ML20009F248
| ML20009F248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/20/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009F249 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8107300202 | |
| Download: ML20009F248 (87) | |
Text
__________ - -
p-es NCCICAR REGC.ATORY COMM~55 CN
% f/s, i
(".
s COMMISSION MEETING I
f f
1 In T.e.% m cf:
PUBLIC MEETING BUDGET SESSION I
(
gm.
July 20, 1981 1 - 84 73g.g..
AO:
Washington, D. C.
)
i l
/
AIL.D@2'aY _1 REPORTI.TG
/
., s :s, -
(
40 0 71-p -t a Ave., 5.*i.
~4a*- t g==, D. C.
20024
/
Ta '.aphera : (202) 554-2245 8107300202 810720 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR h--
(} (((I L (((( l ('((d((((l(
_{ ( (I( ( Jf]k( (h(h(h(h(h{hj_h[j f(h I
n.
Qh TRANSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, C
h 016 Phillips h
Q ADVANCED COPY TO:
O The Public Document Room y, N c:: -
DATE:
July 21, 1981 5
I Attached are the PDR copies of a Commission meeting P
transcript /s/ and related meeting document /s/.
They
[
are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession p
List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No o
other dictribution is requested or required.
E;<isting DCS identification numbers are listed on the ind.ividual p
documents wherever possible.
se 1.
Transcript of:
Budget Session, July 20, 1981, (1 copy),
a.
Vugraphs presented at budget session.
(1 copy) own sk*W;O
~ office nf the Secretary e
5%p L
A/
"W~
l.
l.
[
5YdWN1NN3VMMM67092164%7MyyyMR?RRQ.yy7yyyN-f
- ,7 '
l-jh:
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Jul 20, 1981 in the Comrrission s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W;y' Wa'shington,' D'.
'C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Tnis transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solety for general infonnational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal c
record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleaaing or other paper may be filed with the Ccnmission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument
[/,{!;
contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
(;', -
.' c.
i f... #.
? *;:?
s t
i O
g t
M
1 g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNISSION 2
3 PUBLIC NEETING BUDGET SESSION -
4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
Commissioner's Conference Room 1717 H Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.C.
7 Monday, July 20, 1981 8
The Commission set, pursuant to notice, at 9
2:35 p.m.
10 BEFOREa 11 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 12 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner 13 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 14 ALSO PRESENT4 15 SAMUEL 3. CHILK, Secretary LEON ARD BICKWIT, General Counsel 16 LEN BARRY, COMPTROLLER WILLIAN DIRCKS, Executive Director for Operations 17 K. CORNELL BUCK BASSETT 18 DENNY ROSS ROBERT MINOGUE 19 RONALD SCROGGINS DICK DEYOUNG 20 HAROLD DENTON JOHN DAVIS DENNIS RATHBUN 21 VICTOR STELLO 22 DAN DONOGHUE EDWIN TRINER LLOYD DONNELLY 23 i
24 25 ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,!NC, MG;NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345
i j
2 1
EERCEEE1111 2
CHAIRHAN PAllADIN04 Good afternoon, ladies and 3 Scotlosen.
4 The Commission's meeting this af ternoon is to be 5 cencerned entirely with NRC's budget for fiscal years 1983 6 to 1984.
According to the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 7 1980, the Chairman is to present to the Commission each year 8 c proposed budget for Comaission review, markup and approval 9 fCr submittal to OMB and eventually to the Congress.
O The budgets for 1983 through 1984 are to be based 1 on the fiscal year 1983 to 1987, Policy Planning and Program 2 Guidance, PPPG, prepared by the Commission and issued June 3 23, 1981.
This document provides the Commission-aparoved 4 bacis f or NRC planning, programming and budgeting for the 5 nex t five years.
It serves as a basis for developing the 6 0ajor offices, budgats and programs, and it is to be 7 followed unless exemptions ara specifically allowed or the 3 policy is amended by the Commission.
3 Although I had no part in preparing the PPPG 3 document, I applaud its issuance and commend the Commission for undertaking and completing the preparation of this much inooded document.
In view of the time required for i propnration of the PPPG, this development and the iproperation of the fiscal year '83 and '84 budgets had r4 g o
- on in pa rallels however, I understand that in the process ALDERSON AEPORTING COMPANY. INC.
891VE N
3 1 there was such interaction so that inconsistencies between 2 the budget and the PPPG should be minimal.
3 As time goes on and experience is gained with it, 4 the document may have to be revised, but I view it as an 5 excellent basis for our examination of the budget proposals.
6 I an a firm believer in the planning process respresented by 7 the PPPG document.
While the budcet should be the vehicle 8 for implementing our plans, we should not wait until budget 9 time to identify our goals.
10 It is my hope that in the months ahead I can work 11 with the Comission and the NBC staff to develop more 12 specific ';argets to implement the broad aims set forth in 13 the planning document.
In the process we will also 14 undoubtedly uncover other areas in which the Commission may 15 vant to establish specific goc 1s.
16 In the preliminary discussions with the staff I 17 listed a nuFher of major areas of importance in which we 18 might establish specific ta rgets.
My hopo is to see that 19 the targets are used as a means for measuring future 20 progress of the NRC in accomplishing important tasks.
In 21 establishing these targets I would like to get as much input 22 as possible, and I expect to see us address each of these 23 steas in some detsil in the weeks and months ahead.
24 Some of the areas in which specific targets might 25 be developed relate to procedural or schedule matters such ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
ENfRMdB Mi3 RM.o_Q45D00MV@4 G& 8M801858_903-8909___. ________________
m
(
4 1 as actions to assure that the licensing schedules are met, 2 streamlining the licensing process without impairing r'
3 protection of the public health and saf ety, reducing the 4 list of pending reactor requirements to ranageable sets, 5 keeming track of compliance status requirements, 6 consolidation of NBC offices.
7 Others relate to specific programs such as safety 8 goal or safety goals, siting, the relationship of engineered 9 safety features and demographic and other features, vaste 10 management, monitoring of operating plans, THI-2 cleanup, 11 and interaction of NRC's Safety Research Program with the 12 activities of other agencies, o ther public and private 13 programs and our own regulatory efforts.
14 I believe th a t these areas are worthy of 15 substantial emphasis and I mention them today only to 16 indicate the thrust of possible Commission actions related 17 to the Conaission's PPPG document and how these might 18 supplement the document as it exists today.
19 Inasmuch as the proposed fiscal year '83 and '84 20 budgets, which are the subject of today's meeting, were 21 prepared before I joined the Commission and because I have 22 had limited exposure to the budget complexities, I have 23 asked the EDO, the Executive Director for Operations, and 24 the Comptroller to present i:he budget on myself.
25 The EDO, Mr. William Dircks, will highlight the
{
l ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, l
---400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON D.C._2M4_($H3) G93-8!KG
5 3
{"'
I budget related to the activities reporting to him, and then 2 the Comptroller, Hr. Len Barry, will highlight the budget 3 concerning the remainder of the Commission offices.
In the 4 process I have asked each of them to delineate any 5 dif ferences between the figures presented and the original 6 request from the individual offices, as well as the 7 rationale for such differences.
8 Since this session is intended to cover primarily 9 an overview of the entire budget, I would suggest that to questions be limited to those that will help in following 11 the presentation.
We have a number of later budget sessions 12 sch eduled during which there will be as much time as needed 13 for detailed questions and discussions. The EDO, the 14 Comptroller, and the directors of the respective offices 15 will be present for these future sessions as well as for 16 this session today.
17 Now I would like to turn to another matter related 18 to our proposed schedule.
On Thursday, July 23, the 19 Commission has scheduled a budget markup meeting.
The 20 meeting vill involve fiscal Commission debate, final
. 21 Commission debate, and adoption of the detailed budget 22 recommendations to OMB for the President's consideration and 23 the development of necessary supporting rationale.
1 24 At the last meeting we raised the question as to 25 whether or not these should be open or closed and did not ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l j..
6 1 take any action, but we would like to take some action 2 today. I would also note that should additional 3 deliberations prove necessary, time has been reserved for 4cfurther markup meetings on July 27th and 29th.
5 In order to proceed on the basis that I have 6 outlined here, we would need to take two "otes with respect 7 to the meetings, one to close the meetings and the one to 8 hold the Thursday meeting on less than one week's notice of 9 all the matters on which the public is required to be 10 advised in the Sunshine Act.
11 I have asked our general counsel, Mr. Bickwit, to 12 identif y the rationale for this procesal and lead us through 13 the mechanics of accomplishing the votes.
14 NB. BICKWIT:
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the 1-first vote, the vote to close, my recommendation would be 18 that the case for confidentiality is compelling.
In light 17 of the controversy which some of the Commission's 18 determinati ons in this area have produced and the court 19 order of the Federal District Court for the District of g Columbia in the Common Cause case, I think a few words as to 21 the ra tionale would be appropriate.
22 In the past, Commission markup meetings have 23 involved, for example, disc uss.".o n s of possible reactions of 24 foreign governments to proposed cuts in joint research 25 projects, evaluations of the performance of specific l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
s.
7 1 Commission offices and officers, analyses of probable OHB 2 and congressional reactions to particular levels of 3 requested f unding of other agencies and jointly funded or 4 related projects, identification of areas where Commission 5 regulatory activities vill be adversely impacted by proposed 6 budget cuts, and discussions of possible ways to structure 1us assure appropriations consistent with 7 the budget request 8 the Commission's preferred level of funding.
9 It seems very likely that similar discussions will 10 be necessary in conjunction with the sarkup of this year's Maintaining confidentiality of these markup 11 budget request.
12 deliberations appears to me essential to prevent frustration 13 of the Commission's future ability to formulate and obtain 14 approval of budget recommendations on matters such as those 15 just mentioned.
If the Commisson is inclined to agree with that 18 17 rationale, I would suggest that it now vote to close its 18 markup meeting of July 23rd and all similar meetings held 19 within 30 days of that meeting under Exemptions 9(b)(2) and d
20 ( 6) of the Sunshine Act.
21 At this point it would be necessary for three 22 members of the Commission to vote "aye" in order to close 23 those meetings.
CHAIHHAN PALLADINO:
Is there a question?
24 u.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
May I ask a question?
25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
6SE1 @.@, RTT/4 (202) 554-2345
8 1 One, how does a markup budget meeting differ from the 2 meetings that the Court held that we could not close in the 3 Common Cause case?
4 ER. BICKWITs I would say they are acre akin to 5 stratsgy sessions.
You are in the budget process of 6 necessity at arm's length with the Office of Management and 7 Budget.
At the preliminary sessions you are getting 8 recommendations from the staff and asking questions of the 9 staff as to where the staff would stand with respect to 10 various aspects of the budget.
But ultimately you will have 11 to meet to decide exactly what strategies to persua with 12 respect to OMB.
13 This is more akin to the kind of thinking that 14 goes on in a contractual negotiation with an arm 's length 15 negotiator, and for ths.t reason I think it appears to me 16 tha t there would be e very distinct frustration of your 17 purpose in the budget process to open those meetings.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs My second question is do 19 you see a possibility of doing a more expedited review than 20 ve have in the past of the transcrip!;s of those sessions 21 with an eye toward releasing that which can be released?
22 MR. BICKWIT:
I think so.
I think as far as the 23 review of those transcripts is cence rned, this year the 24 problem is formulating exactly where the line ought to be 25 drawn.
Where there are exempt materials, where various ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, RDm M51MC2M _O.@. EB3 (858 DMKG_..__ _.
9 1 rationales other than the frustration of purpose rationale 2 are present and therefore justify continued withholding of 3 elements of the transcript, once those lines are drawn I 4 think it will be possibic to move very expeditiously in the 5 future to disclose those transcripts.
8 CONNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Because I gathered that j
7 last year's budget deliberations have still not been 8 reviewed and released, and it would seem to me if we could 9 accomplish that process on a more expedited schedule so that to we were only withholding that which really needed to be 11 withheld, that would both improve our legal posture and also l
12 be consistent with the Sunshine Act.
1 13 HR. BICKWITs I think that 's right. I should say l
14 that the transcript of the original meeting has been 15 released but the markup session transcripts have not, 18 correct.
17 CHAIREAN PALLADINO:
Any other comment?
