, very hard for the last 2-1/2 years to create.
8 MR. GILINSKY:
But what we are talking about here is whether people are going to merely make tests on ' existing 9
10 ECCS systems or think about alternative systems, for example.
11 Now that doesn't seem to me to undermine the credibility of 12 the Agency..
13 MR. KENNEDY:
Some would argue that you are then
\\
developing something which the industry should have developed; 14 15 you should have set standards and caused them to do it.
You should have' created a program which they would have to carry 16 17 out.
18 In several cases, we have asked -- I remember i
19 Commissioner Galinsky wisely, Indeed, I would say, asked,
(
20 "Isn't this something that the industry would have to do if i
21 we didn't?"
He has asksd it on a number of occasions, and l
22 thought absolutely correctly.
#
=
23 And all I am saying is here is another few million l
24 dollars that is going to be in that category.
{
w Fwww Ramnws, Inc 25 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
There is another argument to that,
I 32 1
and that is we shouldn't be reviewing the handiwork we develope '.
2 That is really-the-fundamental conflict.
We develop it, and 3
they submit it to us in a regulatory context, and we are
=
j;;
4 reviewing our own work.
5 MR. GILINSKY:
The other practical side of it is 6
this is where the country's safety research program is.
7 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
You will find no firmer supporter 8
of the concept that it should be done.
I would prefer that 9
it be done by the industry.
The fact is a lot of dhis won't 10 be done by the industry.
11 Then, it becomes a question of which government 12 agency should do it.
I think a lot of this work should be 13 done by ERDA.
And if we are going to get into this area, we V
14 ought to do it in a very carefully thought out way.
15 MR. GILINSKY:
I guess I would say it depends on 16 how big it gets, If it is a very big program, ERDA Eught to 17 do it.
18 MR. KENNEDY:
There is an old story about -- what 19 is it, you can't be just a little bit pregnant?
And when you 20 are talking about --
\\'
21 l MR. GILINSKY:
I am just trying to be a little bit 22 safe.
23 MR. KENNEDY :- -- credibility, let me say there is 24 no such thing as, "Well, you are just a little incredible."
co-Federst Coporters, Inc.
25 It just won't work.
i 33 f
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
How do you translate what I think 2
is a good idea into a viable program?
I don't think this is i
3 the way to do it.
And I would suggest another course of I
iM.@
4 action.
5 MR GILINSKY:
I am supporting your recommendation.
6 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Okcy.
7 MR. KENNEDY:
I am also with my caveat.
8 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Make notes.on the cavsat.
9 Okay, next.
10 MR. GOSSICK:
ACRS fellowship.
We discussed this 11 last week and my more recent discussions of it.
We have 12 suggested one change that we think is appropriate.
The ACRS, 13 as you have heard, supports this idea.
We believe we really
(
14 ought to'ask for the spaces to cover these people.
And there 15 is one small correction that needs to be made down under
~
16 discussion where we say " benefits, provide the same benefits l
17 as the ACRS members that have ACRS staff."
l 18 If we bring these people on board in a 2-year l
l 1
l 19 assignment or hiring situation, not covered by the so-called I
20 permanent space, they don't get any benefits -- no medical, 21 no medical coverage.
And I 'think it is going to be one 22 difficult thing to find the kind of people we want.
1.===
""7 23 MR. KENNEDY:
What does the rest of our intern 24 program do?
- e Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. GOSSICK:
The interns are --
=- _.
34 1
VOICE:
They are permanent employees, but chsrged 2
against a temporary ceiling for 2 years which OMB pernits.
3 MR. GOSSICK:
That gives them their benefits.
We (ff 4
can. bring them on for a fixed 2-year assignment.
And at the
~
3 end of that period, they are off.
6 MR. BARRY:
This permits you to pay for the costs 7
of the move and permits ycu to give them insurance.
It's 8
a good thing.
9 MR. STRAUSS:
It does pay for the cost o'f their 10 move?
11 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Does that come out of the $600,000f j
12 MR. BARRY:
Pretty close.
When I price these, 13 I always price --
(z 14 MR. KENNEDY:
Wait.
$600,000 is going to pay 15 15 fellowships?
A little earlier today --
16 MR. EAGLE:
$40,000.
17 MR. KENNEDY:
Moving expenses included.
18 MR. BARRY:
You are not going to hire them all on 19 the first day.
20 MR. KENNEDY:
I know that.
A little earlier, 21 however, we were told that the average cost, as I remember it, 22 for computing a ran-year cost for fees was $70,000.
That is
.4 -
EEE 23 an enormous difference between 40 and 70.
24 MR. GILINSKY:
The difference between a GS-11 and es.Federes Reporters. Inc.
23 GS-17.
-.- ~
35 i
VOICE:
That S70,000 included a number of things 2
that they do not include in terms of the developing personnel 3
costs per man-year.
The $70,000 includes such things as
~).[J 4
furniture, equipment, share the overhead expenses.
5 MR. KENNEDY:. You are going to have to do that 6
for all of these guys or are they going to stand up?
I am 7
90in.g to get to that later and figure out where they are going 8
to sit, too.
It is going to be in one of those extra 9
buildings.
10 MR. GILINSKE:
What is the average salary?
11 MR. GOSSICK:
The average salary for these people?
12 MR. GILINSKY:
Yes, of that $40,000.
13 MR. GOSSICK:
Mr. Fraley is here.
What do you
\\
14 anticipate bringing these people on board at, Ray, what grade 15 level?
c.
16 MF. FRALEY:
On the average, I would say probably 17 a 12 or 13, at that level.
18
-MR.
GOSSICK:
Which is what?
19 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
You know, the fact of the matter 20 is this wasn't costed out.
At least, I hope this wasn't 21 costed out.
I' assume this is an idea that if the --
22 MR. KENNEDY:
If it wasn't, then we ought to tell
- = =
23 them --
24 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I'm just saying this is --
Ace Federal Reporton, Inc.
25 MR. KENNEDY:
-- it is more than S600,000.
- - = - - - - - - - - - - -
~
36 1
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
This is the price you pay for going 2
'through the process, through the back door, in the sense that 3
they made a proposal, it sounds reasonable, I A0n't know what
([$
4 their figures are.
The fact is if it's $600,000 they are 5
giving us, when we spend the S600,000, that's it.
6 MR. FRALEY:
We are not anticipating all of these
~
7 people will be here in Washington.
