ML19351F330
| ML19351F330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/08/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-0813, NUDOCS 8101120244 | |
| Download: ML19351F330 (22) | |
Text
s 1
0 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
249TH GENERAL MEETING OF THE 3
ADVISOBY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGU AEDS 4
5 Thursday, January 8, 1981 6
1717 H Street, N.W.
7 Washington, D.C.
8 9
to The meeting came to order, pursuant to notice, at 11 1:58 p.m.,
where were present:
12 13 ACHS Members present:
Mr. F. SHEWMON, Presiding 14 Mr.
C.,P.
Siess Tr. M. 21esset 15 Mr.
S. Lavroski Mr. M.
Hender 16 Mr. D.W. Moeller Mr.
W. Kerr 17 Mr.
M.W. Carbon Mr. Etherington 18 Mr. W.M. Mathis Yr. D. A. Wai-d 19 Mr. J.C. Ebe; sol e '
Mr.
D. Okrent 20 21 22 23 24 25 to k ql O 'i ALDGISON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIAGINIA AVE. S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (203 564 2344
l 2
1 AFTERNCON SESSION 2
MR. SHEWYON:
At this point we have an interlude 3
in our research report preparation to hear from Denny Ross 4
on the LOTT special review group.
5
- 13. ROSS:
You have a four page handout by now.
6 It describes a group that was formed about two months ago 7
called the LOFT Special Review Group.
The second page is'a 8
quote of the charter that was given to us, it.01" din? tise 9
scope of the review group as well as the schedule.
I will 10 not try to read it verbatim since you have the material in 11 fro.st of you, although we may want to come back to that in a 12 minute.
But if you turn to the next page we can describe 13 who "us" is, that is, who the LOFT Special Review Group is.
14 You see seven names listed as members
- myself, 15 Brian Sheron from NRR, Bob Sernero from the Office of i
16 Research, Roger Woodruff from Inspection and Enforcement, 17 Bob Capra from NRR, Lynn Jaffeo from NASA, and Andy 18 Pressesky who is here from the Department of Enercy, and the 19 consultants as listed below that.
20 I would like to look at the schedule first which 21 is the last thing, and then we can come back to the cha rter.
22 Shortly after the group was established we had an 23 initial meeting in Bethesda on November 14 and discussed --
24 pardon me, November 17, and discussed the charrer, 1
1 25 assignments.
We had some presentations from the Office of i
i i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGmeA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346
_]
s 3
O 1
Besearch, Don McPherson who is also here and others.
Don is 2
the branch chief of the LOFT research branch.
3 Ve decifed at that tine that we would have a 4
second meetinc in Idaho Falls concurrent with the conduct of 5
test L 3 -6 a nd L S -1.
That mee ting was held.
You note the 6
line for discussion with ACP.S.
7 What we hoped to do or I hoped to do today was to 8
get some additional dialogue with the conmittee on the 9
current concerns that led to the statesent earlier -- a few 10 months ago, which in turn led to the formulation of the 11 reviev group.
12 7e are in the procers of assembling a draft 13 report.
Most of the inputs will be in by tomorrow nigh t.
s 14 We will try to put it together into so=ewhat of a 15 cc=prehensive report, sail it out next week.
Our plans are 16 to meet in Palo Alto January 22nd and 23 and finalire the 17 report, and deliver it on schedule on February 3 to the 18 Commission.
19
'J e e xp ect that, although this is a speculation --
20 we expect that at some time, perhaps February, we would meet i
l l
21 with the Commission to expla17 the report.
That meeting has 22 not been scheduled yet.
Jhether such a meeting takes place 23 and when could possibly depend on the tone of the report.
l 24 If you turn back then to the charter you see that 1
i 25 ve are supposed to con rider the LOTT program from the l
)
l ALDEAScN PiPoftTING CoMPMtY,INC, l
400 vmGIMA AVE, S.W. WhNToN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
u 1
\\/
1 perpsective of the overall research program and also in 2
terms of the needs of regulation.
3 We were invited to go to LOFT and tour it if we 4
felt it appropriate, and we did.
As you know, the report i
was intended to help the Commission in deciding whether to 6
continue support of LOFT beyond fiscal 82, and we should 7
consider specific regulatory needs, how LOFT might support 8
or meet these needs, and whether it is likely that the 9
program as planned will provide the expected information.