18 CORMISSIONER BRADFORD4 No, I am perfectly
-c 19 prepared to vote for closure of the markup sessions.
I 20 would urge the undurstanding that we do move as quickly as 21 possible through the reocess of reviewing the transcripts 22 af terward to decide what it really is that needs to be 23 withheld and what it is that can be released.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay. You are making that a 25 condition of the vote, or a suggestion?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, EB UCE0CE CNL @.0, CCOM03BS@A @.@. 8DB3 GB E93-2009
10 i*
1 COMMISSIONER BRADF0ED:
I would urge it, but I 2 woul'd vote to close in any case.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Are you prepared to vote?
4 All those in f avor of, closing the markup sessions, 5 indicate by saying "aye."
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Aye.
7 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
8 CONNISSIONER BRADFORDt Aye.
9 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE4 Aye.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Opposed?
11 (There was no response.)
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I guess there are none.
13 Okay, do you want to go to the second question?
14 HR. BICKWITs Having made the decision to close 15 thoce meetings, the Commission is now able to complete the 16 notice of the first of those meetings required by the 17 Sunshine Act.
On July 13th the Commission issued a notice 18 of that meeting, but an integral part of the notice, that 19 portion rela ting to whether the meeting would be open or 20 closed, was def erred.
It was announced at that time that 21 the determinatiors on that question would be made at a later 22 d a te.
The Commission has had to defer that determination 23 24 until today because of the court order noted earlier and the l
2c need to evaluate the potential reach of that order.
Because l
l ALDERSON REPORTING CJMPANY,INC, CS3 MZ4 Tan NFL 2.W. WTHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
11 1 of the deferral, the Commission nov finds itself in a 2 situation where the portion of the ;otice rela ting to the
(
3 open or closed status of the meeting vill be given less than 4 one week prior to the date on which it plans to hold the 5 meeting.
6 There vill need, therefore, to be an additional 7 vote that that pertion of the notice be issued less than one 8 week prior to the date of the meeting.
By recommendation is 9 that this so-called short notice vote is justified because 10 the particular timing of the markup mee ting is necessary to 11 assure a timely submission to OMB.
12 If the Commission concurs in that recommendation, 13 it should now vote "aye."
(
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN04 Aye.
15 COHHTSSIONER CILINSKYs Aye.
16 COHNISSIONER BRADFORDa Aye.
17 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Aye.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I gather the vote was 19 unanimous.
20 I wonder if we now may proceed with the budgat j
21 presentation to be made by Mr. Dircks.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Excuse me. I would just 23 like to say how delighted I was to hear you say all those l
24 good words about the Commission, q
25 MR. BICKWIT:
The real test is whether you will ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
7.
12 1 still be saying them a t this time next ~ year.
2 CH AIRN AN P ALLADINO We will have to see.
3 HR. DIRCKS Let's see if t?. a slide mechanisa 4 verks. Yes, it does work.
We are starting off on a good 5 f oo t.
6 Could I have the second slide, please?
7 (Slide) 8 MB. DIRCKSs In order to get started on the fiscal 9 '83 proposals, I might call your attention to the two items 10 in the background.
One was the fiscal year '81 rescission, 11 and the second was the fiscal '82.
We called them unfunded 12 requirements.
Since we put this together we did receive the 13 words of the House Committee markup, and that certainly will i.
14 affect our activity during '82 and will affect how we go 15 into
'83.
16 I might mention on the fiscal '81 rescission that 17 we have a major iten in there, the lingering probles of how 18 many more people we would have to reallocate into NBR and 19 ELD to cover our licensing commitments.
We have checked nov 20 with the House Consittee, and they feel as though the 21 acticus we have taken thus far since the hearing that we had 22 back last year on the '81 rescission will satisfy them.
23 We have essentially complied with the request of 24 the House Committee.
Y a need to take no furiner action in 25 that regard.
(_
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
13 1
COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's for FY '817 2
NR. DIRCKS:
'81.
In
'82, what we have there is 3 two major unfunded requirements, the most major being the 4 status of the breeder licensing program.
We don't have any 5 idea yet how we are going to cope with that major problem.
6We have some idea, I should correct arself, but I would 7 prefer to let our discussion of '82 go until we receive 8 definite word on how successful we are in making our answer 9 to the Congress for the restoration of '82 funds.
10 Once we get the '82 funding situation somewhat 11 nailed down, we would like to come back to the Commission to 12 talk about reprogramming actions.
13 CONHISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did I understand correctly 14 that your list of unfunded requirements is not the $23 15 million cut?
[
16 HR. DIRCKSs It now includos the $23 million cut, 17 plus the problem of how to within that cut deal with the 18 breeder licensing program and also deal with the NBR 19 realloca tion.
So on top of the cut, we have to fund the 20 breeder and we have to also deal with the commitment that we 21 made to move approximately 22 COHNISSIONER BRADFORDa I see.
So actually there 23 should be a titird bullet, minus $23 million?
(
24 HR. DIRCKSa Yes.
The initial way we have 25 calculated it out is that we now have an overhanging l
.s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AQ R
1 s e 3g o
1 deficit, so to speak.
In '82 that comes up to around $24 2 million 'of a shortf all.
3 CONNISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is the NRR $8.5 4 million shortfall on the recovery plan.
Does that include 5 the extra $5 million that the Appropriations Committee --
6 HR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
They moved $5 million and I 7 think we were intended to move $8.5 million.
8 CONNISSIONER BRADFORD:
So the $8.5 million does 9 not include the $5 million?
10 BR. DIRCKS:
It does.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 x.
25 l
a l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
15 1
COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
You're still short $8.57 2
HB. DIBCKSs No.
So, could we pass on to the 'P3
(~
3 slide, now?
4 "ide) 5 What we are asking for here is an approval of a-8 budget of $537 million, end a staf fing level of $3414.
This 7 should be compared with the OMB guidance letter that we got 8 back in March I believe tha t laid out a guidance level of 9 $513 million, and the guidance level of $3350 as far as to personnel g oes.
So we are approximately seven million over 11 the OMB guidance in March.
12 I think you should be aware of the f act that in 13 the guidance letter in March, OMB did caution us that since 14 the '83 budget would be the first budget put cogether bi the 15 Reagan administration, they might come back and deal more 18 harshly with us than the $530 million.
17 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO:
What was the guidance letter?
18 NR. DIRCKS4 53350.
Now, the funding increase 12from '82 to '83 as you see your chart is comprised of a 20 grea t deal of infla tion s $27 million f or inflation, and 59 21 million for program increases.
It does not include set-22 asides, and we are estimating thrt the set-asides in '83 23 will total 29 staf f positions and $26 million.
Most of that 24 is related'to the question of the breeder.
25 COHNISSIONER BEADFORD:
The rest being the Bingham ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
16 1 Amendment?
2 NR. DIRCKS:
Bingham, the integrated operations,-
( ~
3 the reliability reporting system, some money in there for 4 Part 51 early site review on the gas-cooled -- oh,
'84, I'm 5 sorry.
That's about it.
COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is someone going to cite a 7 gas-cooled reactor?
8
- 58. DIRCKSs Wa set it asida.
We can deal with 9 that in
'84.
I would like to -- although '84 is in here 10 because we arc obligated to submit a two-year authorization.
11 I would like to concentrate on '83 and the fiscal 12 ' 83 budget.
The last ites down there is any increases for 13 the Commission offices would have to be added ta the 3414 14 I am not addressing.
Len will pick that up in. his 15 discussion with you.
16 I think it is important -- I think OPE pointed out 17 -- that when we look at the request that we make and at all 18 of those requests to OHB and to the Congress, there has tra-19 ditionally been reductions of seven, ten or 14% from what 20 the Commission proposes.
So within your thinking on this 21 budget, you must realize that there will be reductions.
22 Now, I aust also say that when we put this budget 23 together in making this proposal to the Commission, we have 24 no t added anything in here as a cushion for those 25 reductions.
This is a budget that we essentially tried to l
ALDERSON REPORTINO 00MPANY,INC, L
6 &lLJul ayurMT@m D.@. FK@4 sa 554-2345
>o*
17 together on the basis of real program need and not a 1 put 2 saf ety net, so to speak.
3 The major increases in this budget in terms of 4 dollars are for NRR in the area of operator licensing, in 5 ICE for training facilities and in Research for post-THI 6 emphasis, severe accident research, reactor engineering 7 systems reliability and analysis.
In terms of dollar 8 decreases, the major dollar decreases are in NHSS for vaste 9 management, the rationale there being tha t we tend to rely 10 more on DOE-generated data in our site evaluation program.
11 We are also living off uncosted obligations which I can get 12 into later on.
We have funded contracts and those contracts l
l 13 are still to be costed.
14 In the reser.rch a rea, LOCA and transient research, 15 going down -- not in
'83, I'm sorry.
In
'84.
Waste 16 management research is going down to some extent.
17 Safeguards research is going down.
18 In terms of staff years, the increases are 19 basically in NRR again, operating reactor amendments, 20 additional project managers, additional staff going into the 21 devalopment of solutions to generic issues, and the 22 Systematic safety evaluation program, but it does not 23 include Bingham.
That is a set-aside in '83.
24 In IEE, the major regions for increases are the s,
25 PAT teams; two additional PAT teams, resident inspectors.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, naviP7VMv\\ /m_ RM _ nNernF676M ara swim 6ria crvegvrt
.~
18 3
1 Then there are other staff increases scattered through the 2 comptroller's office, the EDO and administration.
3 The decreases in teras of staff years would be 4 some decreases in NBR for operating license reviews because 5 of the decrease in caseload,
And in Inspection and 8 Enforcement, inspection of reactors under construction 7 because the reactors are moving into the operating phase.
8 HR. BARRY:
That does go down a little bit in
'83.
9 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
Bill, I noticed in reviewing to the budgwt you had a significant drop in '83 in the cace 11 workload.
12 HB. DIBCKSs Yeq.
13 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
Is it possible that our 14 workload may not drop off that rapidly in
'83, especially in 15 view of the f act tha t we have a large ?sp in
'82, and some 18 of that could carry over into '837 17 HR. DIRCKSs It is possible, but the way we have 18 s e t up the resou, es -- and I'm sure there will be some 19 slippage -- the resources are based on the issuance of the 20 schedules outlined in the various Bev111 reports.
We have 21 established a pretty good record of issuance of the SER's 22 pretty s..ch on schedule under the schedule we have outlined 23 to the Consission and to the committees.
Where there could 24 be some slippage could occur in the nearing process, and 25 tha t reverberates back into staff demand.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, Mil _UlIDDIM._o_REL%%@_MD355@% $8 SDB36.M_M ____ _______ _______
19 1
But right now, it does look like we vill be able 2 to achieve some reducticn in the caseload area.
3 CHAIRHAN PALLADINos Okay.
4 HR. DIRCKSa The next chart just has another 5 breakout of the dollars by functional areas.
6 (Slide.)
7 This is just another way of displaying the 5537 8 million that we are asking for.
9 COHHISSIONER AREARNE:
'82 is in '82 dollars and 10 ' 83 and '84 in '83 dollars?
11 HR. DIRCKSs That's the way it's been set up.
12 COBHISSIONER AHEARNE
'82 is in '82 dolla rs, and 13 '83 then has inflation added to it.
And
'8 4 does not have 14 inflation added.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I see, '84 is in '83 16 dollars.
Thank you.
17 HR. DIRCKSs I tried to point out, too, that it is 18 a substantial part of the increase from '82 to '83 that's 1c this inflationary impact.
What I'd like to do now is to go 20 through the budget by dealing with the major programs.
21 The first program is a program of nuclear reactor l
22 regulation.
And as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we have 23 indicated in each one of these programs the request that 24 came into the Budget Review Committee by the offices, and we 25 have also indicated the amount that we are recommending to ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
20 1 the Commission for their approval.
2 NRR we are recommending a level of 743 staff years 3 and a total of about 542 million.
I will hit the highlights 4 of this budget and indicate where we have a difference, and 5 also, what we can achieve and wha t we can't achieve.
6 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
The numbers that you show 7 f or NRR assume the 58 plus million in '82?
8 HR. DIRCKSa Yes, it does, that includes that.
9And a major ites that is excluded in this budget is the to discussion of the breeder.