We are expecting that some 8
of them will be out working with the committee members in the 9
field and that they will make use of the office space that the 10 committee member more or less provides himself.
We provide 11 for miscellaneous expenses.
12 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Wait a minute.
13 MR. KENNEDY:
Let me tell you when we ran a little 14 check on how things worked with the inspectors in the field, 15 and I found that office space and so on for those fellows 16 doesn't come all that cheap.
And I suspect we are going to 17 find out that spaces for these guys to sit in the university 18 is going to come back home to roost.
19 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Are these people going to be assistants to me'bers of the committee or are they to work 20 m
21 on the safety research report?
22 MR. FRALEY:
We feel that probably about half of 23 them would be working directly with the committee members 24 and half of them would be working here in Washington.
AceJederal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What does the language of the
37 1
l 1
authorization say?
l l
2 MR. STRAUSS:
How are we going to choose which 8 3
members of the ACRS get personal clarks and which 7 do not?
I'sfhI 4
MR. CASE:
Seniority.
l 5
MR.-FRALEY:
We haven't worked that detail out.
6 MR. STRAUSS:
It sounds like more than a detail to 7
me.
l 8
MR. FRALEY:
It would depend probably on their 9
subcommittee assignments primarily.
10 MR. STRAUSS:
I think if I would say something 11 if the intention was to provide personal assistance for the 12 ACRS members that use is something that ought to be talked abou 13 with the committee for a variety of reasons.
\\
14 MR. EAGLE:
The specific language in the HR. 3455 --
15 CHAIRMAN RONDEN:
Is ambiguous.
I don't know what 16 the report says; what does the analysis say?
i 17 MR. KENNEDY:
The committee,shall undertake a study 18 of reactor safety research in advance of so and so to assist 19 the committee in carrying out its functions.
That is the l
20 whole business.
21 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That's what it could be.
22 MR. FRALEY:
That is what we were assuming -
f:-
==
23 MR. KENNEDY:
That is the fellowship program.
l l
24 MR. STRAUSS:
As it is written, it would be quite ice-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 consistent with each member of the committee, at least each
38 j
member of the committee who was in academic life having an 2
assistant.
And that would suggest changes in the character of 3
the ACRS of a fundamental nature.
=
4 MR. KAMMENER:
As with this one and some other 5
considerations, we would have to ask whether there has been 6
public hearings on the matter and both sides debated and gone 7
through the regular scrubbing process and run a' risk at grab-8 bing at this one or some of the others with a recommendation 9
back to the committee.
10 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I don't think it is going to get 11 through, again, the appropriation process.
I could be wrong.
12 But I have some familiarity with the. outlook of those com-13 mittees.
And I just don't think it is going to.
14 MR. EAGLE:
If the authorization committees came 15 through with a line-by-line authorization which included this 16 as a specific item in coming to a total and if the Appropri-17 ations Committees come to a total that is roughly equivalent 18 to the authorization total, then you have got conflicts all the 19 way across the board in the thing.
It would be very uncertain 20 as to how you should proceed in it.
21 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That is the point Commissioner 22 Kennedy was making.
How do we protect ourselves against
'E2 23 that?
24 MR. BARRY:
I don't see any problem.
You are W Federes Coporters, Inc.
25 saying the Appropriation Committees would pass our bill as
39 I
we originally submitted it.
Is that what you are saying?
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Well, I assume they don't just 3
have a nubmer, but there is a backup in the numbers that' they QF 4
have there.
5 MR. BARRY:
The appropriations people would have 6
to go along with the increase in the ceiling as far as the 7
additional-increase is concerned.
In the dollars, it wouldn't 8
make a bit of difference.
9 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What if we don't get the increase 10 in the ceiling?
This would require an increase in ceiling.
11 The dollar number is probably going to be the same.
They will 12 try to keep it the same.
But what if we don't get an increase 13 in ceiling?
\\
14 MR. BARRY:
You couldn't take them on without taking 15 it from some place else.
16 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That is exactly where the conflict 17 comes up.
What are the priorities?
18 MR. BARRY:
You would have to increase the ceiling.
19 MR. KENNEDY:
It is the same problem we were talk-20 ing about a minute ago.
21 MR. GILINSKY:
Does the fellowship program neces-22 sarily follow the --
- =&.
23 MR. KENNEDY:
We have to be very careful how we 24 say these things.
- .ce#ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERRY:
You can have a fellowship program
40 5
1 on a permanent basis or on a temporary basis, either way.
2 I think Dan Donahue said that one of-his fellows had an experi-3 ence with the NASA Science Foundation.
They have a fellowship
' 5.h.
7:'ir 4
program.
Without bringing these people on with the benefits 5
that we have in terms of insurance, and onece the fellow is 6
through, on his.way home, and accruing some eEirementifhe 7
ever decides he wants to use that.
You can't get them.
8 MR. KENNEDY:
Make sure you have got retirement 9
because lue wouldn't have been here long enough, but he will 10 get accrued leave.
- 11 MR. BARRY:
That's correct.
l 12 MR. KENNEDY:
And he will get --
l 13 MR. BARRY:
Insurance.
- s 14 MR. KENNEDY:
-- something out of the retirement 15 fund paid to him in cash when he leaves.-
That goes to the 16
$600,000 problem that I am talking about.
17 We are not going to get these guys for $40,000.
18 MR. BARRY:
Well, if they are within the 12 and 13 19 grade, $40,000 would be more than adequate.
If you get them 20 at a higher grade --
l 21 MR. GILINSKY:
Presumably, you are talking about 22 young Ph.D.s or something.
=.
l ~=
23 MR. BARRY:
You are talking about junior people l
24 generally speaking, umFens nummm.inc 25 MR. STRAUSS:
The bill has been rewirtten in such a
41 I
way.as to not have that constraint-in it.
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What was the constraint in it 3
before?
a==
4 MR.-STRAUSS:
The general constraint was recent 5
graduates, qualified persons from engineering and scientific 6
programs.' And that means both they don't have to have 7
graduated, and they could have graduated 15 years ago.
~
MR. FRALEY:
That is correct.
We were hoping we 8
9 could get a few senior people for short periods of time to 10 do specific assignments.
I think the bulk of these people 11 would.probably be relatively new graduates from engineering 12 or physics courses.
I 13 MR. STRAUSS:
What you are saying is that when it 1
14 says the assignment shall not be for more than 2-year periods, 15 the committee's perception of this now is that it could be 1
16 for much le 7 than a 2-year period.
