ML20128L086
| ML20128L086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/16/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8505310283 | |
| Download: ML20128L086 (115) | |
Text
- o :'
ORIGINAL 1
4p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. ;,}
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
(x
't
- f 4
s.
i.
In the matter of:
(
1 Commission Meeting 9
Mid-Year Budget and Program Review h
j (Public Meeting)
"i i
Docket No.
Li F
i Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Thursday, May 16, 1985 Pages:
1 - 87 8505310283 850516 PDR 10CFR PDR PT9.7 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters I
1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
.I y-*
e'
(
1 D I SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held
- Thursday, on 3
May 16, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited,'and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 Informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103 It is 15 not part of the Formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or neliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement CO or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25
'+a UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA
- \\;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING (PUBLIC MEETING)
Mid-Year Budget and Program Review Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, May 16, 1985 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
NUNZIO PALLADINO Chairman of the Commission JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner LANDO ZECH, Commissioner FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
W. DIRCKS J. DAVIS H. DENTON J. ROE L. BARRY
- J. TAYLOR J. PARTLOW ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS 1625 i STREET. SUITE 921 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 202 293 3950 i
.]
m-
.)
~~
g C
1 p ROC EED i NGS 1
2 3
CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Good morning, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
The Commission is meeting this morning to receive 5
the mid year status report on agency expenditures and major 6
program accomplishments or progress towards the 7
accomplishments.
8 From this review, we should identify any areas in 9
which the Commission believes reorlentation of work or 10 objectives for the rest of fiscal year 1985 should be made.
11 The Staff has prepared Vugraphs for this report
'12 which are available to the audience on the table in the back 18 of the room.
The Staff has identified on these slides those 14 programs for which there has been program redirection or 15 program changes since the start of the fiscal year.
16 I should report that Mr. Roberts is still ill and 17 will not be able to participate in today's meeting.
18 Are there any other comments from other 19 Commissioners at this time?
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
23 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Then let me turn the meeting 04 over to EDO, 25 MR. DIRCKS:
Mr. Chairman, we are down here with all
r 3
1 the program directors.
I liken this meeting to a report of 2
the operations staff to the corporate board.
3 If I had to say anything in summary statement at the 4
beginning, I think It is a year that we have had a record of
- 5 accomplishment.
I think as we go through the program we can 6
I think we hope to instill the same feeling on your part, 7
that we have had a year in which we have succeeded in 8
accomplishing a substantial amount of work and can show some 9
progress.
10 That is on the accomplishment side.
11 On the resource side, we have our usual problems of 12 accumulating the revenues to support the activities, but wo 13 will get into that subject very shortly.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Make it short so that we 15 can get back to work and not blow our efficiency.
16 MR. DIRCKS:
We will move along as rapidly as you 17 will allow us to.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
If I can make one 19 request.
I notice there are a number of places in here where 20 you have the projected targets for the year and how much you 21
,have done so far.
22 Where the projected targets are more than 50 percent 23 larger than what you have accomplished so far, can you 24 Indicate as you go through, whether that is due to workload 25 not being as large as you anticipated it would be, or given
4
~~
1 the resources that we have, we just weren't able to do as much 2
as we planned.
8 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Or, the difficulties of 5
carrying out something.
6 MR. DIRCKS:
Right.
We will do that.
7 Jack will be the leadoff speaker, and then as we 8
come to each program, we will go through each program with.the 9
program director.
This year we are going to put a little 10 English on the ball, because instead of having Harold lead off 11 with his reactor program, we are going to have John Davis get 12 a chance to lead off with his. presentation.
We always feel s.
18 that John has been shortchanged at the end of these meetings.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Now we will mix them up a 15 little bit.
16 (Laughter) 17 MR. DAVIS:
I never felt that.
18 (Laughter) 19 MR. OlRCKS:
It is like John to be right up there in 20 the leadoff 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Harold, have you got 22 something you want to hide there?
23 MR. DENTON:
No.
John was disappointed the last 24 time we had this.
25 MR. DIRCKS:
I had to put up with John's grumbles
A m
-w, auL--
,,w,.