11 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is the what?
12 HR. DIRCKS The breeder.
That is a set-aside.
13 Operating reactors -- this includes major licensing actions, 14 safeguards and the project sanagers, I should say, the 15 pro ject managers. And with this mark, we vill achieve the 18 PPPG guidance.
We have a project manager on each site, and 17 where you have a site with diff erent reactors, you will have 18 a project manager on that site for each of the different 19 types of reactors.
20 What it will do on the downside is to essentially 21 stretch out the dealing with the ba:klog amendments.
22 Instead of achieving a reduction of this excess licensing d
23 backlog in fiscal year
'84, we will only be able to achieve 24 that goal in fiscal
'86.
That is essentially the difference 25 between what was asked for in teras of the office requests ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ MMTMETQ AMLFL% ECD 009'@S@%L 041 SE183 EB DMXG
21 1 versus the recommended mark we are making to the Commission.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Can I ask you a question on 3 that, I'm not sure what that means.
Does that mean we are 7
4 not going to be licensing or issuing operating licenses at a 5 rate?
6 HR. DIRCKS4 No, these are in the area of 7 amendments to licenses.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Not the licenses themselves?
9 ER. DIBCKS This is a longstanding problem.
I 10 don 't know how many of these things are nov in the 11 inventory; a couple of thousand, I guess.
What we are 12 trying to do is work off the excess backlog, keep some in 13 the inventory but not allow the inventory to build up.
We i
14 will not be able to achieve this goal of controlling tha t 15 backlog of inventory until fiscal
'86.
16 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does this figure include 17 the shipping of 500 of those to ICE?
18 HR. DIFCKSa No.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that contemplated?
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is that alread contemplated?
21 HR. DIRCKS4 It is in this figure.
That.is, we 22 have calculated it in the inventory.
It is calculated in 23 the stretch-out to
'86.
24 Essentially, all we are talking about on the first 25 go-around is about 500 amendments, so it really doesn't make ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l x
22 1 too much of a dent into this problem.
I think the 2 significance in dealing with these COO amendments and 3 working then through the regional offices would be more in 4 terms or can we do it, and can we do it effectively, and is 5 it a better way of handling amendments, some types of 6 amendments.
So it really doesn't make that auch of a 7 dif ference.
The 500 amendments in and of themselves don't 8 ret 11y make that much of a dent in this bigger problem of 9 working off the backlog.
10 But if we can really do it more effectively, then 11 we will come back and make same proposals to the Commission 12 about dealing with amendments as a routine matter, and 13 working the regions into the system more fully.
So that's 14 sort of a yes and no.
It's more of a method of dealing with 15 it than actually making a dent in the problem.
16 COHHISSIONER BRADFORD:
But for purposes of the 17 FYO 3 budget, it's assumed that those 500 amendments, 18 together with all the others, are all still part of the NRR7 19 HR. DIRCKSa Yes.
The next major category or 20 decision unit is the systema tic safety evaluation of 21 ope ra ting reactors.
That includes the SEP, that includes 22 NREP and IREP.
It does not include that next step which is 23 compliance with the Bingham Amendment.
And that is 24 essentially the three-people difference in the recommended 25 mark that we are making to the Commission between what the i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, CF6 NC@G'@T$N,0.@. M4 qm ss4 234s
23 1 office requests and wha t we are recommending.
That is a 2 set-aside.
3 CONHISSIONER BRADFORDa And that would be what?
4 Tha t would be extending the SEP to additional plants?
5 HR. DIRCKSa I think it is identifying the issues 6 that flow out of the SEP-IREP interia review, relating those 7 issues to the regulation, and then f actoring that in.
Then 1
8 relating the plant to the regulation.
Harold, where are 9 you?
Did I explain that correctly?
Is that last step in to the process?
11 dB. DENTON:
We complete the Phase 2 in '82 12 essentia11", and then we are budgeted to begin Phase 3 and 13 complete a certain number of Phase 3's in ' 83 and '84 for 14 the next series of plants.
15 HR. DIRCKS:
What is left out as far as setting 16 the Dingham Amendment aside?
In this mark, you will be able 17 to do everything in the SEP, IREP and NREP reviews except 18 relating the complying with the comparison of the plant toagainst essentially the SRP, i quess.
20 HR. DENTON:
That's right.
21 COHHISSIONER BRADFORDs So then, at the end of 22 FY8 3, th ere will still not be any conclusion as to how the 23 first 11 plants actually stack up against the revised SRP?
24 HR. DENTONa We will have before '83 knowledge on 25 how the first group of 11 stack up.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
--m m m- --- --
26 3
1 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYa The 11 reviews will be 2 completed?
3 ER. DENTON:
Yes, 11 vill be completed.
4 COHhISSIONER GILINSKY:
When do you expect to have 5 those completed?
6 HR. DENTON:
They start being completed in 7 September of this year, and then they are completed 8 throughout '82 and then Phase 3 would start i '83.
I 9
CHAIRM AN P ALLADiNO:
'Jhat is involved in Phase 2 to and Phase 3, roughly?
11 HH. DENTON They are looking back at the older 12 plants issue by issue to see
)w close they come to meeting 13 today 's standards, and then trying to decide on an 14 integrated, complate plant basis, whether or not there 15 should be any backfitting to require changes in plants.-
16 We have completed literally hundreds of individual 17 topics on theba older plants, but we hrve yet to wrap up
- t. n 18 entire look at a plant against today's standards, and that 19 would be done in
'82.
So in '82 we have a first shot.
We 20 would have the first knowledge of how those 11 plants stack 21 u p on a safety basis compared to todr:y's standards.
22 And taen Phase 3 was envisioned to move on, taking 23 wha t we have learned from those 11 to see what the next 24 g ro u p -- and I think we envisioned biting into 9 more plants 25 based on wh;c se know today.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
._ _MM__QKLBC, QGDH3BWN, @& fE183 08M{} 693-80$
25 t**
1 COHEISSIONER GILINSKY Would you expect the next 2 set of reviews to take less time?
3 NR. DENTON:
Yes, it should.
4 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY It seems to have taken 5 about four years.
6 HR. DENTON:
Since we started with the oldest plants, the really old plants, they have the hardest 8 questions to face.
And as we move into the never plants, 9 ti.ey come c1 oser to meeting today's standards.
10 LUMHISSIONER GIIINSKY:
They are also more 11 complicated.
12 ER. DENTON:
Yes, in some ways.
We don't really 13 know the answers.
It may be that the tough issues are tough 14 for a considerable number of them, and we won't know until 15 later this year.
16 HR. DIRCKS:
But you are starting off with less 17 information with the old plant.
For the never plants you 18 have a great deal more documentation and a fresher memory.
19 In the older plants you are starting off with the PSAR's of 20 a ver." slim, skimpy nature.
21 Operator licensing -- with the suggested mark you 22 will be able to cover the new examiner, the new 23 examinations, requalifications, trair.ing certifications.
24 Also, the requalification of all operators using the 25 simulator.
What it will not enable us to do -- and we are ALDER $0N RFPoRTING COMPANY,INC, M
o 26 3.-
1 suggesting that we go back and take a look at 10 CFR 55 and 2.astead of requalif ying operators by use of the written 3 essay, oral type examination every yaar, we go back and do 4 that essentially onca every five years; 20% instead of 100%
5 requalification essay / oral examination.
But requalify then 6 all using the simulator.
7 C05HISSIONER GILINSKYs What is involved there?
8 What is the difference between the once a year and once 9 overy five years?
10 HR. DIRCKSs I think we are talking about how many 11 people.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa When you said qualify on 13 the sisulator, what does that involve?
Is that with NRC 14 personnel involved?
15 ER. DIRCKSs Yes.
16 CONNISSIONER GII?.! SKYS And what duas that mean, 17 specifically?
Is that a test given by NRC?
18 HR. CORNELLa NRC or its contractors.
19 COMFISSIONER GILINSKY:
And how long does that 20 take?
21 ER. DENTON:
In SECY 333 it was proposed that in 22 addition to the licensee's doing all the requalifications, 23 that we also do it.
And looking at the workload in
'83, 24 there are probably 200 shifts of operators that would need 25 to be requalified.
Some to tal lik e th a t.
And I think that l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
EG VQ1NIA AR fiW, WASHINGTON, D.@,8M84 G899 554-8D33
3.-
27 0
1 ve take about two days per shif t, so it's about 800 man 2 days, if I got that right.
Maybe 200 shifts of operators 3 would have to be re-examined.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs This is the entire 5 complement for the operaring reactors?
6 BR. DENTON:
That's right.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs I would think it would be 8 more than 200.
9 ER. DENTON:
We were proposing to do only 207. or 10 so.
11 HR. DIRCK9:
He's talking about the simulators.
12 HR. DENTOMs Then maybe a dozen or so training 13 centers, and you divide it all up.
And we would be at a 14 simulator or training center one or two months; a total of 15 one or two months of each year to conduct those tests.
It 16 takes about. tvo days per group of operato* 5.
17 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't u,4nestand.
Bill 18 says that you are recommending putting off the written exams 19but holding with the slaulator exams.
20 HR. DENTON That 's righ t.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And the simulator exam is 22 a two-day exercise, during whi'h the NBC people observe the 23 operator reactions?
1 24 HR. DENTON Of a shift of employees, right.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So we would be sticking l
l l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
28 t-1 with that for all operators?
2 HR. DENTONs But we would not be giving the 3 individual -- preparing the exams and grading the exams to 4 every individual avery year, as I think SECY 330 envisions.
5 And the difference between the office requests and the EDO 6 mark reflects that dif ferent approach.
7 So we would be giving orals and simulstor to 8 everybody each year.
But we would not be giving a written 9 exat but to about 20% of the total population each year to 10 individuals.
11 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEa Does the EDO mark of both 12 dollers and peo9 5 ' orrespond to that reduction?
3 13 MR. DENTONa Just the dollars.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs What is the people 15 reduction about?
18 ER. DEMION:
That's operating licensers.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Is it a matter of money or de 18 ve not think we can come up with the examiners to do the 19 examining?
l 20
- 58. DIRCKSs The latest word I think we have is a 21 combination of the two; that even if we had the slots, we 1
22 are finding it very difficult to hire the examiners.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And we have talked about 24 the possibility of having industry examiners examining i
25 utilities, in which they are not employed.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
29 1
ER. DIRCKS:
Yes, I think that's another reason 2 why we would like to make a suggestion that we give a 3 breathing spell on this requirement.
I think what we have
~
4 to do -- an I have a session set up with Harold -- is to 5 look a'. some other ways of app 2oaching this problem, and we ahave talked about the sort of check-pilot approach that the 7 airlines use, using deputized pilots to Odainister sort of a 8 check exas.
9 There is also some work I think Harold's peopic 10 have done about using an audit type of systes with 11 unannounced sort of audit, where every facility will be on 12 notice that they could be examined and then only 20% of the 13 f acilities are hit.
So everyone is sort of prepared to take 14 the exam.
15 I think what we are really saying is that we would 16 like to come back and explore with the Commission some 17 optional ways of getting these results maybe in a better 18 f or m.
19 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO But Bill, are you making the 20 assumption that NRC would administer 20% of the annual exams l
21 and the utilitios would do the other 80%7 22 HR. DIHCKSa In this budget, essentially ve are 23 covering the 20% that we would -- I don't think we are 24 naking any assumption there about industry.
25 NB. DENTON:
10 CFR 55 requires that the licensees l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
1 30 t**
1 have a periodic requalification program, and they would 2 still have to have their own requalification.
3 CHAIRNAN PALLADINO Is that annual?
4 NR. DENTOMs Yes, that has bean annual 5 historically.
So what we would do with our check is that t sculd be a layered, -- or we would check the adequacy of the 7 licensee's program directly through our audit of theirs, but a they would still have to do the retrainlag on any new 9 operating experience that has shown up in the last year, and 10 retraining f or remote accidents that the operator may have 11 forgotten.
So their program would have to be ongoing and 12 ours would be sort of the backstop on the adequacy of theirs.
13 CHAIRNAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
14 NR. DIBCKS:
In the casework area, there is a 15 reduction, as auch as we can figure right now, between '32 toand
'83, and I mention this one because of the drop-off of 17 operating license reviews.