It could be for a month 1
17 or 3 months.
18 MR. FRALEY:
6 months.
19 MR. KENNEDY:
I did not recognize that.
I thought 20 we were going to talk about guys to be brought on for 2-year 21 programs.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Loo, I am just telling you what
'r' 23 my position is.
I am not going to object to it, but I don't l
24 know enough or how it is going to work to support it.
This w e w s Geoo m,.. anc.
25 is another one of these things.
l l
1 MR.. KENNEDY:
I agree with that, too.
2 CHAIRMAN RONDEN:
I don't know what y9ur view i.
3 MR. KENNEDY:
I am not going to object to it.
4 CHAIRMAN RONDEN:
I am not in a position to objo 5
but I haven't thougnt it througn to be able to support it.
6 MR. KENNEDY:
The committee ought to be aware we 7
don't know how it is going to work, and we really don't kno?
8 what it is going to cost.
9 MR. STRAUSS:
And there is a question of trans-10 mitting the recommended changes to the section.
If you are Il not going to take a position on the bill, do you transmit t$
12 changes which the ACRS. wishes to cuggest, changes which 13 transmute a 2 year recent graduate fellowship program into 14 a variable term --
15 MR. GILINSKY:
Then, you are really talking abouG 16 expan' ding ACRS staff.
17 MR. KENNEDY:
By 15 people.
18 MR. STRAUSS:
That's right.
That's what cha.tges 19 to.
20 MR. KENNEDY:
That isn't what was intended, at i
21 least as I could see the language or the committee staff's 22
- analysis, 5.-7......
23 MR. STRAUSS:
That's right.
24 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I think it's their proposal, and Ace #ederal Reporters, Inc, 25 they ought to be in a position of going through with it if L
43' o
f they think it is a gned idea.
2 MR. KENNEDY:
What do we do with the ACRS proposal?
3 MR. STRAUSS:
ACRS proposed changes.
4 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I know.
That-is what my comment 5
was directed to.
I think it is a committee proposal, and the 6
committee ought to act on it.
I am talking about the House 7
committee now.
8 MR. KENNEDY:
In other words, you would not submit 9
the ACRS proposal?
10 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
My positica is I am not going to 11 object to it, but I can't support it.
If we are going to 12 be in the process of translating it into something else, it 13 seems we are enterir.g the-legislative process.
\\
14 MR. KENNEDY:
I agree.
15 MR. STRAUSS:
You could transmit these as the 16 suggestions of the ACRS without --
17 MR. KENNEDY:
In such a case, if we are going to 18 do that, shouldn't we have a view on those?
19 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
You better believe it we ought 20 to have-a view on it.
And one of the principal concerns 21 we all 3 have expressed is we don't know what it is going to 22 do in the 23 MR. KENNEDY:
My suggestion is the effect of those 24 changes would be'to increase the ACRS staff by 15 people.
Ace-FederM Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. STRAUSS:
That's not a bad outcome.
.s 44 1
MR. KENNEDY:
Well, I guess that before I decided 2
whether that was a great outcome or not, I would like to look 3
at where, given all the priorities and concerns of the Agency, Thjh 4
lE people would be best used which is what we did in the 5
beginning to present our recommendations to the Congress.
6 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:' As a matter of' fact, no one 7
recommended any additional staff.
3 MR. KENNEDY:
Nobody.
9 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I would like to know what it would 10 do to the workings of the committee.
None of these matters 11 have been looked at.
And this is not just --
12 MR. KENNEDY:
I am not objecting to it; I just 13 share the Chairman's concern.
I don't know what it means.
I 14 don't know where it takes us.
)
15 MR. FAMMENER:
Something like that should take us i
16 to 1979 and be stnffed out and run through the general scrub-17 bing process that goes through this Agency and then the Office 18 of Management and Budget and then forward to the Congress rather 19 than to have a reaction at this poing.
20 MR. FRAZIER:
What's wrong with our taking that 21 kind of an approach?
We do say that the changes restructure 22 a significant portion of the NRC program.
The kind of view 23 development that they are asking for takes a-much longer time 24 period.
They shouldn't expect anything from us at this point, l.o 7.ews nosome, inc.
25 and that is where we stand.
They have to fight it if they l
l t
I
~'
I want it.
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Wecan'tspendtood 3
on that issue.
.?.E.
Ces 4
MR. KENNEDY:
I would agree with that 5
is essentially --
6 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I'm sorry, I missed' l
7 MR. FRAZIER:
Basically, the kinds of 8
they are chaning take a longer period of time to We are talking about thy) 9
'MR. KENNEDY:
1 10 MR. FRAZIER:
That's right.
Developmq 11 research might be one of those things also.
And 12 of things they are suggesting can't be staffed og 13 in the time period they are asking for reviews.
\\
14 MR. KENNEDY:
That's different.
15 MR. GILINSKY:
You can do that pretty 16
' really want to do it.
I think there is a questi@
17 whether you want to monkey with this thing in tes 18 increase in ACRS staff, in terms of whether they )
19 fellowship program.
I think the idea of having 9 20 program, bringing in new Ph.D.s is a good idea.
21 some new blood into this area.
I 22 MR. KENNEDY:
As the original concept t
==.
=~
23 he in the committee --
24 MR. GILINSKY:
And it's an opportunity l
' Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 to --
b' i(
i.
- i. - -.n.
h w,, 1
^ '
- 8 -c
- 1..
c
~
s46 1,
CHAIRMRN ROWDEN:
If they are establishing a fellow-2 ship program, that is one thing.
I am not going to quarre'l 3
with tha' l
EMI 4
MR. KENNEDY:
We would have no objection to that.
'5 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
If they are going to increase ACRS 6
staff which is what you are convering it into, I have a
~
7 Problem it.
8 MR. FRALEY:
These would be limited periods of 9
time.
10 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
It doesn't make any difference.
11 It is the nature of it.
12 MR. GILINSKY:
It basically enlarges the ACRS 13 staff.
14 MR. KENNEDY:
Which is a rather different thing 15 than the committee was visualizing.
16 MR. GILINSKY:
And 15 people sort of tilts the 17 balance between the staff --
18 MR. EAGLE:
Hiring an occasi'ona1 consultant for a 19 month or 2 which is perfectly possible within the current 20 system.
21 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I take the position we-don't know i
22 what they are going to do in terms of the current program.