10 Now, one thing that we did that is not described 11 in your handout, in order to have a nominal case to work 12 from, we asked Research and Don McPherson in collaboration 13 with INEL to produce what I would call the full performance
.)
t s
14 LOFT schedule, that is, if LOFT were to continue to be i
15 funded in a manner -- a manner recommended by the Office of 16 Research, how long would it go on?
And they produced a test 17 sched ule th rough fiscal 85.
18 Later on there was some fairly esoteric 19 speculation about the LX test sequence -- that is, the te st 20 sequences have not yet gained a number -- which could go 21 beyond fiscal 85, bu+ ve did not consider that.
22 We also, given this full performance schedule l
i 23 which would go to fiscal SS, we asked the Office of Research l
l 24 to assume that the LOFT test sequences would be terminated 25 in fiscal 82 snd to put in between now and then their best bV ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
l 5
O 1
estimate of what tests should be done.
We call that Option 2
A.
3 Then we asked them to consider that LOFT would run 4
through fiscal 83 and again put in that tim e period -- this 5
would be all of fiscal 81, 82 and 83 -- what tests they 6
would propose in order of importance to be run thare.
We l
7 called the full performance Option C.
8 The review group looked at those three options 9
more or less as straumen, a s cases to start on.
I do not 10 have any preliminary conclusions or any advance report 11 information.
Some of the major sections ! have not even 12 seen yet, the najor sections including the effect on risk; 13 but we did do is divide ourselves into four subgroups.
14 The first subgroup was called the Yan-Machine 15 Interface, and it was supposed to investigate how LOFT might 16 aid the Commission and the regulated industry in solving 17 problems related to control rcom design, instrumentation, 18 ope ra tor perf ormance following a transient and accident.
19 The second working group or subgroup was the LOCA 20 group which looked at the role of LOFT in resolving loss of 21 coolant problems, including its role as a verification and 22 assessment of computer codes.
23 The third group conce rned tra nsients, including 24 ATWC and risk reduction methods in general; tha t is, to what 25 extent would information from LOFT be useful in O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6 1
demonstrating that the actual or perceived risk is either 2
more or less than it is presently thought.
3 The final subgroup concerned the degraded cooling 4
aspect of LOFT research.
In particular, we looked at the 5
Action Plan item II.3 and other places where degraded or 6
molten core performance might be involved, and tried to 7
establish the relevance of proposed LOFT tests in that area.
8 What I had hoped to do today is to have a little t
9 bit of a dialogue, to the extent that the Committee is 10 willing and able to do so, on the recommendations or the 11, recommendation which was really one page in the NUEEG report 12 tha t in ef f ect triggered the formulation of this group.
13 I had four questions I wanted to go into, but 14 maybe I can stco here and see if the committee members have 15 anything -- any questions on what I have done or said so far.
16
- 32. SHEWMON:
A pparen tly not.
Go ahead.
17 3R. PLESSET:
Let me ask one thing.
Will the 18 consultants' reports be part of your general report 19 separately, or will they be absorbed into a larger mass of 20 material or what?
21 YR. ROSS:
We talked about that, and tha report 22 will be a report of the members, and what I -- the offer I 23 made to the consultants, and I think one. ma y be here -- ah, 24 yes, one is here, Ivan Catton here.
One of the consultants 25 is here.
ALDERSoN REPoRTWG COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7 O
The offer I made was to print verbatim any 2
recommendation that a consultant wanted to print.
I think 3
it is important to get at least one of three inputs from 4
each consultant.
The first input will be the consultant 5
each consultant has read and endorsed th e report.
Or 6
another option, he has read and with comment he endorses, or 7
ne has read it and he is unable to endorse it.
In effect, 8
his problems are so bad he would reject it.
9 The cleanest thing to do is just ask each 10 consultant to write a letter, and I just bind up all the 11 letters and put then in the report somewhere.
I think to a 12 large degrae this is the option of each consultant, but I 13 really think we have to have some expression of some sort, 14 and whatever it is, I wil'. prin t it.
15 YE. SHEWMON:
The consultants are taking part in 16 your meetings, or is their only function to look at the 17 report after you ;et done with it?