18 This mark that we are recommending would enable us 19to meet the 'chedules that the Commission has laid out to 20 the Congress.
We are in this mark calculating the resource 21 needs based on the construction schedules that had been 22 submitted by the licensees.
We were doing that in order to 23 comply with the Commission 's directive.
i 24 COMNISSIONEB BBADFORD:
Let's see, when you say 25 the schedules the Consission has laid out, those are the l
ALDERSoN AEPORTINo COMPANY. :NC, I
. PP'.E
31 p..
1 Licensee schedules?
2 HR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs Essentially, the schedules 4 the Consission has been instructed by the Congress to lay 5 out?
6 HR. DIRCKSs Right.
7 CORMISSIONER BRADFORDs But they are not the 8 Commission's estimates of when these licenses will be due?
9 HR. DIRCKS No, we are producing SER's based on 10 the estimated date of construction that has been provided by 11 the licensees.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If those construction dates 13 slip and inf ormation is not available to the staff to 14 complete the SER's, you could be shif ting some of this to 15 '83 ?
That was my earlier question.
16 5R. DIRCKSs Yes, you could.
What we are doing is 17 continuing to meet the SER's schedules that we have laid out 18 to you.
Now, it is conceivable and probably likely that the 19 construction schedules will slip.
20 Now, it is up to the Commission how much cushion 21 rou want to build in there, based on the estimates of the 22 hearing schedules.
We have estimated what the whole process 23 is built on is essentially the 11-month schedule that the 24 Commission adopted as a planning gnide.
How secure that 25 schedule is I think we just have to see as we go through the i
AGERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (102) 554-2345
32 g-1 hearing process.
2 But righ t now what we are doing is producing -- we 3 are applying resources to achieve the SER date that we have 4 outlined to you and to the Congress.
5 CORMIS!.IONER BRADFORDs How many licenses does 6 that actualir contemplate issuing in FY82 and in FY837 Do 7 you know?
8
- 58. DENTON:
I have the '82 numbers it is 18, 9 which this agency has never succeeded in doing in the past, 10 so there is a very big workload.
11 CONHISSIONER BRADFORD Any CP's?
12 HR. DENTON :
That includes the CP's.
The CP's 13 would be in addition to that.
But the budget did reflect 14 the Pilgrim, Allen 's Creek eff ort as well as the CP 15 schedules.
But if you just count the licenses that need to is be issued on that schedule, that's true, it's a very large 17 number.
~
18 There will be some slippage in some plants; we 19 just don 't know which plants at this early date.
Once you 20 get to the end of the review, and the plant is nearly built, 21 then you can project which plants have slipped.
22 CONNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Out of those 18 all 23 contested, do they aJ1 involve hearings?
24 MR. DENTON:
No, I would say the great majority of 25 them do, but there are some that don't.
ALDERSON HEPORTING COMPANY. INC.
eTXHE[irnoIML RZL WCCMIMT@N, D.@. FFW MM 2236X9
33 1
COHNISSIONER BR ADFORD:
You don't know the number
^
2 of '837 3
HR. DENTON:
We can count and give you that number 4 in a moment.
The appropriations bill for '82 did ask that 5 ve make our best estimates for hearing schedules for those 6 ' 83 plan ts.
I think that's where the crunch may come.
Some 7 of those '83 plants we are assuming an 11-month schedule 8 on.
There are indications that may be too short, once we 9 really find out. what the contest in that case is.
to At the same time, I think we are counting on some 11 solution of some of those plants to give us some breathing 12 room.
13 HR. DIRCKS:
While Harold is looking, we'll move 14 on to the safety technology unit.
The mark does include 15 working on the schedule. hat we have indicated for 16 unresolved safety issues.
17 Generi: risk issues -- it provides resources in 18 here for research, standards, coordination, regulatory 19 requirements, code analysis and maintenance.
What it also 20 includes is picking up the priority 2 and 3 workload action 21 plan; priority 2 and 3 items and getting them back on 22 schedule in the '83 mark.
23 The '82 budget is in such a state of disarray 24 right now that we don't know what progress we could make on 25 these priority 2 and 3 until we have a better idea, once we l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ____ _
34 7..
~,
1 see what we get out of Congress.
2 COHHISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see, that must also 3 sean that you don't really know how much you are going to 4 have to pick up in
'83.
5 ER. DIRCKSt Yes.
6 CONHISSIONER BRADFORD:
The priority 1 items you 7 think will be completed in '82 regardless?
8 HR. DIRCKSs They are built into the budget for 9 '81-82.
So they are being worked on, they are unaff ected by 10 this question right now.
As far as: we know, in the '82 11 program that is true, also.
Pat again,,'82 is in such an 12 area of cloudiness that we vill just have to see where we 13 come out with the appeal that we are making.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Can you say a few more 15 words?
Essentially, you are doubling the dollars or going 16 u p by two-thirds the people effort.
Is this picking up 17 def erred work?
18 NR. LIRCKSs It is trying to get the program back 19 on the track that it had been previous to the reallocation 20 into the licensing effort.
l 21 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE:
These are people you would i
l 22 expect would be coming from other parts of, say, NRR, and i
23 once the licensing recovering is over, they would be moving 24 back to this area so that you don't expect a large amount of 25 retraining?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
35
)
1 MR. DIRCKS:
No.
I think what we 're trying to do 2 is make use of those people coming out of casework into the 3 saf ety technology area.
4 The decision unit on THI-2 cleanup is essentially 5 the same as
'81.
We expect some ability to keep the program 8 somewhat on track, and if we can pick up another staff
- 7. person, we vill do it.
When you deal with one or two staff 8 years, we just can 't be that accurate.
9 Then there is again, in the management direction 10 and support area, we are e'ssentially increasing to some 11 extent the number of people in this area, not agreeing with 12 the office request for additional f unds in this area, I 13 think until we get a better definition of what the funds
(
14 would be use,d for.
I think it's in the area of management 15 studies.
18 If we can move on, then, to the ICE -
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDa A couple of questions 18 before you do that.
In order to get some feel for the 191mpact of the so-called licensing recovering ef fort on all 20 this, I guess what I need is, in the earlier columns that 211s, the FY82 column, pre-the 58.5 sillion and pre-the 22 licensing recovery f und, does anything like tnat exist?
23 MR. CORNELL:
Yes, the budgeting submittal we sent l
24 down had the pre-licensing recovery budget.
25 MR. DIRCKS:
There is a chart in there.
ALDERSON F;EPoRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 36
(
1 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do we also have the 2 planned accomplishaents that go with these headings?
3 HR. DIRCKS We probably have it in the backup.
4 HR. CORNELLs In '83 ve have its in '82 I'm not 5 sure.
6 HR. DIRCKS:
We can get it for you.
7 HB. CORNELLs In '83 ve have not done that since 8 we went to OHB last yaar.
9 COHHISSIONER BRADFORDa It was done as a part s 10 the presentation to OHB, so that material does exist on 11 paper somewhere?
'2 HR. DIRCKS:
Oh, yes.
13 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would like to get that.
14 HR. BARRYa It's also in the congressional 15 submission, the so-called Green Book.
16 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
You've not done this in 17 ths last vaek?
18 HR. CORNELL:
No.
19 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO Can I ask on the management 20 direction and support, you had zero dollars for '82 and nov 21 you 're going up to $100,000.
Could you just give me a clue 22 a s to what it's going to be used for?
4 23 HR. DIRCKS:
In the office request I believe they 24 wanted f unds, I think it was for manacement study.
25 HR. DENION:
Mainly the resources.
Since we have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
37 1 gone to a matrix organization to help us decide between 2 project managers and technical branches and how to fine the 3 work, study the flow of management controls in a matrix 4 organization.
5 We don't now what that will cost, so we ended up 6 with a number and EDO has provided a smaller number.
But we 7 think we would need such a study eventually to help us 8 improve the control in this matrix f ashion..
9 ER. DIRCKS:
I agree with Harold that we need some-10 thing there, and I think we are just talking about the 11 amount and the type of study, and once we firm it up we can 12 start talking about funding.
13 The next program is the Inspection & Enforcement 14 Office.
15 (Slide.)
16 As you can see on this one, we basically agreed 17 with the request put in by Mr. Stello.
H r, is very forceful 18 in his presentations.
19 Ihe basic difference -- and it is scattered 20 through the proposal and there's really hardly any 21 difference in the amount that was requested and the amount 22 that we approved, and I can go through them if you want to.
23 But essentially, it is a program that will achieve the basic 24 objectives outlined in the PPPG and in the Commission-25 approved program.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can you say a few words ALDER 3oN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
38 p a-1 about what was embedded in your recommendations with regard 2 to this particular nuclear data link?
3 HR. DIRCKS:
I was afraid you were going to ask 4 that question.
The nuclear data link -- what is embedded in 5 this is basically f unding the program that we felt the 6 Commission had approved, following on the development of the 7 prototype.
The pitarring now has been somewhat confused by s
8 two factors.
9 One, the restrictions placed on the riogram in the 10 Udahl authorization, the development of the prototype, and 11 finally, the prohibition on spending any funds in '82 on 12 this program thtt has been laid down by the Bev111 13 Appropriations Subcommittee.
14 As you know, we are appealing tha t to the extent 15 ve can to allow us to continue the prototype program at a 18 funding of one or 1.3 million dollars.
Folloving that proto-17 type development, the Commission has indicated it would make 18 a decision on its role in emergencies and the type of system 19 tha t is needed to assist it in its role.
20 Assuming that the Commission is going to come back 21 from where it had startea out from, we are making a proposal here that would continue the nuclear data link at 22 23 essentially to pickup essentially where we left off.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Where is that?
Is that 25 spread through several items?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
39 1
HR. DIRCKS4 It's covered under emergency 2 preparedness.
3 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO Is that the five million?
4 HR. DIRCKS:
We have 54.8 million in fiscal '83.
5 HR. BARRY:
There are other things in there 6 besides that.
7 HR. DIRCKS:
$4.8 million of the $6 million is the 8 data link.
9 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
Can I ask you another 10 qustion, it's probably naive, but I have to get familiar 11 with what is involved.
On the first iten, reactor 12 engineering construction, what is in'rolved in the dollars 13 there?
What sort of things are involved in those?
14 HR. DIRCKS:
Let me just briefly review a couple 15 of elements in that whole reactor engineering and construc-
~
18 tio n.
That would include all the operating license inspec-17 tions, LWA, pre-op, vendor inspections and environmental 18 qualifications inspections.
19 In here is f unding for the environmental qualifi-20 cation of safety-related equipment and support to the NDE 21 van, the non-destructive examination van.
I don't have a 22 breakout of that 51.8 million, and I think we could have 23 that somewhere.
24 HR. TRINER:
There's a million dollars in 25 independent measurements and $500,000 in environmental qualification and non-destructive examination van.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I40 7..'
1 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s Thank you.
2 HR. DIRCKSs I can go through these major -
3 CHAIRHAM PALLADINO:
I'm just trying to get a feel 4 for what some of these things might imply.
5 COHEISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have any lawyers in 6Vic's 10227 7
HR. STELL0s None vitb degrees.
8 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE There had been an issue at 9 various times of whether ICE should have its own complement i
10 of lawyers.
11
'CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s You recisted that?
12 HR. STELL0s Yes.
13 HR. DIRCKS:
There 'as been resistanzo from other 14 quarters, too.
15 COHEISSIONER BRADFORD:
I had the impression that 16 the resistan e came primarily from IEE.
17 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s Are you resistant to lawyers, 18 or are they resistant to you?
19 HR. STELL0s I hope it's some of both.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs There is a serious issue
{
211nvolved here, and it doesn 't show up just in Vic's 22 manpower e At some point where we discuss the ELD budget, we 23 do need a feel for whether in view of the demands that the 24 license recovery binder is making on ELD, that you all are 25 still getting adequa te legal support, in your view, for the l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG:NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
61 1 enforcement actions.
2 HR. STELLO:
I will address that now if you wish.
3 One indicator of how well we do is to watch our record of 4 how quickly we get our enforcement actions out.
I have set 5 as a goal targets to shoot for to make sure enforcement 6 actions move pretty quickly.