23 Fine.
Okay, Lee.'
24 MR. GOSSICK:
The next item is the intervenor
..federse Esporters, Inc.
25 funding, and I don't think we really have any recommendation
47 I
to make there.
2 CHAIRMAN.ROWDEN:
We have already made the record 3
on that.
I don't know what more there is to say.
[
4 MR. GOSSICK: The next one is equal opportunity.
5 We have recently provided the Commission a proposed answer 6
to questions that I was asked when Senator Hart was holding his hearings and asked hestions about equal opportunity 7
8 programs.
I don't know whether that has gone yet or not.
9 Do you know?
10 MR. KAMMENER:
I believe it 'has.
11 MR. GOSSICK:
We have given copies of that as I 12 understand.it to Udall's staff.
~
13 As far as this report is concerned, I think we 14 don't have any particular problem with it.
It is just tabular 15 or some sort of a progress report, but we didn't get involved 16 in sending dcwn the whole file on every individual action.
1 17 MR. GILINSKY:
Are you changing the recommendation?
i 18 MR. GOSSICK:
Well, we are in effect providing the 19 evidence to convince them we do have the program and that we 20 would have a periodic report of progress rather than this 21 individual documentation.
22 MR. GILINSKY:
I guess it is e difference between 23 individual documentation and --
24 MR. GOSSICK:
You can interpret the words that are
\\ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 in the bill several different ways.
One is to make it sound
.s
.x 48 1
like every individual-action for GS-ll and above; you have.to 2
'go through the documentation of jub description, how it was 3,
arrived at and how --
f.I.
4 MR. BARRY:
Alternatives.
5 MR. GILINSKY:
Why don't we just agree to period-
. ~ - - ---
6 ically send them the basic statistics.
7 MR. GOSSICK:
That's what we are saying; let's'do 8
that.
9 MR. GILINSKY:
Basically, we are complying with 10 their request.
11 MR. KENNEDY:
They want to write something into the 12 law which will go well beyond that; that is the point.
What 13 we would be doing here is giving them statistical data of the
\\
14 kind that we get already.
13 MR.'GILINSKY:
But committing ourselves to do it on 16 a periodic basis.
17 MR. KENNEDY:
Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN RWODEN:
What do you mean by periodic?
19 MR. GOSSICK:
Quarterly.
That is what they ask for 20 in the bill.
Here again, it would be just a simple progress 21 report.
22 MR. KENNEDY: -Say " quarterly" instead of " periodic."
- d*."
E#
23 CHAIRMAN-ROWDEN:
Okay.
i 24 MR. GOSSICK:
Conflict of interest --
m.e eeres Reporim, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Do you have that document that we i
49 1
.' keep referring to here?
Proposed policy on organizational 2
conflicts.
I keep asking for it and never get it.
3 That, we approved.
That's why I would like to
.=h$
4 refresh my recollection on what we approved.
5 MR. GOSSICK:
Organizational conflict of interest?
6 VOICE:
That has been-a couple of months ago that 7
the committee appro'ved it.
i 8
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I take your word for it that we j
9 approved it; I would like-to see what it is.
10 MR. KENNEDY:
The Federal Register notice has been 11 published?
12 VOICE:
It is being published this week.
13 MR. GOSSIC'K:
The recommendation here is that this 14 is really taken care-of; it.'s not necessary to be in the 15 bill.
We-can give them a copy of what is going into the
~
16 Federal Register.
17 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Could I get a copy, too, before 18 we go up there and give them a copy.
19 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes, sir.
20 MR. KENNEDY:
When is it going into the Federal 21 Register?
22 VOICE:
This week, sir.
Tomorrow or Thursday.
.dit=.
EE~
23 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
And this is for public comment.
24 so there would be an opportunity to revise it.
wFeded Reporters, Inc.
25 VOICE:
It will be effective with 90 day comment
1 50
[
period.
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
The important thing is we have 3
committed ourselves to having a policy on organizational
@[_E 4
conflicts.
5 MR. KENNEDY:
What I wanted to be sure of is we get 6
'it in the Federal Register so we can give it to them.
7 CHAIRMAN RONDEN:
We have already adopted it.
We 8
are implementing now a recommendation in advance of the 9
conference.
10 MR. KAMMENER:
And that prenotivication has gone to li both committees that we intend to put it in the Federal Registe:
12 in the next few days.
They have a copy of that, of what is 13 going in the Federal Register whenever it does appear.
.(
14 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN-:
Take me into your confidence.
15 MR. KAMMENER:' Yes, sir.
16 MR. KENNEDY:
It would be so much nicer if we could 17 tell them the date of the Federal Register in which it appears, 18 CHAIRNMN ROWDEN:
Moving right along.
1 19 MR. GOSSICK:
Okay, consolidation of offices.
H'ere, 20 we are recommending that they adopt a suggested change in the 21 language where we make sure the word " central downtown area l
22 in the District of Columbia" gets in there as opposed to just
! =m 23
" District o Columbia."
' =
m 24 MR. KENNEDY:
I would strike out the word " building" we.o.r s C oonm, Inc.
25 and say, "one of which shall be located in the central downtown
- = ~..
_ w _ -. -.
51
[
area."
Which shall be.
And then I would put'a sentence on 2
the end of it which would say, "This shall be a first step 3
toward full consolidation to be achieved at early date."
((
4 MR. STRAUSS:
Without specifying location?
3 MR. KENNEDY:
You just did in'the' previous 6
sentence.
One of which shall be in the downtown area.
7 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Where?
8 MR. STRAUSS.:
The sentence I believe continues 9
saying, "and the other of which shall be in the vic'inity of 10 Bethesda, Maryland."
You haven't got the whole sentence.
11 MR. KENNEDY:
No, the other text says, "In not more 12 than 2 locations, one of which shall be in the central down-13 town area."
14 MR. STRAUSS :
Then, don't you want to specify the l
15 other is in Bethesda?
16 MR. KENNEDY:
No.
Do we?
17 MR. STRAUSS:
You could get Hyattsville.
You 18 might.
19 MR. KENNEDY:
These guys deleted Bethesda.
Maybe 20 they wanted Hyattsville.
21 MR. STRAUSS:
This is not a complete quotation.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
You better believe it is not com-
. =.
23 Plete.
I have heard 6 different versions of it.