18 XR. ECSS:
We have some of both.
The consultants 19 take a very active part.
In some instances we have had 20 saterial sent to us for incorporation in the report.
Some l
21 of the consultants have not sent in material, and the 22 arrangement with the subcommittee chairmen has been after 23 talking, af ter oral conversation and discussions and then 24 tne telphone and the nesting -- this is on the 10CA one 25 the subconsittee chairman, who is crian Sheron, said he O>
s-i I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGitelA AVE S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
8 s
1 would write a strawman and then get the consultants to 2
comment.
In other instances we have material we will put in 3
verbatim, so it varies.
4 In the interest of time -- we had a very short 5
period of time, and the only way we could meet the deadline 6
in many instances was for one man to write it as a strawman, 7
and most of the report is that way.
8 MR. PLISSETs Let me ask you another question of a 9
dif feren t sort, Denny.
Obviously this exercise has taken 10 some time and effort.
Do you think it has been worthwhile, 11 regardless of how it turns out?
12 MR. ROSSa Yes, I do, because I think it is going 13 to -- I think it will produce some recommendations which, 14 due to the nature of the group, cannot be accected as aospel 15 by the Commission, but I think they will be definite enough 16 and provoca tive enough for the Commission to instruct its 17 line management -- I will take off one hat and put on 18 ano ther -- to do something.
l 19 Cne perception, which I think was correct, amoncst 20 the review group, NBR had not demonstrated on the record an 21 unambiguous indication of its needs from LOFT.
There have 22 been a lot of off-the-record informal comments, equests and 23 so on, but there was not a clea r written record.
24 I think our report will require that to be cleaned l
25 up.
Beyond that it's kind of -- I think it will be O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGIN'A AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
9 1
worthwhile.
2 MR. SHEWMON:
It sounds like it will be a formal 3
recort on functions other than -- other than whar has been 4
written on before.
5 If there are no other questions, are we ready to 6
go to the second part?
7 3R. ROSS:
Let me read the questions and then come 8
back to them one at a time.
9 As I said, after looking at the LOFT -- pardon me 10
-- at the research listing of tests which I had -- which I 11 call the full performance list, it was obvious that there 12 were four related in some respects but different in most I
13 respects roles of 10FT:
the ma n-machine interface, LOCA, 14 transien ts, and degraded cooling.
15 And I vac vondering to what extent did the ACES l
16 consider these four aspects when it made its recommendatica, 17 or were its comments focused mostly on the LOCA role of LOFT?
18 Let me coma back to that.
19 The second question is did the committee consi, der 20 some quantitative or qualitative optimiration of research?
21 One of the Commission policy and planning goals is that l
22 research money should be allocated to its risk reduction 23 potential.
Did the committee try to do something like tha t ?
24 The third question was has the ACES considered the 25 lack of a 3WR counterpart in its reconnendations?
l ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGNA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
10
('
N 1
And the f ourth thing -- there was some indication 2
in the letter but not enough.
The question is does the ACHS 3
have views on minimum tests required prior to 4
decommissioning?
I believe your report said you would like 5
to review this.
6 I think our report will take a position that we 7
need X of these tests and Y of these tests and Z of those 8
tests.
And given that yea only run it -- the agency only 9
runs it to fiscal 82, I think we take a position.
I wonder 10 if the ACHS has any views on the details of which tests.
11 Those are the f our questions.
If I come back to 12 the first one, it had to do with the multi-f aced role o f l
13 LGFT, so any kind of -- by the way, I told the working s
l 14 group, the revieu group that we would make copies of the 15 transcript and mail it out to them, so they would have a 16 direct benefit of whatever it is you say.
That is how we 17 intend to commuhicate what you say to the review group.
18
- 53. SHEW. MON:
Milt, why don't you answer these as 19 you see, and we can add to that then?
20 MR. PLESSETa I thought of starting with th e la s t l
21 one.
What was the last cne?
I l
22 MR. ROSSs The degraded molten core aspect.
t I
j 23 MR. PLESSET:
Okay.