Thus far, we have been 7 averaging about 18 days from the time inspection report is 8 final to the time the report or enforcement action is taken, 9 whether it is a civil penalty or whatever, and that 10 obviously has highs and lows.
11 If we're issuing an order we take action even 12 bef ore the inspection, report comes out.
II corrective 13 action is needed, if it a civil penalty,, then we wait until 14 the report is out and take action.
Thus far, we have not 15 run into any difficulties at all, and I have no reason to 16 believe that we vill.
17 We have the commitment to keep our work on a high 18 priority and thus f ar I see no indication that that will 19 back off.
And if it does, I will be shopping because I 20 think it does not mee.
- c okfactives if we have to take our 21 enf orcem ent actions too far away from the time that the 22 viola tion took place.
So everything we are doing is trying 23 to compress it, and so far, we've had full cooperation, and 24 I've had no indication that that Jill change.
25 ER. DIRCKS4 There is an item in IEE dealing with ALDERSON PEPoRTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202i 554 2345
86 2 1 the training center.
I think we have one million dollars'in 2 there for the training center a t TVA.
We are still 3 requesting that amount of funds.
This would enable us to 4 build on the TVA f acility.
It would be a very effective way 5 of getting a training facility of our own.
6 There is a question I think about the housing 7 accomodations for our people at the site. - We a re still 8 hoping that the housing accomodation problea can be worked 9 out and we vill push on with the request for a million 10 dollar training f scility.
11 CHAIEHAN PALLADINO:
Where is that?
12 HR. DIRCKS That is under ragion n a.dainistrative 13 support.
14 Under enforcement investigations and special 15 programs we are recommending that two additional PAT teams 16 be established.
That would be about 11 people.
That would 17 bring us up to seven PAT teams -- oh, five, I'm sorry.
18 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you intend to have those 19 with a regional distribution of people?
Would the new teams 20 be here at headquarters, or is that too far away?
21 ER. STELL0s With the difficulty we are having, my 22 projection is we are only going to be able to get then 23 staffed if we rely on regional dtstribution.
It is 24 extremely difficult to get someone to move to Washington.
25 Since the only hope I have that we vill get there ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON.'O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
43 n..
1 is relying in large measure on getting a number in the 2 regions, we'll try to do whatever we can to get them at 3 headquarters, but I am not optimistic.
'4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Given that issue, somotime 5 ago, I guess several months ago, we had sent to OMB proposed 6 legislation for improvements in at least paying f or transpor-7 tation costs or moving expenses and so forth, particularly 8 focused on resident inspectors.
Has there been any response 9 from OMB7 to MR. BICKWITs There have been some oral 11 responses.
We will be coming out with a paper shortly to 12 advise you of those responses and recommend a course of 13 action.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic, does your budget -- or 15 do you know whether the budget includes those kinds of costs 16 that we had worked out on paper?
17 MR. STELLO:
The IEE budget does not.
I don't 18 knov if the Comptroller has any funds at all.
19 HR. DIBCKSr I'u going to dig it out for you 20 here.
All right, let's move on to nuclear materials safety 2 and safeguards.
22 (Slide.)
23 Here, thera is a slight difference between the 24 office and ourselvec; so slight it is hardly worth I
25 mentioning.
I think they asked for 326 people and we l
_5 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
44 1 recommend 320.
There's a difference of two million dollars 2 and that is in a set-aside that I will get into when I get 3 down the list.
4 The first decision unit is fuel cycle licensing.
3 That includes safety and environmental reviews of fuel cycle 6 licensing, including re e-evaluation of existing regulations, 7 a point that John Davis is stressing.
It provides resources 8 for the West Valley cleanup project, so essentially, there 9 is no disagreement between ourselves and the office on that in amount.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is there basic agreement 12 now between us and DOE on how much effort we will be putting 13 in on West Valley?
14 MR. DIRCKSs I think there is a basic agrcement in 15 principle.
We have to sit down and work out the words in a 16 memorandum of agraesent.
I think that is sc'1eduled for 17 October.
John?
18 MR. DAVIS:
Yes, we have been working for sometime 19 with DOE to cc;e up with a written memorandum of 20 understanding by law.
It shouit be finished by the first of 21 October.
We hope to have it comewhat in advance of tha t.
22 We have sbout two issues that we are dealing with a t the 23 mom ent.
24 MR. DIRCKS:
Transportation safety -- essentially,'
25 that program continues but there's increased funding in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 'IRGINTA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
45 1 there far package reviews cast review, package review.
2 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Where would it show up the 3 assumption in DOT's regulation on how much effort v6 will or 3
4 vill not be putting out, based upon any kind of an 5 assumption we might make on whether DOT's regulation is 6 final and the review of such things as DOE packages?
7 HR. DIRCKS4 That would be under the safeguards.
8 HR. DAVIS:
It.comes under safeguards 9 transportation approval in that particular area.
10 CONHISSIONER AREARNE:
And DOE packages?
11 HR. DAVIS:
DOE packages are in the transportation 12 segment.
He do assume in transportation section.
We do 13 review DOE packages; however, we do not assume that DOT will 14 require that we review DOE packages.
If DOT were to require 15 that, then we would either be at the point of backlogging 16 some DOE effort or we need some more resources in that area.
17 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would that be substantial 18 or minor?
19 HR. DAVIS:
It depends on the significance of the 20 review.
The way it is righ t now, it looks as if we have 21 about six san years of DOE effort built into this.
The l
l 22 eff ort on DOE packages.
23 COHHISSIONER AHEARNE:
And if DOE vere to require 24 --
I 25 HR. DAVIS:
If DOE were to require it, we would l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
)
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
46 1 have to -- it depends on the signif J eance of them.
I would 2 imagine that DOE vould aske some remarks about we may be 3 delaying come of their movement unless we can advance our 4 a pproval.
5 If that's true, then we wor;d need more 6 resources.
We would review our prioriti'es f or the licensing.
7 HR. DIRCKS:
Materials licensing is essentially 8 the only area where *fe had a bit of difference between what 9 the office recommended and what we are recommending to the 10 Commission.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is a substantial 12 reduction.
13 HR. DIBCKSs It essentially deals with the 14 set-asid e, a nd that is under 10 CFR Part 51, the proposed 15 environmental review.
The account on environmental quality 16 issued its guidelines about a year and a half or two years 17 ago, and it dealt with exempting certain facilities from 18 NEP A reviews.
19 Uhat NHSS had done, and the regulation was 20 proposed to the Commission, to comply with this EE0 21 guidelines.
In the meantime, NMSS had gone back to review 22 the sort of validity of those suggested exemptions, and 23 found out that there is some reasons to scale back the 24 number of f acilities that would be brought in requiring the 25 f ull-scale NEPA reviews.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINtA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
47 1
What we would like to do is firm up our proposals 2 in this area, consult with CEQ and come back to the 3 Commission with a proposal.
That's why we are recommending 4 that four people and essentially two million dollars be with-5 held from this budget ehile we go through this process.
I 6 think John Davis is even more convinced today than he was 7 when we put this budget together that there is a possibility 8 here of saving four people and two million dollars.
9 John, do you want to expand on that?
10 HR. DAVISs No, that's basicall.- the situation.
11 We are f airly optimistic that this new information, -- the 12 new information is basically data from licensees which we 13 are now in the process of confirming, plus some new ac, tion 14 on contingency planning which we think will present a new 15 view of the environmental impact of these particular exempt 16 f acilities.
17 HR. DIRCKS:
Now, contained under this general 18 heading of materials licensing is the radiographer certifi-19 cation program that we vill be coming to the Commission with 20 very shortly.
In the area of safeguards, essentially we are 21 talking about a slight reduction in terms of people from 22 fiscal '82 to fiscal
'83.
No real reduction of funds.
23 Included in there are the licensing reviews for 24 fuel cycle and reactor facilitiesi the coverage of the IAEA 25 agreement; threat assessment; development of regula tions in l
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
48 1 the safeguards areas; and there are three essential decision 2 units-that we have lumped under safeguarda, reactor fuel 3 cycle, transportation and export.
4 High level vaste management --
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Wait a minute.
To get back 6 to the question I asked previously, what are the assumptions 7 you are making under DOT regulations?
8 MR. DIRCKS:
John?
9 NR. DAVIS:
If the DOT regulation becomes 10 effective and if that means that we no longer approve 11 routes, then the reduction is shown from '82 to '83 in 12 manpower, about 21 to 19.
There are other things that are 13 also included in that reduction, but the route approval is
(
14 backed up there.
15 M". DIRCKS:
I mentioned high level vaste 16 management, and there is a reduction in funds from '82 to 17 ' 83.
That includes development of review procedures, 18 regulations, tech guides, rate guides, site screening and 19 characterization reviews, and evaluation of the DOE RCD 20 program.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs I have a question on that.
I l
22 would expect our high level vaste managemen; activities to l
23 increase.
Why do you have a decrease?
1 24 MR. DIRCKS:
We funded contracts through the 25 '81-82 period.
I think what we are doing there is costing ALDERSON PEPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG:NtA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
69 1out these contracts.
He don't have to obligate additional 2 funds in '83; we are living off sort of a backlog.
3 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think in part -- and
(
4 correct me if I'm wrong -- didn't the Commission give you 5 sore t? tan you asked for in this area last year?
6 HR. BARRY:
Yes.
7 COHHISSIONER BRADFORD Anu that is reflected in 8 the FY82 numbers, r..r.sentially?
9 ER. DIRCKSa We a re living off that.
10 HR. CORNELL:
The generosity of last yeare 11 COHHISSIONER BRADFORDs But that does -- that 12 specifically does contemplate as one of the accomplishments 13 the issuance of the technical rule in final form?
14 HR. DIRCKSt Oh, yes.
It includes maintaining the 15 program as scheduled.
I think it includes receiving a site 16 development report or characterization report in fiscal 82.
17 CONNISSIONER BRADFORD'
- i t that level of f unding, 18 NRC stays c'.f the critical path as far as the repositories?
10 HR. DIRCKSs Yes.
20 COHH1SSIONER AHEARNEa How many characterization 21 reports does it assume in 837 22 HR. DAVISa Three.
T. believe, sir.
Three over a 23 two-year period.
24 HR. DIRCKS:
One in 82 and two in 83.
25 HR. DAVIS:
Which we undersrand is the latest DOE ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 50 I schedule.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Does it have any money in-2 3 there for WHIPP?
4 HR. DAVIS:
There's no money in here for WHIPP.
5 HR. DIRCKS Lov level vaste management, again, 6 the proposed budget carries out the program as approved by 7 the Commission.
In this, it also includes assistance to aagreement states.
It anticipates an application for a lov 9 level vaste fight I think in fiscal 82.
I think I had that 10 correct.
11 HR. DAVIS Just a moment, I'll check.
12 ER. DIRCKSs The uranium recovery licensing 13 p ro g ra m --
(
14 HR. DAVISa Yes, sir, it is in there.
15 NR. DIRCKSs Possible application in 82 for lov 16 level vaste.
17 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
What is going on with regard 18 to lov level vaste management?
In other words, is this the 19 amount necessary to take care of one application, or is 20 there more?
21 HR. DIRCKS:
No, this includes the development of 22 rate guides, reviav procedures, licensing documents, tech 23 guides, astistance to agreement states.
It's all lumped 24 into this ope decision uait.
i l
25 COHHISSIONER AHEARNE:
Two amendments?
l i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
51 1
HR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
2 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
I realize this is not just 3 an NHSS question, but did you make any assumption about 4 anymore agreement states coming in in 83 or any current 5 agreement states going out?
6
'HR. DIRCKSa I think there 's a possibility of an 7 agreement state coming in.
We haven't made any assumptions 8 about agreement states going cut.
Is tha t righ t?
9 HR. DAVISs We have no assumptions either in or 10 out in our budget.
11 HR. CORNELLs If additional agreement states come 12 in, NHSS needs would go down and state programs needs would 13 go Up.
We really haven't made any assumptions along those 1411n es.
15 MR. DIRCKS:
Uranium recovery licensing.
16 Essentially, staffing stays about the same.
The program 17 dellars is essentially about the same, so there is no major 18 change in the uranium program.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa What is happening with 20 this idea of moving that activity oct vest somewhere?
21 HR. DIRCKS:
That is contained in the 83 program.