It con-24 templates Bethesda, it contemplates --
I think Commissioner we nome n o mwn.inc i
25 Kennedy has got a good suggestion about this is just a way
52 g
1 station to our ultimate objective.
2 VOICE:
The bill itself provides the consolidation 3
shall be completed before the end of fiscal year 1978.
i}$
4 MR. KENNEDY:
The consoliation into 2 locations.
5 I am suggesting that the consolidation into 2 locations is only 6
the.first step in the full' consolidation.
7 MR. STRAUSS:
I have no difficulty with that, but I 8
think what you want to do is specify in Washington, D. C.,
9 in central Washington.
10 MR. KENNEDY:
Okay.
11 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Let's move to the heavy stuff.
12 Have we finished with this?
13 MR. GOSSICK:
The very last item --
\\
14 MR. GILINSKY:
Let me just understand, what is the 15 significance of us taking the lead or GSA taking the lead?
16 MR. STRAUSS:
You have given away a subtle probably 17 token weight in your favor regarding any negotiations with 18 GSA.
And in return for being able to tell them, "Look, we 19 protected your interests in this busiress."
l l
20 Ordinarily, GSA is in charge of these things.
As l
21 the committee has written the bill, it favors the NEC more than l
22 one would expect.
==
23 VOICE:
Also, GSA has the resources, planning 24 capacity and the modus then becomes on them to do it.
W FederC) Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. KENNEDY:
Oh, come on; let's not kid each
______,..s_._._
= _ _
53 h
other.
2 VOICE:
I realize that, but if it is put the other 3
way, all they have to do is consult, and you get damn little
=:
45F 4
consultation.
5 MR. KENNEDY:
Say, "It is your problem."
6
. VOICE:
We have to do it almost by contract 7
otherwise.
8 MR. GOSSICK:
Shall we get to the reprogramming 9
rstriction?
I really in my own view think that one'is perhaps 10 the most critical item-in the whole list.
11 MR. KENNEDY:
What is this?
12 MR. GOSSICK:
This is the reprogramming restriction i
13 on page 8.
And it really does nail us down to a very untenable r
14 kind of a situation where if we were to, when we go back here 15 and talk about safeguards and breeder, decide to say in a 16 specific nEmber in the bill, if the Commission should decide 17 by majority vote to fill that to the limit of $10 million, 18
$5 million each, we are done for the year without going back 19 to Congress for authorization legislation to move even $10 20 or 10 cents from something in the waste management or some 21 other new activity that needs to be addressed during the 22 course of the year.
..15 23 It just puts us in an unbearable situation.
I
==
24 really think that was --
.ce-Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. KENNEDY:
I agree with your recommendation.
. -. =,.. - - -.. ~ _. _
. - ~. _.
54 1
Does everybody?
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
That has been-my position all 3
along.
h 4
MR. KAMMENER:
In other words, drop that.
5 MR. GILINSKY:
Suppose they are not willing to do 6
that?
Do you want to give them a different number?
7 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I don't think you can deal with 8
it until we take care of these other things.
9 MR. GOSSICK:
Okay, safeguards and DR.
We 10 have gone through as we discussed here last week and looked 11 again at the safeguards program in the light of the changed 12 circumstances.
And as indicated in this letter, we have 13 identified $3.5 million that we think are tied directly 14 to the changed direction and so forth and should coma out.
15 MR. GILINSKY:
What are those items?
16 MR. GOSSICK:
May I say one other thing before we 17 are prepared to go into the detail on that.
Over the weekend 18 here, we find that we somehow did not get another 0.7 in there i
19 so the number is actually 4.2.
The $900,000 is out of NMSS, 20 right?
l 21 VOICE:
Technical system.
22 MR. KENNEDY:
Do we have a tabulation of these 1
5:.
23 things?
24 MR. GOSSICK:
We do now.
\\m Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. KENNEDY:
We do or you do?
55 1
VOICE:
I have a. tabulation on the safeguards for 2
.NMSS.
3 MR. GOSSICK:
Why don't you hand out the 2 h d uts EjE 4
you have got on the research?
5 What we are talking about is 3.3 out of research, 6
$900,000 out of NMSS for a total of $4.2 million reduction 7
for a total of $19. --
8 Now, taking care of the other things we have 9
talked about here such as the generic items, the ACRS fellow-10 ship, increased inspection, and so forth, assuming again that thecommitteeintendsuskostaywithintheS292millionover-11 12 all limit in the bill, thenonly other place to get this money 13 is out of the LMFDR program.
So' that would leave that if
,\\
14 you fund the other items at $12.7 versus the roughly $18 15 million -- $12.4 million.
16 Now, with regard to the breeder, we are saying that 17 at this point, we are not sure whether that is too much, too 18 little, or just right, and probably won't know until a couple 19 of more weeks perhaps, after the Administration's position on 20 the total breeder program, the scope of it, and so forth, is 21 nailed down to where we can identify the appropriate level in 22 our program.
@4.
"EF
.23 MR. GILINSKY:
So it is kind of an arbitrary number.
24 MR. GOSSICK:
It is a factored number resulting fron W-Federd Reporte, Inc.
25 the assumption that everything has to come out of the $292 --
1 u
56
[
the adds as well as what they have taken away.
To take care 2
of those requirements, we end up after having spent the S4.2 3
million that we identified as reduction in the safeguards
]~.
4 area, we still have to take some money away from the breeder 5
program, leaving it at the $12.4 level which may or~may not 6
be adequate.
7 MR. GILINSKY:
Have we done any analysis on the $18 8
million, breaking out that part that relates to CRBI, that 9
Part that relates to plutonium breeders?
10 MR. LEVINE:
We have an RES analysis.
We could 11 give you a handout, but let me just tell you what it says.
12 MR. GILINSKY:
Actually, why didn't we get this 13 thing when it came cut Fr.s.sy?
.\\
14 MR. LEVINE:
This was done over the weekend.
15 MR. GILINSKY:
Why wasn't it le i.e earlier?
16 MR. LEVINE:
We didn't have time to prepare it.
17 Furthermore, we kept getting the information on 18 what ERDA's programs would be changed da y by day.
19 MR. GILINSKY:
Still, you can break down your 20 program into these various categories.
21 MR. LEVINE:
We didn't really know what they were 22 going to be doing, and it makes a crucial difference as to c::1
" 9""
23 what their schedule is.
For instance, there is a Thorn 24 document out now which we think was approved by the President
. :.o.ra n.oon.e., Inc.