Have we considered its role 24 only in LOCA or more broadAy, and I think that the committee l
25 did think of all the aspects of potential centributions from O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.20024,202) 554 2345
11 n/
\\-
1 LOFT.
2 Let me oo to the third one, no SWR counterpart.
3 We had a lot of discussion about that actually, Denny, 4
considerably at this meeting and yesterday, of the research 5
review group meeting of the ACES, and we are aware of that 6
snd considered it in some letail.
7 Now, as to optimitation of research and risk 8
reduction, this was, of course, a major element in th e 9
thinking, I believe, of the committee in wishing to use this 10 money elsewhere in the safety research program.
11 And at the same time let me answer your other 12 question about the teste that we required.
I think the 13 current thinking, te.ita tively at least, of the committee is 14 we are going to recommend that LOFT be shut down at the end 15 of FY 81, which is ano ther bit of inf ormation f or your 16 group, which gives you some idea of the views of the value 17 of the expenditure which in this upcoming budget is over 540 1
18 million.
19 So I have given you broad brush responres to your 20 four questions, and the other members of the committee will 21 vant to also make their views known.
22 MR. 3 ENDER:
There are a few poin ts that maybe I 23 would like to elaborate on that Eilt made reference to.
You l
24 have to appreciate tha t when we review this thina we are l
25 reviewing in the context of whether this reactor is useful
(~)
u-ALDERScN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASF INGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346 I
\\
12 0
1 to the NRC's research program.
2 Now, we are not addressing the question of how 3
useful LCFT might be in some other application.
We have 4
not, for example, considered LOFT as a device for 5
investigating ccre melt.
That was not its intent, and the 6
environmental implications of doing th at in today's 7
environment are such that an offhand answer would be very 8
dangerous to give.
9 The use of the reactor as a trainin g tool for the to utilities is something which I personally have some 11 a ttraction f or because there is not any other place where 12 you can fool around with certain kinds of experiments and 13 find out enough to even think about what the transients uJ 14 ought to be.
15 I,do not even pretend that this reactor is likely 16 to simulate large power reactors, but the f act that you 17 would have the opportunity to think about all the 18 circumstances in planning an experiment would make some 19 group of people in the industry aware of what to think about 20 in, accidents that might occur in big reactors.
21 We do not have any real device for doing that, so 22 you might want to think about doing that, but that is not 23 the NRC's role, and I think we are not reviewing it for that 24 purpose.
25 The question of 2W2 versus F43 seems to me to be O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGHA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346
13 O
\\-
1 an extraneous question.
We do not have a 3WR f acility.
2 What that has to do with whether LOFT should run or not does 3
not seem to be relevan t.
4 LOFT is a device thst has been built and probably 5
has a half billion dollars invested in it, if it has a dime; 6
and when we destroy it by shutting it down, we have to 7
decide whether we are goi7g to want to create something 8
sometime later.
And that is not a job for this committee to 9
decide about, but I suspect it is one your committee ought 10 to look at pretty hard.
11 MR. SHEWMON:
Any other comments?
12 MR. PLESSET:
I have not heard of any serious i
l
(~S 13 consideration for LOFT doing a lot of degra ded core work.
l
(-)
l 14 It is always 19 blank, blank plus X.
I think they are as l
l 15 protective of the facility as any utility owner is of his 16 facility.
Ihat is an impression; it may be unfair.
But to 17 bring that in now I think is a little bit strange.
18 MR. ROSS:
The schedule that was given to us was 19 the L-S series, and there a re presently five tests in the 20 L-9 series, and the higher numbers progressively due to more 21 core degradation.
22 None of the L-B series and some of its counterpa rt i
23 series, the L-10 series, are intended to produce core 24 migration.
If you wan t to call it a m.elt in place, that 25 uight be as good a name as any, and that may be only a OO 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGIMA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
\\
14 s
\\
1 simple bundle or maybe some of the pins in the simple bundle.
2 But tha asoteric tests I was referring to could go 3
beyond that, and they are just a mote in somebody's eye as 4
far as I can tell.
'4e did not consider it anyway.
5 ER. KERR:
I don't think it has been said, but at 8
least from my point of view a major consideration in our 7
review was a comparison of what we thought would be produced 8
by LOFT as compared to other things that we felt were 9
important; that is, we were reviewing in the context of a 10 finite amount of dolla rs being available, and we were trying 11 to establish priorities among those things that we thought 12 ought to be done.