22 We are moving along that line, and we would be coming up 23 with a proposal to you very shortly.
I have seen a drafc of 24 a paper on that, so it is coming.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Is there somethina in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
52 1 budget?
2 HR. DIRCKSa There is no budgetary impact, so it 3 wouldn't be in here-4 HR. CORNELL Jther than moving people and 5 household goods.
6 HR. DIRCKSa That would not have very much of an 7 impact.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How big a move could that 9 be?
10 HR. DIRCKSa Forty, 43, 45 to start off.
11 COHEISSIONER GILINSKY:
So the plan would be to 12 move existing units more or less intact?
13 MR. DIRCKSs Existing or new hires.
Now, the lest 14 of the program areas is Research.
, 15 (Slide.)
16 Nov let me mention, the budget proposal is based 17 on the long-range research plan that Bob Minogue has 18 developed and transmitted to the Commission.
It does not --
19 it has not f actored in the ACRS recommendations, although 20 Bob Minogue has had the advantage of the ACES comments.
He 211s evare of them and can discuss them.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s What is the problem following 23 the ACHS guidelines?
24 HR. DIRCKS4 We didn't really get it until today.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Oh, I see.
I thought they l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.,,o l
53 l
l 1 van ted a phase-out.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And the LOFT issue they 3 raised a year ago.
4 HR. DIRCKS:
But in the meantime, t!e Commission 5 had been aware of the ACRS recommendations and had developed 8a LOFT program after hearing those recommendations, which is 7 essentially a program envisaging about 45.5 million dollars 8 for the LOFT.
9 COMMISSION'R AHEARNE:
The big difference is that 10 ve proposed phasing it out a year later than they did, and 11 going down to a maintenance level for a long time.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What do we get -- why are we 13 not agreeing with the ACRS on the LOFT?
14 HR. DIRCKS:
Let me turn to Bob, and he can tell' 15 you about the LOFT.
18 HR. MINOGUE:
In a sense, we both agree and 17 disagree.
The problem with LOFT is that the cost of the 18 f acility operations is very high.
That means the cost of 19 the research results is high.
As different people look at 20 this program to decide how best to wind it down, it has 21 completed auch of its initial mission, and there are some 22 initial dif ferences of opinion as to the value of residual 23 ex9eriments compared to the value of other program elements.
24 Basically, what the Commission did was to 25 astablish a LOFT special review group which was a broad i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
50 l
I spectrum both within the agency and outside, that took a 2 very careful scope of the experiments planned through to an 3 end-of-life way off in the future, scrubbed it way down, 4 still not nearly as much as the ACRS would have scrubbed it 5 to.
The end usult that the Commission approved earlier 6 this year is about half-way between what the 10FT special 7 review group recommended and perhaps a little bit closer to 8 the 10FT special review group than what the ACRS recommended.
9 So basically, it comes down to a judgment all as 10 to where you turn the machine off.
I think the ACRS 11 basically, as they look at relative priorities, f eel that 12 the inherent cost of thece results is so high they would 13 rather see the money spent somewhere else.
14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
55 1
CGENISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think that is an 2 important point that Bob made.
My sense from the ACRS very 3 strongly' has been that it was to free up monies to be spent 4 in other areas, not just to cut the program.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs In other research areas.
6 CONNISSIONER AHEARNEa Yes.
7 CONHISSIONER BR ADFORD:
I guess it is not clear to 8 se that that is really what this budget does.
9 HR. MINOGUE:
But this budget does not do that.
10 We do not agree with the ACRS.'
We have come down with a 11 dif ferent judgment cit 11 that basically runs over about one 12 fiscal year of program.
We would terminate the program 13 later than they, but we both agree that the program needs to 14 be wound down.
15 COMMISSION.ER BRADFORDs But at the point at which 16 you do terminate it, do you then shift the funding into 17 other research areas or --
18 BR. CORNELLa If you look at the '84 number, it is 19 a combination.
The research money does go down but not as 20 much as would be saved by cutting LOFT.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDa Wha t is the LOFT saving, 22 then?
23 MR. BARRY:
In '84 LOFT goes down $26 million and 24 the total budget comes back up from that lors about $13 25 million, about half of it.
Most of that is in research.
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
56 7..'
1 MR. MINOGUEa I think there is a long-term tail of 2 the dragon, though.
Richt now we are in a mode where much 3 of the work involves the speration of high cost f acilities.
4 That is not necessarily true forever.
So I think if you 5 look at the research budget long term, you ought to see a 6 taildown.
Even though some of these resources will go into 7 other areas and are going into other areas, there still is 8 on top of that basically a real taildown because we are more 9 or less getting out of the mode of trying to be the sole 10 owners and operators of the very expensive f acilities.
11 The emphasis now is on cooperative efforts where 12 these high capital costs c.re shared with other entities, 13 with common interests.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Ie it a fcir statement 15 that roughly about 40 percent of the LOFT savings stays in 16 the research program?
17 MR. MINOGUEs I don't really think of it in those 18 terms. In a sense I think it all stays in, but we developed to the budget by working up these individual pieces.
I didn't 20 start by assuming I had x dollars to play with and see how 21 1t got distributed.
We sat down, tried to look at the 22 program requirements and saw how that came out.
Then we did
)
23 some scrubbing.
But I think you could see correctly that in 24 the next year or so the monies that come out of LOFT are 25 being used in other areas because we are realizing economies AL*.IRSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
57
)
3...
1 in LOFT even today.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE Another way to look at it 3 is the LOFT program drops by $26,500,000, and the Research 4 budget drops by $10 million; so one way of looking at it is 5 that there is a shif t of $16 million within other elements e of the Research budget.
~
7 MR. MINOGUE:
We have other facilities.
If you go 8 even more years into the f uture where we are f acing the same 9 kind of discussion, BBF, the research utilization of ACRR, 10 are both going to involve the same kinds of questions.
I 11 hope we don 't get caught quite so flat-footed the next time 12 around.
I hope we will do more advance planning.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD Flat-footed in the sense 14 o f --
15 HR. MINOGUE This issue was raised on 10FT 16 basically.
The ACRS flagged this' a year ago, and up until 17 that point I don't think the issue had been faced.
18 MR. DIRCKSa Let-me mention where there are 19 significant dif ferences but not disagreements between the 20 of fice request and the EDO-recommended budget.
The biggest 21 amounts are in the advanced reactors.
Essentially that is 22 it.
That is the breeder question.
Now, I mentioned the 23 breeder question earlier in NRR.
24 What we would like to do here is recommend to the 25 Commission that we hold the breeder aside and try to work i
1 i
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
58 1 out some sort of an agreement with OMB and DOE regarding 2 what work is suitable for DOE to carry out and what work is 3 suitable for us to carry out.
What information do we need 4 to do licensing action?
What information do we want to 5 carry out sono sort of a research program?
6 He have Denny Roth designated to pull together 7 across the agency lines a recommended list of items that ne 8 should. be working on, a recommended list of items that DOE 9 should be working on and doing work in essence for us at our 10 request.
There have been a couple of meetings that Denny 11 has had with DOE people.
12 I think what we would like to do is to formalize 13 some of this and bring it back to the Commission for you to 14 review and then for us to pick up and discuss with OMB.
I 15 think if this is a high priority Administration program, I 16 think we should be able to carry a case to OMB and get it 17 funded in '83 and not, as we have found ourselves doing in 18 '82, be f aced with trying to fund it out of existing 19 resources.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now do you believe that you 21 can get it f unded above the $530 million mark?
22 HR. DIRCKS:
We are going ts give it a good try.
23 I think we can.
l 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Which item represents the 25 breeder?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
59 1
MR. DIRCKS:
Under advanced reactors.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s You are proposing?
3 ER. DIRCKSs That we hold that aside and allow us 4 to meet with DOE and OHB to work out a suitable sort of 5 division of work in this area.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could you get by with that 7 $2.5 million?
8
'HR. DIRCKS:
No, we couldn't.
9 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
If there is a project.
10 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
If there is a project.
11 NR. DIRCKS:
If there is a project.
What I an.
12 suggesting is that we move forward with the $537 million and 13 carry the breeder as an outside-the-budget item as far as we 14 can go to OHB, and once we firm up our requirements, make a 15 special case that this be added to the $537 million.
16 MR. BhBRY:
That $2.5 million you see is ED0's 17 recommendation for gas, HTGR, so there is zero in there for 18 the breeder.
19 CONHISSIONEB GILINSKY:
To what extent do these 20 numbers represent specific tasks, or are they just 21 generalizations?
22 ER. DIRCKS:
I think they started off as sort of a 23 pre-gross estimate.
What has happened since we have been 24 putting this together is that Denny Ross has gone down and 25 delineated a work statement, what would be needed in this l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
60 I agency to carry out a licensing review of the Clinch River 2 reactor.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I am not even thinking of 4 that.
Just any item, review of any category.
At what point 5 in the budget process do we become specific about just what 6 is going to be done under that heading?
~
7 MR. DIRCKS:
Do you mean in terms of adding 8 together tasks and coming up with a lump?
~
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, taking any one of 10 them at randon, oh, accident evaluation and mitigation.
Is 11 that made up of a number of specific tasks or is it made up 12 of a just a number of headings?
And I. guess at this point 13 it is just a matter of intuition.
14 MR. DIRCKS:
Well, I will let Bob pick it up, but 15 I think when you are dealing with something out two years, 16 it is going to be very hard.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa That is what I am asking.
18 I would like to know about the '82 budget.
At what point do 19 ve get specific about what goes under that heading?
20 MR. MINOGUE:
Basically what you are looking at 21 there, most of it comes back to very specific tasks in the 22 sense that they are laid out in the long-range plan in terms 23 of the problem areas that would be addressed.
Now, the 24 exact details of the program that addresses those, we are 25 riant now in the process of trying to really lay that out in ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG'NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
61 1 some detail for '83 and for even the last part of
'82.
2 COMNISSIONER GILINSKY Could you take any one of 3 those categories and give me an example of the level of 4 detail?
5 MR. MINOGUEa I won't use LOFT because we just 6 discussed it,'but take the next one on the list, accident 7 evaluation and mitigation.
This is basically the prog ra m 8 that deals with severe fuel damage.
Now, the fundamental 9 problem is the program as laid out is in long-range planning 10 by the group that looked at the degraded core cooling 11 question.
12 What we have done in the last month is to se. up a 13 special planning group of people within NRC and the various 14 laboratories to try to look Lc the dif f eren t f acilities 15 available, determine the kinds of experimental work tha't 16 would be required to meet the needs, and lay out 17 fundamentally a matrix of program elements that would be 18 what this program would carry out over the next year.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa could you take that and 20 give me what the subheadings are under that?
21 MR. MINOGUEs It is a report an inch thick.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the level at which 23 You spprove the project?
24 MR. MINOGUE Even in terms of the broad program 25 planning, the level of approving is the thickness of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 23 5
F2 1 long-range plan.
.It is a program with a lot of 2 sub-elements.
There is no blanket "Here is x bucks, go 3 spend it on fuel damage vo';k."
4 COEMISSIONER GI';INSKY a Can you take any piece of 5 that and give me a feeling for the level of detail?
6 HR. MINOGUE4 I talked this morning to staff in 7 terms of the approval, the one I am talking about, the fuel 8 damage work, and I said before you are through we vill have 9 the valls of this room plastered with a matrix of 10 information needs and the specific details of individual 11 experiments.
We vill know exactly then what it is we are 12 approving.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs But this has been 14 approved, at least at this current stage.
Now, what does it 151ook like when you approve it?
You have looked down to what 16 sort of level?
17 MR. MINOGUE:
At the level at vhich the general 18 f unding levels were set up.
It is the level of detail that 10 is in the long-range plan.
20 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Let me try.
Don't you 21 have some more detailed set of listings than this that are 22 called planned accomplishuents or something that you work 23 from?
24 MR. DIRCKS4 Yes.
At each level you a re building 25 up more.
We have, adding up the planned accomplishments, we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
{
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
s..'
1 come up to a decision unit level.
Then we add the decision 2 units to come up to the office.
3 COHNISSIONER BR ADFORD4 Aren't there a set of 4 planned accomplishments that go under the heading of 5 accident evaluation and mitigation?
l l
6 HR. DIRCKS:
Yes, in the long-range plan.
i 7
COHHISSIONER BRADFORDa And that is not unique to l
8 the Office of Research.