25 which says that within 2 years, they are going to select one
57 1
or more alternate concepts.on the program.
2 MR. GILINSKY:
You think was approved'by the 3
President?-
fh 4
MR. LEVINE:
We think was approved by the President.
5 And (b) wouldinc1Ndeadekhnstrationplanofthealtarnate
- ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~.--
..-_.._?
6 concept or concepts as part of the program.
That means to 7
us a 4-year slip from where CRBR is now to some potential 8
a-plication for a breeder reacto~r of some kind.
9 Now, we were 2 years behind CRBR.
So th'at says 10 what should we do with the remaining 2 years?
And we went 11 back to our program and looked at what could be cut back and 12 what sort of would you lose, where shouldn't you cut because i
13 you would lose what you were doing?
14 And we then come up with $14 million that we 15 should continue in regard to generic sodium breeder reactors.
16 That is on page 5 of the handout, the last page.
17 And we also say we should be really looking at PuttingsomeheliumworkinbeAausetherearesomedifferent 18 19 problems with the helium cooling.
And that adds $2.8 million.
20 That gives us $16.8 instead of $18.6.
21 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I will not recommend a number.
22 I don't think we know.
And that's why they came up with
==.~
so tething that is completely artificial.
23 24 MR. LEVINE:
Mark, we are not suggesting a number.
co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 We are jrlt trying to answer a question.
58 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Suppose you approached it on the 2
basis of what was implicit in Commissioner Gilinsky's question.
3 You knocked out of the LMFDR esearch program everything that 4
was directly related'to CRBR; there be a further element about i_h 5
delaying commercialization, but suppose you cut that out, 6
how much would be sliced off the program?
7 MR. LEVINE:
That goes from $18.6 to $14.
It 8
goes down by $4.6 million.
9 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
$4.6 million.
What about the 10 furla (?) commercialization?
What sort of an impact does that 11 have?
12 MR. LEVINE:
Nothing with the --
13 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Alternative strategy, is that what 14 you are saying?
15 MR. LEVINE:
Alternative strategy adds some more 16 as a matter of fact.
If someone would ask me for a 17 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:,
18 hard number today, that is the only number you could give me, 19
$4.6?
Because it relates directly to CRBR?
20 MR. LEVINE:
Yes.
But I would say you would also 21 have to add something for alternative strategies like helium, 22 and that would make that number less.
That would make it about 23
$2 million.
24 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
How do I
answer the question:
l m-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 why don't we just zero the whole program and come back with
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
59 l
I a budget amendment?
2 MR. LEVINE:
Because we have on-going work that 3
really should be continued.
cJs 4
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Well, do you have back up for 5
that?
I asked Lee about that.
6 MR. LEVINE:
It is all in the writeup.
7 CHAIRMAN RONDEN:
Because if it occurred to me, it 8
will occur to others, I will tell you.
9 MR. BARRY:
One of the answers to that l's if you-10 zero the thing, where do you put the money if you are going 11 to stay within $292 million?
We don't want to put it any 12 place else.
~
13 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
You either.ose the $292 or you 14 fill it up with --
15 FRAZIER:
The alternative answer is there will be 16 something there.
And it is clear there will be something 17 about alternative strategies.
And you just don't want to --
18 MR. LEVINE:
Our preliminary examination says we 19 need at least that much money and maybe more.
20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
The fact of the matter is that it 21 so happens this authorization process comes at a very inaus-22 picious time.
It is not just us.
It is the Executive Branch
="
23 really hasn't sorted things out.
24 Do you gentlemen have any suggestions on this?
co Feded Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. GILINSKY:
I don't see how you can recommend I
1
=~2_-
60
[
a number.
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What do we do -- stick with S19?
3 MR. GILINSKY:
I don't know.
h 4
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
They are honest.
They say, "We l
5 are not recommending a number; all we are saying is if you j
6 want to do these other things and you need the money to do 7
it, you have to take it out of somewhere, take it out of here, 8
and if it's too much, we will come back with a budget amend-9 ment."
10 MR. EAGLE:
I would suggest that an alternate course 11 would be to authorize no specific amount and by removing 12 the $10 million reprogramming restriction, you can come back 13 in and put in an amount that is appropriate later.
(
14 MR. KENNEDY:
I think that is a great suggestion, 15 and if they do that, that would be marvelous.
16 MR. EAGLE:
It wouldn't work.
17 MR. GILINSKY:
Make that $20 million.
18 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Then, you are getting into a 19 situation where this reprogramming limitation becomes absurd.
20
,You are talking fantastic amounts of money for a budget our 21 size.
S20 million.
I will have problems selling it to the 22
- Congress, a
23 You know, Moe has got a concern not only of adopt-24 ing a position which he thinks is the right one, but going to Ace. Federal Coporters, Inc.
25 the floor and convincing his collcagues.
)
i
.n-
,...-.-.:.u._..
61 1
MR. EAGLE:
$5 million plus $10 million, maximum 2
$10 million in LMFDR.
3 MR. BARRY:-
The thing I am concerned about is I
..T ysi 4
want a place for each dollar that totals $292.
I don't have 5
a definition for the breeder so what I would like is for the 6
residual dollars to be in a breeder until we can determine 7
what the correct number is rather than some place else where 8
we don't want it.
9 MR. LEVINE:
What's wrong with us adding to.that our 10 preliminary examination says we will be able to use that 11 money, maybe more?
12 MR. GILINSKY:
I am not convinced of that.
If you 13 don't turn this up on the day we look at it --
14 MR. LEVINE:
That is unfortunate.
15 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What do you suggest?
You have 30 i
I have to face a guy who [s going to want to --
16 minutes.
17 MR. GILINSKY:
Change it from $20 million is one 18 way of dealing with it.
~
19 MR. KENNEDY:
I d, '. ' t think that washes.
20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
You mean zero the program and give 21 us $20 million?
22 MR. GILINSKY:
Maybe put in half the amount.
l l
23 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
If you do it that way, if I were 24 voting for it on the floor, I would be awfully nervous about Ace.FWw.t Roomm, Inc 25 what I was buying.
__a _u _2m _
~-
62 1
.MR. KENNEDY:
I would zero out most of that $20 2
million.
If these guys don't know where they want it, whenever 3
they find out, they can come back and tell us about it.
~
4 MR. KAMMENER:
That bill won't be on the floor before 5
another committee, the Senate side, takes its action.