13 I think one of the reasons for the LOFT 14 recommendation was rhat it wac felt what would come out of 15 it was less important in the view of the committee than what i
18 might come from some of the things that we recommended.
l 17 MR. MOELLER:
I wanted to offer a couple of 18 comments in terms of the sequence of events.
! am not sure 19 I will sta t e it properly, but it seems to me that th e 20 committee made recommendations for reducing the amount of 21 effort going into LOFT.
And as our draft report that we are 22 preparing now shows, the Congress did not choose to change 23 the funding, and the NRC did not choose to drastically alter I
24 it.
25 Then am ! correct that as a result of that, ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
15 O,
1 certainly the consissioners must have had questions or the 2
staff must have lad questions, so they have launched an in 3
depth or they formed a review group and they launched an in 4
depth review of the plans for 10FT and its future and what 5
would be best to be done with it.
6 We are coming back now again in our draf t more 7
strong than ever saying phase it out, and where does this 8
leave the staff with its review, and where does it leave 9
us?
In other words, are va saying that we have been through 10 all of this, and we do not need to really even hear what the 11 review group comes up with?
12 In other words, we ha ve reviewed the situation, we 13 have made our judgment, and that is it.
You go ahead with 14 your review, and I guess maybe we will look at it when it 15 comes up, but don't really bother us too much with it, or it 16 is not going to influence us too much.
17 Do you see what my questions are?
I need 18 cla rifica tion.
1 19 MR. PlESSET:
I think I do.
20 MR. SHEWMON:
All righ t.
21 MR. PLESSET:
I think you missed part of our 22 meeting ye s te rd a y, Dade, that helped a 1ct on this.
My 23 impression is the Commissioners are a little bit' divided on 24 this question, but I have a suspicion if they had to vote 25 today, there would be a majority.
One would he acainst that C,)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
16 1
possibly.
This is pure speculation.
2 Now, as regards the termination date, initially we 3
are thinking of FY 82.
Hostly, as was discussed yesterday, 4
this was considered to be humane for the large staf f 5
involved, and yesterday it was felt tha t we are makine too 6
great -- maybe pa ying too large a price for this, and it 7
wouldn't really work anyway; that if it were decided that 8
this would not be f unded af ter FY 82, that is just the same 9
as saying FY 81.
10 And it was brought out at some length yesterday a 11 lot of pressing needs in the resea rch budget.
Tha t made it 12 not too difficult for the committee -- subcommittee
{}
13 yesterday to accept this da te.
14 Does that help you?
15 MR. y0E11EE:
It does, but I guess it still leaves 16 me wondering where does the product of the NRC staff review 17 group with its consultants and so forth, where does the l
18 result of that effort factor into anything we are doing ?
19
- 33. PLESSET:
It does not.
20 MR. SHEWMONs We both advise the Commission.
21 MR. PLESSET:
It doesn't come into our --
22 MR.'SIESS:
We have been listening to Research now
{
23 for years saying that they think half their money ought to 24 go into LOFT and the rest going into other things, and we 25 have not seen any -- we have been hearing pronises of O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGNA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
17 1
changes in direction.
You know, LOFT was going to down.
2 The longer it takes, the more things you can think of to do i
3 in LCFT apparently.
4 So I do not know -- this is a little broader l
5 group.
It is not all Research.
But I do not see how there 6
is that much new input to our problems.
7 ER. MOELLER:
Well, am I to interpret the creation 8
and the operation of the NRC review group as an expression l
9 o n th e part of the Commissioners that they wanted a second 10 opinion or a third opinion?
11 MR. SIESS:
Yes.
Essentially, Research says we 12 vant L0FT.
ACRS says we can't afford it.
And the 13 Commission said okay, we will ask somebody else.
14 MR. 30EllER:
Well, I think-it does brinc out the l
15 point that it is very important that we stress what we have 16 in our report, that in the sense of the limitations on the 17 budget and the restrictions on funds, we simply do not place 18 LOFT that high in our priorities.
19
- 33. CKRENT:
I would like to ask Denny a question 20 which is directly related to the discussion that has just 21 been taking place.