C HR. DIRCKS:
No.
Every office has -- you add up 10 the planned accomplishments and you assign to the extent 11 that you can two years from now what sort of level of effort 12 you want to put in, and then you multiply it out and come up 13 with a figure.
I 14 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
But to follow what I 15 thought was Victor's thought for a moment, then when you 16 actually get the money from Congress, as you will for FI '82 17 shortly, do you then send down with those, with that list of 18 original planned accomplishments and make what will become 19 the real allocations?
20 HR. DIRCKSa We get a better feel as we get closer 21 to the year, but I don't think that we apportion on the 22 basis of planned accomplishments.
23 MR. MINOGUE:
You may have to make allocation 24 bef ore you hear back f rom Congress.
We may have to decide 25 today whether to order replacement fuel for a test scheduled ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
64 r..
i 1 for two years froa now and things like that.
There are long i
2 lead times in fabrication.
This is more like~ running a big 3 constructiori project in tha t sense.
As you do it, there is 4 an overlay that you don't find in other parts of the 5 program, which is basically business operations.
We were in 6 effect making estimates of what various estimates will 7 cost.
i 8
We always try to cut the best deal we can.
We try 9 to plan the problem in a way that keeps the cost down.
10 There is a constant reassessment of program elements to 11 assure that they are relevant.
You don't want to spend the 12 money on stuff that is not going to be relevant.
There is a 13 constant feedback that results as they develop, so you are 14 constantly refining a program like this, always trying to 15 keep the cost down.
16 As we go on from month to month, many of these 17 figures shift around, reflecting this effort to be 18 businesslike in the operation of the program.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs If I understood Victor's 20 question correctly, or in any case, my own-question, it is 21 probably no well-served by taking this particular decision 22 unit as an example.
If one is trying to get a feel for how 23 the budget is built up and when the specific allocations are 24 made among the subcategories, we probably need one where 25 there isn't this sort of commitment at construction or what i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (a.02) 554 2345 t
i i
65 I have you that vinds up driving it over a long period of time.
2 HR. MINOGUEa Yes.
Some other elements of the 3 program e.re more like tech assistants.
s, 4
CR. BARRY:
When we submit our budget to OMB and 5 a1so submit it to Congress, you are going to find planned 6 accomplishments -- planned achievements is what we call them 7 -- rather discrete, where you can get down, for example, in 8 Harold 's area, and.we can tell you how many OLs we are going 9 to issue and so on and so forth.
10 When you get to Bob's area they go from reasonably 11 precise in the sense that he can tell you how many LOFT 12 tests he plans, to where in some of the areas it gets a 13 little more abstract beccuse of the nature of the research, 14 where he is going to do an effort to learn something but he 15 can't tell you precisely how many tests he will run cnd so 16 o n.
So it goes from a rather precise planned achievement 17 which we can identify for you in our submission, and in fact 18 tha t is the way the staff submitted their b udget to us, in 19 terms of planned achievements.
20, CHAIRBAN PALLADINO:
These planned achievements do 21 include problem areas in which you are going to carry on a 22 piece of research.
23 MR. MINOGUE:
A good example of the two ends of 24 the spectrum is that the LOFT test is one end and there we 25 have a very definitive list of tests, de tailed test i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
e 66 1 schedules and that sort of thing; at the other end is where 2 ve are basically try ing to support the work tha t Hanauer is 3 doing dealing with some of the human factors, where there in 4 effect we are sitting down with the licensing people and 5 trying to work out where there might be problem areas, where 6there are uncertainties, where there is much more'of an 7 element of taking a stab in the dark, and some very rough 8 estimates of the level of effort that might be needed to 9 resolve some of these questions.
Those are almost at the 10 opposite ends of the spectrum.'
11 I think the hardest part of the program in terms 12 of definitive commitments is LOFT, and probably the sof test 13 is the human f actors area.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa At what point do you 15 identify contractors?
16 MR. MINOGUE:
The contractors in this work to a 17 1arge extent are the national labs.
They are identified 19 prima rily by trying to decide amongst the various national 1916.1s where the best center of expertise lies to deal with a 20 particular issue.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that because it is the 22 best place for it to go or because it is a lot Lisier to 23 contract with that?
i 24 MR. MINOGUE:
Both the diversity of skills that 25 are available and the ease of handling some of the 1
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
U l
6' I contracting problems really pushes you towards going to the 2 national 1sbs.
My predecessors found tF t's and I am finding 3 the same thing.
It is very difficult to deal with some of
\\
4 these issues, both with the breadth of skills and the 5 contracting.
They both push you in the same direction.
6 Now, we do negotiate with these~ national labs.
7 They have s11 agreed to operate on this basis in the period 8 of setting up the program assumption letters, which are 9 going out right now for '82.
It will basically hammer out a 10 contract for fiscal '82 with each of these national labs 11 that will contain within it a lot of very definitive 12 milestones and planne1 accomplishments and things of that 13 t y p e.
14 CONHISSIONER GILINSKYa What f raction of the 15 expenditures go to the national labs?
16 MR. MINOGUE I believe it is about 85 percent, 83 17 percent.
18 HR. BARRY That is true for the whole agency.
19 About 84 percent go out to the national labs, 15 percent go 20 out on contracts.
21 MR. MINOGUE:
It is a combination.
I should have 22 added in my diversity of skills it is the availability of 23 hardware.
In the national labs there are facilities that 24 are available that others have paid for that we can 25 piggyback on, so that is another f actor.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
U 68 1
COHEISSIONER GILINSKY:
How long does it take to 2 put a contract out which does not go out to them, to the 3 national labs?
4 MB. BARRY:
A long time.
5 MR. MINOGUE:
I am sure at best it is between six 6 months and a year.
7 HR. CORNELL:
A year to a year and a half.
It 8 depends on where you start the clock.
It. takes a whole for S
9 Research to put the contract together, and they have to go 10 to the Office of Contracts and get it out. So it depends on 11 where you want to start.
I have seen contracts done in six 12 months and I have seen them take a year and a half.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we have any we.rk on 14 health effects of radiation?
15 HR. MINOGUE:
The health effects work is one of 16 the areas.
It was small in any event, and it has been cut
- 17. even further, the budgetary constraints and the fact that 18 this is not basically a health research agency.
We are now 19 1ooking to get this kind of information more from Health, 20 Education and Welfare and DOE.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY4 What is the level of --
22 HR. MINOGUE:
The health effects work I believe is 23 something like $2 million, $3 million.
That would be work 24 primarily oriented toward forms of exposure, isotopic forms, 25 unique things that NRC regulates.
The idea of using broad ALDERSON REPORT'NG COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
u 69 1 research --
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa I was a little surprised 3 tha t we were talking the other day about the Hiroshima and 4 Nagasaki data, which is being looked at again.
As I 5 remember, there was not any NRC participation in that nor 6 did there seem to be any NRC interest.
7 HR. MINOGUE:
But there is a great deal of NRC 81nterest.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs But I mean interest in 10 participating.
I take it that means interest in the 11 outcome.
But it seems to me that to understand a 12 complicated problem like that, one really has to be involved 13 in the discussions and to really pa r ticipa te.
14 MR. MINOGUE:
This is a very legitimate question 15 to bring up in this context.
I had discussions on this with 16 Phil Dircks.
It is a real choice that the agency has to 17 f ace.
'We can try to work with what used to be the 18 Fredrickson committee -- an d I don 't remember the gentleman 19 tha t has taken it over -- and try to be effective in making 20 sure that our research needs are met by the health-oriented 21 agencies, or we can try to do more work in that area and 22 sort of maintain a presence.
23 We really have made a conscious decision, given 24 tne budgetary conutraints, not to take the second track but 25 to rely on the committee.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
70 I
1 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I want to look into that 2 problem and talk to the people who worked on it more.
It 3 seems to me that is when we really ought to have a 4 presence.
I don't think it is our responsibility to develop 5the answer, but I think it is our responsibility.
6 MR. MINOGUE4 That sweeps you into the area of 7 dosimetry and epidemiological studies.
At no point iT the 8 history of --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was surprised at the 10 extent to which v'e rely on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki data 11 for estimating the health effects of radiation.
12 MR. MINOGUE:
It is an important component but is t
13 not by any means the only component.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY It seems/ to me a very 15 important component.
16 MR. MINOGUE:
I would not agree with that.
I 17 think it is an important component, but it is not by any 18 means dominent.
There are people who have put words in our 19 aouth over the years and have said that it is the dominant 20 com ponen t.
That is simply not factual.
A lot of the work 21 1s based on laborstory tests with various animals and 22 studies of interactions of radiation with tissue and things 23 lik e that.
The epidemiologic work from the victims of the 24 bomb shots in the second world var is at no point the major 25 factor.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
- v.
'1 71 1
COHNISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about the work on 2 eff ects of radiation on humans?
3 HR. MINOGUE:
There is a registry of transuranic 4 workers.
There was a feasibility study done a few years ago 5 by the old Office of Standards to try to look at the worker 6 populations of other NRC licensees to do york with lower 7 levels of axposure.
Basically the epidemiological work that 8 reliance is placed on has been the high levels of exposure 9 in the transuranic worker registry.
10 What I am really saying is the epidemiological-11 data base is quite limited.
That is why there has been so 12 much reliance put on other work.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs May I make a suggestion?
I 14 think we are getting into quite a bit of detail.
I don 't 15 vant to stop the discussion, but I thick maybe in the 18 interest of completing the overview, we might postpone that 17 and pick that up tomorrow.
I think you will have a lot more 18 time to go into that, if that is satisfactory.
19 HR. DIRCKS:
The other area that I might call your 20 attention to is the systems and reliability analysis.
Under 21 that decision unit heading is the risk methodology data 22 analysis work which is going on, reliability risk analysis, 23 transportation risk analysis.
Included under this -- or 24 excluded from under this is a set-aside on the event 25 reporting system, which is an effort that Research and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRG:NIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
72 1 Standards has ongoing, also requiring an effort on the patt 2 of ' Carl Michaelson.
3 There have been some difficulties in putting this 4 together.
We are suggesting that we hold it aside f or 5 f urther discussion as to where you want to go on this.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can I ask about this l
7 category?
Is that primarily contract work or is that work 8 that is also being done in-house?
9 HR. DIRCKS:
I will let Bob answer that, but I 10 think it includes both.
11 HR. HINOGUE:
This would be both, that's right.
I 12 think the matter has in fact been resolved.
What we are 13 talking about here is a system, the formulation of a system 14 to collect reliability data and the collection and analysis 15 of that data to be done partly in-house and partly out of 16 house.
17 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY I am talking about the 18 entire category, systems and reliability analysis.
19 HR. HINOGUEs That work is largely on contract 20 work. It is the risk assessment work.
Again, largely to 21 various national labs.
22 If I may, I think that the set aside has been 23 resolved in the sense that Michaelson has had some very good 24 discussions with INPO and it now appears that they are i
25 prepared to commit to collecting the kinds -- developin; the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
73 1 protocol to collect and collect and analyze the kind of dLca 2 we are talking about.
I think tha t the need for this item 3 has disappeared just in the last few days.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
Moving on to the next slide.
5 (Slide) 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY What is the technical 7 assistance?
Is thnt something here or do the labs own it?
8 MR. DIRCKS:
The equipment category in the 9 Research budget?
10 HR. SCROGGINS:
This is equipment related to test 11 f acilities, data acquisition systems, those things defined 12 as related capital equipment by DOE in the national 13 laboratories.
It is the specific classification of 14 equipment which is non-expendable.
15 MR. DIRCKS:
That is dedicated to our work.
3 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This is equipment we paid for?
17 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And this is what is we are 19 going to pay for --
20 MR. DIRCKS:
Under the equipment category.
21 MR. BARRY:
It is directly related to program 22 support, not equipment that we use internally here, and the 23 reason we separated it is because OMB has always insisted on 24 us identif ying a specific line item, hos much is capital 25 equipment.
We do not take title to it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
74 s..'
1 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
Who owns it?
2 NR. SARhY DOE.
3 Now, if we can reuse it from one project to the 4 next, we have the firrt call on it.
For instance, if there 5 was something salvageable, then we could use it in another 6 experiment.