And 6
they have a final markup on the 12 of May.
If you are saying 7
that 2 weeks is the time you are going to know that number, 8
you will at least have-it in some bill to be resolved in 9
conference.
10 MR. BARRY:
There is no appropriate place to put 11 the $12 million in our total program excepe in the breeder I
12 because even though we don't know what the right number is, our
'13 recommendation is that any numbe'r beyond the numbers we are
.\\
14 recommending is the wrong number.
So we don't want to put 15 the.$12 million in inspection or generic issues or develop-16 mental research or so on.
i 17 That is the reason we don't want to put it any 18 Place except in the breeder as a holding account.
Because that j
i 19 is what it really resolves into.
It is a holding account.
i i
I 20 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
We have to get going.
Let's 21 recapitulate, gentlemen.
22 One thing that I want to be clear on is am I in
- EE 23 a position to indicate our likely amenability to the inspection
~'
24 increase?
That is okay even though we haven't dotted the i's Ace FedercS Reporters, Inc.
25 and crossed the t's, all right?
-- m - - - - - - - -. -
63 1
This one, we will just have to play it by ear when 2
we get up there, describe the problems, describe what we 3
think.
)
4 MR. GILINSKY:
We haven't dealt with the --
5 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I think we have got a position on 6
everything except this and the safeguards.
Okay.
7 Now, can we get a 16-second wrap-up on this in 8
terms of alternatives?
Staff has suggested one course of 9
action which I would be prepared to --
10 MR. KENNEDY:
I don't see any alternative to what i
11 the staff is suggesting.
)
12 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
It is arbitrary.
13 MR. :GNNEDY:
The proposal you are making, Vic,
\\
14 which would be great, but it will just never wh?h.
You just 15 can't expect them to put nearly 10 percent of the budget in 16 what is a sort of in-case-you-need-it spot.
It just won't 17 wash.
They will never do it.
They will drop the $20 million.
18 and say, "When you decide what you are goir.g to do with it, 19 come back and tell us, and we will appropriate or authorize 20 something else."
21 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:.There is another alternative, and 22 that is to knock out that which specifically at least for the s
23 time being relates to the CRBR.
That is a lesser figure.
1 24 MR. LEVINE:
That is a larger figure than what he
.ce Federal Coporters, Inc.
25 has left in.
~
64 1
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
We are approaching it from a 2
different standpoint.
You are left with more than $11.7 if 3
you do it that way.
But at least it relates to something 4
identifiable.
5 MR. FRAZIER:
That could be your fall-back.
6 MR. KENNEDY:
I must say I think you ought to 7
eliminate anything that has to do with the CRBR in any event.
8 MR. LEVINE:
We are.
9 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
At a minimum, it would'.
10 Well, that has the virtue of at least relating to 11 something which appears to be no longer viable.
Beyond that, 12 OMB at least, I hope, is going to be looking at our budget 13 just as they are looking at ERDA's budget within the frame-
\\
14 work of budgetary amendments.
And if they think we have got 15 too much, they will tell us, and we will have to submit an 16 amendment.
l 17 So I think your problem would be taken care of.
18 MR. GILINSKY:
I guess I find it odd that all 19 this has been redirected here to the President wiping out a 20 major program, and all we have redirected is $4 million.
21 CHAIRMAN RONDEN:
Well, he has done a number of i
22 things and the inplementing steps for the other things he has 23 done really aren't clear to me at least in terms of what the
=
24 alternative strategies are and what would be necessary to sco-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 pursue those strategies.
. u._.. _ ; _ = _..
l 65
[
If it turns out we don't need the money for those 2
purposes, I can't help but believe tha t OMB isn't going to l
3 tell us forthwith if that's the case.
It's just that they dfh 4
haven't gotten around to it because our sums are just static l
5 in the whole system.
6 MF. BARRY:
When we submit our budget amendment, 7
there will be a plus for inspection; there will be a minus 8
for safeguards.
And there will be a plus or minus for 9
breeder, depending on your decision.
10 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
How about a quick wrap-u9 on safe-11 guards?
Where do we stand on that?
Staff recommendation it 12 what?
$4.2?
13 MR. GOSSICK:
$4.2.
14 MR. KENNEDY:
Drop S4.2.
IS CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Drop S4.2.
What is the justi-16 fication for that?
17 MR. GOSSICK:
Well, research is less the amount of 18 S3.3.
You have before you the item by item as to the kind 19 of things they think can come out.
NMSS has identified $125,000.
20 The Division of Safeguards.
We, of course, as a part of this 21 do want to appeal this wording which does away completely with 22 that branch, the Test and Evaluation Branch, which is really 3
on13 1 out of 30.
24 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What do the rest do?
sm. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. GOSSICK:
All sorts of things.
I 66 p.
1 VOICE:
There are 24 people in that branch.
The 2
fiscal '78 called for 24 people.
Of those 24, 7 are involved 3
with 4 special forces types on vulnerability analysis.
The khb 4
balance of them are continually involved on analyzing the 5
regulations that we have, the data base that is coming in.
6 They are not involved going out and looking at facilities to 7
see whether or not they are vulnerable.
8 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
These are guys charged with the 9
function of analyzing process m a continuing. basis to see 10 that it's adequate, is that what you are telling me?
11 VOICE:
Well, we have a lot of data systems that 12 we are trying to put into place.
And ihey are continually 13 involved in looking at that data as it comes in to see whether 14 or not we have some problems with respect to monitoring, to see 15 if whether or not we have some problems with respect to 16 security system.
17 MR. KENNEDY:
Am I correct when we get through with 18 this, Mr. Executive Director, what we are going to have done 19 is eliminated'this field inspection or field review effort 20 in NMSS Safeguards activities, but we will have created it in 21 NRR.
Perhaps they can take on that responsibility.
Is that 22 what I think we have done?
dEl:
e 23 VOICE:
I don't think we have come to that yet, 24 have we?
.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. GILINSKY:
Let me ask what part of that money
67 1
is for reactors as opposed to the fuel cycle of the S19 2
million?
3 MR. LEVINE:
In research, about $6 million.
b))
4 MR. GILINSKY:
$6 million of your $10 million?
Is 5
that your view of it, Ed?
6 MR. CASE:
No, sir.
7 MR. GILINSKY:
What is your view?
8 MR. CASE:
Including standards, it is about $4.1 9
million based on my understanding.