How is your group going to respond to 22 the sentence in the charter which says, "Th e group would be 23 expected to consider the LO7T program f rom the perspective 24 of NFC's overall research program and the needs of reactor 25 reculation?"
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGNA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
o 18 l
t i
l
\\
1 MR. ROSS:
Let me take it in two parts.
There is 2
a subcommittee of which Bcb Bernero was assigned to on the 3
risk reduction and the risk -- allocation of resources 4
according to risk reduction potential.
Bill Snyder from l
5 Sandia was on that also.
I do not have the breakdown of the i
6 subcommittees with me.
l 7
I have seen one report from Snyder of Sandia where l
8 he has taken a first pass at trying to come up with a figure 9
of risk reduction versus dollars where he is contrasting j
10 LOFT with some other Research-funded projects.
We just 11 don't have all of that in.
12 Bernero says he has more stuff in.
He is supposed 13 to be 80 percent through today and the rest tomorrow night.
14 We hope to take what I have to call a-crude first i
15 pass at this risk reduction allocation principle.
I have 18 not seen it, so I don't know how it is going to come out; 17 but we are looking at the rest of the Resea rch budget, and 18 ve got probably the same Research budget presentation that 19 you did, so that we have the same dollars to work with.
20 So we've got, I think, fiscal 81,
'2 and
'3 by 21 decision units.
I think they have 12 decision units and 22 s ub units.
That was the first half.
23 You said as far as perceived regulatory needs.
I 24 think this is one place where the report will wind up 25 criticiring ourselves because it was very dif ficult to, O
ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
19 O
1 other than the Action Flan, to show where there was some 2
perceived regulatory needs or licensing needs, which is the 3
way we understood it for LOFT.
4 Most of the LOFT user need letters go back to ten 5
years age,, back when Andy was receiving them in RDT.
~4 e 6
just hr.ve not written that many -- we y:st haven't written 7
tha t many recent letters on LOFT.
So I am not sure that we 8
will do a very good job of being able to say the LOFT 9
project mee ts the needs, because the needs are not evident.
10 So some of it we will just have to say maybe there 11 is an express need, maybe there is an informal need, maybe 12 there is an inferred need f rom the Action Flan.
But I l
13 suspect the report would say if NRR needs it, they ought to i
(
14 be more fo rth righ t in sa ying sc.
l 15 MR. OKRENT:
If I can pursue the question of NBR l
16 needing things, in f act I have seen some situations whern j
17 NRR has written and said we need something or they approved 18 a proposal frca Research; you know, please give us whatever 19 you feel you can.
20
!s there within NRR a mechanism to do this kind of 21 judging on the importance of your spectrum of need and the 22 amount of resources you are willing to spend on one versus 23 another?
l 24 YR. ROSS:
I have never seen such, and at l
25 presentations that the office has made to the Commission on O
ALDEASON REPOR.aNG COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
20 0
1 research needs, in fact the Director -- I think Mr. Case was 2
the Acting Director -- indicated it was not NRR practice to 3
prioritize research requests.
4 Now, I am not sure but what the new NRR 5
organization since May, and pa r ticularly since Tom ' Murley 6
has moved over, may in fact move to a different policy.
But 7
up until now I am not aware that NRR has ever pt Aoritized 8
its work.
9 3R. OKRENT:
I think that has been a problem.
10 MR. ROSS:
Yes, I agree.
11 MR. SHEWMON:
Have we about -- have you got what 12 you wanted out of us?
13 MR. ROSSa Yes.
14 MR. SHEW 50N:
Anybody else have any pressing 15 comments?
16 (No response.)
17 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay, then thank you very such.
18
- 53. SIESS:
Lots of luck.
19 (Whereupon, the mee ting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)
20 l
21 22 23 24 25 (d
ALDERSoN REPORTING CoWPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN This is Oc certify thac the attached proceedings before the q
in th6 matter of:
ACRS/249th General Meeting t
Date of ?receeding:
January 8, 1981 Docket Number *:
? lace of ?roceed.ing:
washinaton, n. c, were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcrip:
therecf fo:- the file of the Ccc::11ssio n.,
David S.
Parker Cfficial Repcrter- (Typec) l
/
(SIGNATURI CF FIECR'"IR)
(
l e
O
.. - - - - -