5 1
all year round because he didn't have a chance to take the 2
first shot.
So, this year we are reversing it.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Bill, do we also have 4
somebody who can speak for the Regions in terms of their 5
Interests in this, or is it basically program managers?
6 MR. DIRCKS:
It is. basically programs. As you know, 7
the Regions, for their program activities, do rely on the 8
Regions for their direction.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I was thinking more from 10 the resource standpoint.
s 11 MR. DIRCKS:
Well, I am sure the program directors 12 will give you an unbiased report on how they allocated those 13 funds.
14 (Laughter) 15 Jack?
16 (Silde) 17 MR. ROE:
The presentation will be basically in is four related parts, today.
19 First of all, we will give you an overview of the i
j 20 resource summary, both dollars and the FTE.
Len Barry and. Pat 21 Dougherty are here to fill in any details that may be 22 required.
28 Next, the program summary as Bill i ndicated, first 24 of off we will have the Nuclear Materials Safety and i
25 Safeguards Program and associated Inspection Enforcement
6 1
programs addressed by John Davis and Jim Taylor.
2 Then in the Reactor Regulation programs and 8
associated inspection programs by Harold Denton and Jim 4
Taylor.
5 And then finally for the last part of the program 6
summary, Bob Minogue will address the research program, t
7 As Bill indicated, or the Chairman, the asterisk on i
8 some of these is redirection, some course changes that we have 9
taken during the year, in this area i think that the 10 redirection is in the eye of the beholder.
There has been a 11 lot of changes as the day-to-day priorities change.
We have 12 indicated those that we think are significant.
13 We have put one slide in there that talks about 14 responding to external requests.
The reason we do that is to 15 indicate that this' program and resource summary is oriented 16 towards the ppg area, so there are certain activities that we 17 have not included in here.
Some of them have quantifiable 18 aspects.
19 Some of the things that we could put in here is to 20 provide you an assessment or summary of how many Commission 21 papers that you have seen from EDO, ope, OGC, the number of 22 Commission meetings, ACRS meetings, the number of export 28 cases, the number of Investigations and audits that we have 24 done, documents we have published, payrolls we have met, 25 hearings and appeals, state programs, assessments that we have
,.,,--.(
7
)
i 1
made, travel vouchers, international visitors accommodated, et 2
cetera.
We haven't given you more than just a glimpse, by 8
giving you an idea of letters to outsiders, questions to 4
Congress, and some of the FOI, to give you a sense of the 5
volume of those.
6 I would like to go first to the resource slides, 7
number one in the package, and highlight what we have as far 8
as our funds available.
9 (Silde) 10 You see that we have available'for expenditure 11
$451,681,000.
The interesting point now in our funds for 12 expenditure is that we previously had had a racision of our 18
'85 funds of approximately $4.3 million.
Because the time 14 clock for congressional action has expired under the 15 Impoundment Control Act, it has been reapportioned to the 16 Agency.
17 We have received some guidance from OMB.
It is.
18 don't spend it.
19 We are assuming that that racision will take place 20 as we go through the '86 appropriations process.
So, we have 21 got it in the savings account, and we think that we will be 22 giving it back at a certain time.
28 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Walt a minute.
Let me 24 understand this.
25 Congress set a period of time to act, but didn't
8
.~
1 act, which means we get the money back?
2 MR. ROE:
We get the money back.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Now OMB has told us, but 4
now you can't spend it.
5 MR. ROE They said, be judicious about spending 6
those funds.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
They are going figure out 8
a way to get it back.
9 MR. ROE:
They will get it one way or the other.
10 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
But, in 1986 --
11 MR. ROE I think that they have indicated in some 12 of their guidances to individual appropriations committees, 13 subcommittees, to take individual agency actions instead of a 14 global approach, that works with that deficit reduction 15 action.
That the intent of Congress will be carried out on 16 an agency or program-by program basis.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That will be for 19867 18 MR. ROE:
It could be taken care of in various 19 fashions.
20 It could be, if the appropriations bill was timely, 21 it could be taken care of with the 1986 appropriation, but in 22 t i rms to make racision against 1985 funds.