10 MR. GILINSKY:
Of the total?
11 MR. CASE:
Yes.
12 MR. GILINSKY:
So we are talking about $4 out of 13 the $19 is reactor related.
(
14 MR. LEVINE:
I think it is just great to have some-15 one else comment on my budget.
I ',
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Wait a minute now.
We have a 17 different point of view here.
Your view is it is what, S4.1 18 million?
19 MR. LEVINE:
Why isn't it coordinated like anything 20 else in this Agency?
21 MR. BARRY:
$4 out of the $10.9.
22 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I guess I would like to have a
' = "
23 response.
What is the basis.for your $6 million and why the 24 difference cetween Ed's figure and yours?
- e Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. LEVINE:
I don't know the basis for his figure.
t
= _...
_n
_ =%
68 1
Ours is related to work, either directly applicable to reactors 2
or partly applicable to reactors.
3 CHAIRMAN JOWDEN:
And your judgment is the : total 5
4 of that is' $6 million?
5 MR. LEVINE:
A little less than $6 million.
6 MR. GILINSKY:
Except Ed is including a-larger 7
aniverse.
He is including not only research, but --
8 MR. CASE:
'S500,000 for standards.
9 MR. GILINSKY:
What about your own moneys?
10 MR. CASE:
No.
11 MR. GILINSKY:
You don't have any moneys of your 12 own?
Well, suppose you split the difference and you'are talking 13 about $5 million.
You have $14 million of fuel cycle.
t 14 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I am sorry, I am going to approach 15 it from a different standpoing.
What amount of this research 16 is related-to prospective use of plutordum?
17 MR. LEVINE:
Almost none.
18 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
What do you mean almost none?
19 Why are you cutting out anything from the budget then if almost 20
.none is related to it?
21 MR. LEVINE:
That is what we have cut out.
This is.
22 our reduced budget.
i=E F"
23 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I am talking about this; the total 24 figure, the S19 million.
Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. uEVINE:
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood the question.
l 69
[
VOICE:
Reduction of $3.3 reflects a change in i
2 direction, in emphasis, which results from no reprocessing 3
and no growth of plutonium recycle.
[h 4
MR. GILINSKY:
What you are saying, Frank, is S
you are recommending we spend about $10 million a year to 6
support the safeguarding of about 10 facilities?
7 voice; No, I am suggesting we spend $7.6 million 8
in fiscal '78 to support the safeguarding of reactors and the 9
fuel cycle facilities and transportation.
10 MR. GILINSKY:
I don't see those numbers that way.
l l
11 I think these are ridiculously high numbers and ought to be 12 cut sharply.
j 13 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Do you want to submit a statement 14 of separate views?
I would like to have some bases for it.
15 If someone can show me how the change in direction of 16 national policy calls for our altering our safeguards support 17 program,'I would be prepared to support it.
That is the only 18 question I'ask the staff.
19 MR. GILINSKY:
I take a more critical view of these i
20 programs.
21 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I guess I don't understand 22 that.
You approved the budget along with the rest of us
- d==
l==
23 last year.
l l
24 MR. GILINSKY:
That's right.
A lot of things have cefederal Reporters, Inc.
l 25 changed since then.
t 70 1
CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
The only things that have changed 2
are the President's program.
3 MR. GILINSKY:
Right.
I don't think these budgets
.=.
Ts.~
4 can be supported at this time.
5 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
In what specific way?
6 MR. GILINSKY:
It is pretty clear that the largest 7
fraction of this $19 million relates to the fuel cycle.
That 8
was an investment we were making because we saw a large fuel 9
cycle industry on its way.
We don't have that now; we are 10 safeguarding 10 facilities, some of them rather minor.
To 11 be spending more on research than those facilities are 12 spending themselves on safeguarding the material which they 13 are responsible for~, I think is ridiculous.
U 14 CEAIRMAN ROWDEN:
All right, what is your judgment 15 in that regard?
16 VOICE:
I think that I wouldn't have characterized 17 the purpose of the research in that way.
I think the basic 18 thrust of the research on the development of methods for 19 evaluating effectiveness are to provide the Commission with 20 a systematic and coherent framework in which the purposes 21 of safeguards are expressed and-the way in which it performs 22 its ftnctions are carried out.
C:));
23 I would point out that physical protection applies 24 to the reactors as well as fuel cycle facilities, and a sub-
%ce Federal floporters, Inc.
25 stantial fraction of the program is directed toward the
\\
71 1
evaluation of physical protection.
2 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
Let me tell you what my judgment 3
is, gentlemen.
And at least I am going to express this is my h-4 own personal point of view.
5 Staff has identified whatever Chat number is as 6
being directly attributable to the use of plutonium.
That 7
the balance of the program, although it may call for re-8 examination, should'be reexamined in the context of a budget 9
amendment process which is the way-these other matt'ers are 10 rsolved.
11 I am not prepared to say what is valid and what is 12 invalid within this frame.
I couldn't give them a number, You 13 can't give them a number.
- s 14 MR. GILINSKY:
Well, give them arbitrary numbers.
15 CHAIRMAN ROWDEN:
I can't give them any number, 16 MR. GILINSKY:
What this really' points ~up is that 17 we have not really gone back and looked at these budgets.
We 18 have gone through an exercise that just comes up with arbitrary 19 numbers.
It has not really explored these programs..We get 20 sheets here today when we are looking at the matter when you 21 are in a hurry to go up on the Hill.
22 CHAIRMAN RONDEN:
That's right.
This is not the 23 mechanism for going back and looking at these budgets.
There 24 really is a. mechanism which is not a bureaucratic mechanism, we.ders neomm inc.
25 but a mechanism which is designed to get a disciplinary
72 I
review.
2 We haven't had a chance to do it.
We haven't had 3
other people looking over our shoulder at OMB asking these
'=..
2E 4
questions.
5 The best I can do really is take a seat-of-the-6 pants number which the staff has given us as being directly 7
attributable to plutonium use and say, "This is the only' 8
figure we can identify now.
Obviously, we are going to have 9
to take a look at the safeguards program as we will at ' le r
10 LMFDR program in the context of OMB budget amendment review,"
11 to which I am personally commiting us.
12 If anybody has any problem with that --
13 MR. KENNEDY:
I agree with that.
14 (Whereupon, at 5:43 p.m.',
the meeting was 15 adj ourned. )-
16 17 18 19 20 22 m:.
23 24 co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
.