We could then take equipment --
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s So in a sense we have a claim 8 on it?
9 MR. HINOGUE:
Some of the big things, the big 10 hardware things like pumpy we do take title to becat'se ther 11 can be reused in other f acilities, but this is more things 12 like oscilloscopes and things like that.
13 MR. DIB"KS:
The next slide essentially breaks 14 down headqua rters, administrative support, budget.
15 Essentially let me remark that the major difference is in 18 the rental of space going up by an estimated 52 million 17 there because of the general increase in rentals, and it 18 also takes into consideration any interim consolidation we 19 a re able to achieve.
Telecommunications --
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is the cost of an inter.i m 21 consolidation included in there?
22 MR. DIRCKS; Yes, it would be included in there.
23 Telecommunications are going up strictly beca use 24 of infla tionar*/ impact.
The rates have gone up and we have 25 to pay the rates.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
75
)
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Excuse me.
The rental of 2 space, does that include the cost of the move if we have one?
3 HR. BARRY:
That is just the rental cost.
Other l
4 costs are in some of the other line items.
5 MR. DIRCKS:
Whatever the cost is, we are able to 8 cover it.
7 HR. BARRY:
If we move from Bethesda here, you are 8 talking about 7.5 per square foot versus 13.5 per square 9 f oot.
10 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s Thank you. I'm sorry.
$t MD. DIRCKS:
There is a decrease in here estimated 12 due to the decrease of guard service as a result of any 13 interim consolidation we are able to achieve of a 5400,000 14 decrease.
15 The other item mentioned is the security 18 investigation. The total goes up considerably.
We are 17 trying to look into ways of reducing this item by 18 questioning the need for reinyestigations of personnel, 19 questioning the need for clearance on all employees as 20 opposcl to selected employees.
21 There are other options we would like to explore 22 to reduce this.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why is it going up?
24 HR. DIRCKS.
Because we are being charged mode.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
These are monies that we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VI.7GINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
s' 76
?..
4 1 have transferred?
2 MB. DIRCKSs Transferred to other agencies.
What 3 ve are trying to do is look into vays of reducing it by 4 reducing the number of people that we clear.
On the final 5 chart or almost final chart, this is a summary of the 6 offices reporting to the EDO.
Those are the staff offices.
7 (Slide) 8 COHHISSIONEE GILINSKYs On the training item, do 9 you have any figures on how many people that you train?
10 MR. DIRCKS:
I think' we do.
11 HR. BARRY:
You mean over the course of a year?
12 HR. CORNELL:
It is distributed through the 13 offices themselves and it can go back up again.
14 MR. DONOGHUE:
There is group training.
All 15 together around 1000 people take one type of training or 16 other during the course of the year.
Some o this is 17 training for how to develop critical elements, through 18 sexual harrassment.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs That sounds like -- No, I 20 mean more ICE training.
This is not included here?
21 HR. BARRY:
That is in IEE.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I didn't know you needed 23 training in sex harrassment.
24 MR. DONNELLY:
I can get you some numbers on IE 25 training, but I don't have any with me.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WAST;lNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
77 1
HR. DIRCKS:
Essentially in this EDO staff budget 2 it is a leve.'. program.
What we are doing essentially is 3 pcying back some offices as a result of the '81 movement of 4 personnel on slots.
ELD is actually decreasing somewhat 5 because we had to allow them to go o ter the ceiling in 6 fiscal ' 81 to work off that licensing case work review, and 7 we intend to bring them back down to 114 in fiscal
'82.
~
8 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
It ls 114 now?
9 HR. DIRCKSs Yes, and over ceiling.
We allowed 10 them to do that because they have such a high rate of 11 attrition that we didn't want to increase the ceiling, 12 essentially because it was a temporary problem that we could 13 work of f.
I don't know if you have any questions on this 14 one or not.
We can move on to the final chart.
15 (Chart) to I have outlined here a couple of points, the 17 deviations from the PPPG.
One deviation is the statement in 18 there, proceeding with standardization in NRR.
19 Kevin, why don't you explain what that issue is?
l l
20 HR. CORNELL:
The only problem there is the P0G 21 said that the staff should submit a plan by the end of FY 22 '82.
That date had not appeared in earlier draf ts.
There 23 was only a couple of staff years when we put this budget 24 together.
We didn't get the PQG until about a week or two 25 weeks ago.
What it 'will mean is probably more likely ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
78 1 reprogramming in FY
'82.
It has to do with when the staff 2 is supposed to come up with the plan, but the data only 3 appeared recently.
4 HR. DIRCKSs In the area of low level waste 5 dispcsal applications, the P0G forecasted six.
We are 8 forecasting four.
You are forecasting six?
7 HR. CORNELLs Yes.
8 HR. DAVIS:
What this amounts to is a slippage 9 from what is originally forecasted in '82 into this budget 10 period.
It is not any more applications, it is just that 11 the time period is different.
12 HR. DIRCKS:
The final item there is the 13 transurenic waste disposal licensing.
That ic hinged to 14 some extent en licensing.
There has been no legislation so 15 we anticipate no licensing in this area until some changes n
18 are made.
17, I mentioned the modification of current policy 18 that deals with the Priority 2 and 3 action items in fiscal 19 '82, and I think we have to come back to that item once we 20 see where we come out on fincal
'82.
I men tioned the 21 written and oral examinations of the reactor operators and 22 stretching that out from one to five years, the 20 percent 23 figure; and in the set asides I mentioned the Clinch River 24 breeder reactor that we have to deal with DOE and OHB on, 25 the Bingham Amendment, the HTGR early site reviews.
That ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- e 79
.d 1 occurs in
'84.
We are representing a set aside in
'84.
We 2 just don 't see an application arriving.
3 Bob Hinogue covered the event reporting system, 4 and we will get into that tomorrow when we come back to it.
5 The' environmental assessment Part 51 requirement, 6 we covered that with John Davis, and that is an issue that 7 we want to bring back to the Commission once we go through 8 this review.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do I understand set asides 10 correctly?
These are items that you did not include in the 11 budget 12 HR. DIRCKSs We did not include in the budget.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s
-- bu t are pertinent for 14 discussion.
You are really tossing it back to the 15 Commissioners as to what we would like to do about it?
Is 16 that a f air assessment?
17 HR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Althnugh in most of the 19 cases we have a recommendation.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I didn't mean it w'as a 21 f rivolous thing.
22 HR. DIRCKS:
I have a recommendation. I would like 23 approval from the Commission on that recommendation.
I 24 think the biggest item there is the Clinch River breeder 25 reactor.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
' 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTo 4. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
'r 80 g..'
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are we going to go over these 2 in some detali tomorrow?
3 MR. DIRCKS:
We will come back to them, yes.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good, because I don' t have a 5 good feel for what is involved.
1 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just as a matter of 7 technique, why do you list the analysis of plant data under 8 a set aside rather than a deviation f rom the PPPG, given 9 that the PPPG said that we were to use operating experience 10 as a major source of information?
11 MR. DIRCKSs Which cne nowT Where is that?
Oh, 12 that is the IOERS system that was taking a look at the 13 HP3DS, the LER system, and combining them.
There was a good 14 deal of confusion on how we should handle that, and really I 15 think what we were bringing to the Commission was a 16 problem.
Bob Minogtie just mentioned that he believed that 17 problem has gone away -in the past couple of days, and he 18 will be prepared to discuss that with you tomorrow.
19 This is not the whole Michaelson group operational 20 data.
That program is all right.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I understand that it l
l 22 is not the Michaelson program.
23 MR. CORNELL:
I think our feeling was that this l
24 program should go forward.
We were not clear when we put 25 the budget together exactly what the level of funding should ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- v 81 p..
I be.
The office came in with a level of funding of two staff 2 years and 52 million.
On'first review it sppears that that 3 is too inw, that it should be higher, and now what Bob is 4 saying is that we have gotten t he industry to do a good bit 5 of it, so maybe what we need is lower than originally 6 forecast.
7 ER. DIRCKS:
This is something Dennis Wilkinson
_ been working on in, conjunction with Bob, and we can go 9 into that in a little more detail tomorrow.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY By the way, does 11 Michaelson have any contract money".'
12 HR. DIRCKS:
Yes, he does.
13 HR. BARRY:
This year or in '83?
In '83 he has 14 51 8 million.
15 HR. DIECKS:
Let me just summarize.
We feel that 16 the proposal we have made is generally consistent with the 17 PQG.
The licensing program is in general accordance with 18 the Bevill schedules that we have been submitting.
The 19 resources to eliminate the excess reactor licensing backlog 20 is in the budget, but that backlog won't be reduced until 21 fiscal
'86.
22 We have increased the project managers in NRR in 23 accordancew the NP0G.
We have increased the resident 24 inspectors commensurate with the increasing operating 25 reactor sites.
The technical training facility is in there l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.,'r 82 1 for the IVA location.
We generally feel that the NHSS-2 programs have been adequately supported.
3 The research program is in general conformance 4 with the long-range research plan that Bob Minogue put 5 together and discussed with the Commission.
Interim 6 consolidation is included in this budget proposal, and we 7 have, although there is no budgetary impact, there is a plan 8.to move ahead with the regio alization of the uranium 9 recovery program, and we vill bring that to the Commission to as a separate item.
11 That basically covers the overview in as much 12 detail as we have this af ternoon.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
14 Any other questions for Bill?
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDs I do have.ome questions 16 but they will keep.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We have another session 18 tomotrow af ternoon, I believe, in which we will continue the 19 discussions.
20 Lan, would you like to say anything?
21 MR. BARRY:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest 22 that in the Commission office portinn of the budget, which 23 is not all tha t much, I have sent each one of you, and I 24 have more copies here today, a rather succinct package.
It 25 is a summary with my comments concerning each office.
The ALCERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGlNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
',+
83 pd 1 follar portion of it is really insignificant because your 2 Commission offices just don't use that much.
It is really.
3 one of people.
4 And I don't believe that you have all of your 5 Commission office directors here today. I see Sam and I see, 6 of course, the general counsel is here, but I wonder if it 7 would be better to schedule 30 minutes tomorrow with the 8 directors here so they can tell you what their problem is 9 and why, and then I think anything else I could add other 10 than what I have told you on here would be better said in 11 the markup session because it has to do with OMB and the 12 Hill and so on and so forth.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did you say that came ou'.
14 today?
Is this the sume?
15 HR. BARRYa That is the same as what you have 16 right there.
It has been submitted to each of you but I 17 have note copies here.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there comments attached 19 t o tha t?
20 HR. BARRYs Yes.
2; CHAIRHAN PALLADINoa Are they more succinct?
22 HR. SARRY:
Well, I also sent you a copy of the 23 budgets that were submitted to myself, and that is about 24 that thick.
25 HR. CORNELL 4 His comments are the last a ttachmen t ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
409 MWNIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
, = +
80 p.6 1 there.
2 MR. BARRY4 I'm sorry, yes.
There they are. You 3 are looking at then right now.
That is my portion of it, 4 just that Attachment 2.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
I think that is a 6 good suggestion.
The fact that these people are not here.
7 NR. BARRIs Maybe we could set it up tomorrow to 8 have the Commission directors be here at a certain time.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is our schedule for 10 tomorrow?
11 HR. CHILK We start at 2 o' clock.
12 ER. BARRY:
We could cover that and not tie up all 13 these people.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is that agreeable?
15 Is there anything else that should come up before 18 the Commission this af ternoon?
17 (No response.)
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINot I thank you gentlemen for the 19 presentation.
We vill probably have numerous questions 20 tomorrow.
Until tha t time we vill stand adjourned.
21 (Whereupon, at 4s50 p.m.
the meeting was recessed, 22 to reconvene the following day at 2s00 p.m.)
25 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. tNC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
s
, I
.5
.6 NUCLEAR REGULATOFX COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
'h COMMISSION MEETING in the matter of; BUDGET SESSION -- PUBLIC MEETING
- Date of Proceeding:
July 20, 1981 Docket flumber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript-thereof for the-file of the Commission.,
l Susan Harris Official Reporter (Typed)
-~~
r
/0&'
G '(h3 Official Reporter (Signature) e l
I a -j (3
-