Or, there could be i
23 a reduction in our 1986 funding to take care of that funding 24 that couldn't possibly be carried over.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Do we have any
~
+ -
9 1
confirmation from the Appropriations Committee in fact what 2
OMG is telling us.
3 MR. BARRY:
I have fairly good word from the House 4
Appropriations Committee that in our FY 1986 markup bill for 5
1986, that they will also reduce FY 1985 by this amount.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
7 MR. ROE Current rate of obilgations, 62 percent, 8
which is about what is expected.
9 Next area is on chart 2, which shows our staff 10 utilization as of mid year.
11 (Silde) 12 You will notice that we are right around the 50 13 percentile.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right on the money, t
15 MR. ROE Each Individual program, you can see, is 16 a little bit above or a little below.
In cases where there 17 are differences around the 50 percentile, we are fairly well 18 aware of those reasons, if you want to address those, we can.
19 The next is where we stand on meeting unmet l
20 requirements and sources.
21 Essentially we have three major categories of unmet b
- 22 requirements at the mid year.
Salaries and benefits, a pay 23 shortfall, which is $1.5 million.
We have revised a 24 projaction of the amount of money that we will need to pay the 25 malaries associated with the work that is being performed, the
10 i
1 1
1 number of FTEs spent in overtime, et cetera.
And we feel that 2
that deficits about a million dollars.
3 Secondly, due to the change of the law associated 4
wi th relocat ic, from.one area to another, GSA's guidance to us s
5 is that those payments for the taxable portions of relocations 6
are to be paid back to the employees by the agency, a$d that 7
is going to cost us about a half mill' ion dollars.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So that is all included in 9
salaries and benefits?
10 MR. ROE:
Yes, that is included in salaries and 11 benefits.
12 Administrative support, we have increase in need for 18 training in the ADp area. We desire to meat t h a t'.
14 Then in travel, as you know we cut that back. We 15 have increasing programmatic needs. The' regions are conducting 16 more inspections and the funds are necessary there if research s
17 is to carry out programmatic needs.
18 Commission level offices, essentially about half of
\\
19 that amount, $30,000 is for Advisory Committee on Reactor 20 Safeguards to conduct about 13 more subcommittee meetings this 21 year than they held last year.
So, it is an increase in their 22 efforts.
1.
28 And secondly, there is approximately $40,000'more 24 investigations and audits carried out by both 01 and OlA.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Jack, on the salaries and l
11 1
benefits part, am I right in assuming that what you describe l
l 2
is that we are now going to fully implement this new authority 8
that GSA was given on helping to pay for relocation costs?
.\\
4 MR. ROE:
No, there is a discretionary part.
- And, 5
there is pretty much a mandatory part.
6 We are carrying out the mandatory part. The 7
mandatory part is basically that there are certain expenses or 8
moneys that are provided to'the employee, reimbursements that 9
are taxable.
And we are reimbursing,the employee for that tax 10 he paid.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What would it cost to do 12 the discretionary part?
18 MR. ROE:
I would say for a year period of time, it 14 would probably take us more or less than half million to two 15 million dollars. ~
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In addition?
17 MR. ROE:
in addition to this.
18 MR. DIRCKS:
We sent a memo down outlining some of 19 these options, and we did give an estimate of the cost.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
We recommended. I think, that we go for 22 the more substantial program.
But, we suggested we try to get 28 that through the appropriation process in our next budget go 24 around.
25.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
Having just spoken i
12 1
to the resident inspector in one of the regions, I know that 2
is still a matter of continuing concern to them.
And, it is a S
real d i s i ncere t i ve to attracting people into the program, 4
particularly to getting some of those experienced people back 5
into the regions, perhaps even to Headquarters.
6 I think unless we do something more on that, we are 7
going to have difficulties both in attracting those people 8
an'd retaining them and using them in other places where we
-9 can benefit from having that kind of operational experience.
10 MR. ROE:
I agree with you.
11 The only concern we have is funding constraints.
12 We are constrained in 1985.
And, as you see, we are trying to 18 modify the funds in 1986.
You are well aware of our budget 14 problem.
That is why 1 feel that we have to make an attempt 15 to get those moneys into the 1987 budget so that we can draft
'16 the program.
17 It is a matter not of whether we want to or not, it 18 is a matter of when we will have the resources.
19 MR. DIRCKS:
I think the estimate we had for the l
20 program we wanted was.around $2 million.
And it is difficult 21 to find reprogramming fields from which to get this money 22 right now.
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I support that view, though.
24 It really is important that we do something to alleviate those 25 expenses, especially from our resident people, and our region
13 1
people, too.
2 But, I recognize the program that you have worked on 8
is very expensive.
But to me it would be very hard for us to 4
justify.
But, it seems to me that perhaps it might be worth' 5
exploring whether other companies might be able to satisfy our 6
needs in a more reasonable way.
7 I hope you continue looking at that program.
It is 8
Important.
9 MR. ROE:
We are going to continue to look at it.
10 it is an expensive program.
The unfortunate part of the 11 program is for the benefit of the employee the government 12 absorbs a tremendous additional cost.
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I know that.
I appreciate 14-that.
That's why I say I hope you don't just stop there, but 15 explore other companies that might have a better arrangement 16 for us.
17 It is very expensive, and I can understand the 18 decision you made. But, it seems to me that we ought to 19 continue looking at it to try to find somebody that could 20 give us a better arrangement.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And maybe perhaps there's 22 a way to at least take a first step during these, the tough 28 budget years, with the anticipation that we do more down the 24 road rather than sit back and say, "Well, because it is going i
25 to cost a lot'we are not going to do anything for a few
14
'l 1
years, or at least until we can get the Congress to 2
specifically focus on it."
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
As far as I am concerned, it is 4
a kind of priority program that we ought to look at.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think it is, too.
6 MR. DIRCKS:
You have got to have this fine line 7
where we don't want to take one of the least-cost options 8
which has few benefits, and there will be a tremendous letdown 9
I think on the part of the staff if we -- if it looks like we 10 are going to be confined to that, we have to maybe try that, 11 but with the high hopes that we are going to get the funds to 12 go on the program that will give more relief.
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Not just the financial part of 14 it, too, which of course is important to our people, and l'
15 support that, but it also would allow us to move people 16 between regions, back to the Headquarters. We need some of 17 those region people and the resident people back in the 18 Headquarters.
I think that would be helpful.
And, vice 19 versa.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
I remember when l'
21 vjsited a plant fairly recently, one of the regional folks 22 who used to be a resident inspector several years ago.
In 23 fact, when I first met him.
He said, you know all I have done 24 is lose money.
I lost money when I moved from being a 25 resident to to one region; I lost more money when I moved from
15 1
one region to another.
And yet, he is a very capable 2
individual.
We are fortunate that he is willing to make those 8
kinds of sacrifices, but that is difficult to do.
4 MR. D I RC K S':
Oh, yes.
5 CHAIRMAN pALLADlHO:
Let me ask another question 6
with regard to this particular slide.
7 Have we asked the Congress for permission to 8
reprogram this much money?
9 MR. ROE:
Len, would you answer that question?
10 MR. BARRY:
No, none of this requires reprogramming 11 in the technical sense in terms of the ground rules that have 12 been laid out by both the author,ization committees and the
- f. -
la appropriation committee because, one, it doesn't break the 14 threshold of transferring funds in excess of $500,000 from 15 one budget category to another.
A budget category RR7 for 16 programs and have been pDS and pDA.
17 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
The reason 1 asked, I see the 18 salaries and benefits total $1.5 million.
Then I read that 19 the House committee has rejected FEMA's $5.5 million request 20 to adjust funds to pay for their people. And they rejected.it 21 because they said it is the fault of management.
They should 22 not have overspent.
28 MR. BARRY:
Right.
- See, in salaries and benefits 24 it affects everybody in this particular -- and we are not 25 taking a specific amount of funds, as an example, from NMSS
16
. r-(
1 and putting it into NRR.
2 MR. DIRCKS:
The programs are funded.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You are sure we are not going 4
to run into any trouble on this?
5 MR. BARRY:
I am sure.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
On the travel part, how a
much is that pinching us in terms of particularly regional 9
travel, getting inspectors out to the plants?
Is this having 10 a significant impact?
11 MR. I E:
I would say no.
If there is a
(*
12 programina t i c need for the money, we will fill that need.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How about getting project 14 managers out to their plants?
15 MR. ROE:~
l don't see any difficulty --
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
From HRR7 17 MR. ROE:
If there is a need there to allow them to 18 19 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we have made it clear that if 20 it is going to impact subst'antially'on high priority programs,
~
I 21 they are to come in to us.
We will find the money somewhere 22 in the organization.
.3 MR. TAYLOR:
We have had some cutbacks on meetings 24 and that type of thing. But, mission essential travel is being 25 maintained.
17 1
MR. ROE:
It is.
2 MR. TAYLOR:
We have cut back in a discretionary a
way.
4 MR. BARRY:
That's the reason you see the increases 5
here, because we just had to fund it, and this is only through 6
the first six months.
7 We will continue to fund high priority travel as we 8
need it.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are you going to be saying that 10 our shortfall is greater when we look to the end of the year?
11 Where are we going to get that?
12 MR. BARRY:
We have no difficulties taking care of 13 these requirements for the first six months.
And as you can 14 see -
are you referring strictly to travel?
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No, I'm talking about the whole 16 picture of salaries and benefits.
17 Are you going to have another 1.5 for the second 18 half?
19 MR. DIRCKS:
No.
I think what we are saying here, 20 this is for fiscal 1985.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's what i understood.
22.
MR. BARRY:
This should take care of what we what 23 has happened to us, and what we think is going to happen to us 24 in the remaining six months.
25 MR. ROE:
The sources are fairly straigntforward
18 1
over there.
The only one that I would remark about in this 2
area is from administrative support category.
3 As we are aware Region.I is now sort of reflecting 4
the same thing we have at Headquarters, that they are in t h r ee 5
separate buildings with the desire to consolidate.
6 They are having their difficulties to move through 7
that process.
So, we have taken away the money for this 8
fiscal year for that proposed move and consolidation of Region 9
1.
We will probably see that need to be funded in the next
,i i
10 fiscal year.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why can't they find some 12 more space?
I was up there just a couple of weeks ago, and 13 there is a lot of new buildings 14 MR. ROE:
There is now, I think at the local level, 15 a sewer permit moratorium, which has slowed the process up 16 considerably.
17 Apparently all the sewer permits for the buildings 18 that are being built, are already spoken for.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But GSA is helping them?
20 They'are working cooperatively with ~ them?
21 MR. ROE:
I don't think the region has any 22 difficulty with the situation, as they realize the problem.
28 COMMISSIONFR ASSELSTINE:
I think that's a 24 disincentive for Region I right now.
I think of all the 25 regions, they have got the worst space situation by far.
+ -.
-,e
f 19 1
MR. ROE:
Yes.
{
J I
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let's get beyond the sewer 3
permit moratoria.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let's go on.
5 MR. ROE:
The next will be in the major programs.
j 6
The first one will be in John Davis' area for nuclear material 7
safety safeguards.
And Jim will talk about the 8
inspection / enforcement aspect.
9 John will discuss transportation material / fuel 10 cycle, managing nuclear waste and so forth.
l 11 (Slide) 12 MR. DAVIS:
As you know, of course, we are basically 18 the licensing office of everything other than reactors.
The 14 licensing'Is done both in Headquarters. But, a fair percen**
15 of licensing is done in a centralized manner from the regions.
16 Under NMSS, we currently have about 9000 licenses 17 which we regulate.
We have a flow of about 6000 applications 18 per year, which are processed, as I say, both in Headquarters 19 and in the regions.
20 We cover b a s'i c a l'l y the entire fuel cycle, that i s' 21 reactors, mills, high level waste disposal, commercial low 22 level waste disposal, fuel conversion, fuel fabrications, 28 reprocessing -- although there is no operating reprocessing 24 plant, we do oversee DOE's cleanup program at West Valley.
25 There are about 8900 radioisotope licenses for medical,
20 l
1 academic and industrial use.
2 We also license storage of fresh fuel reactors, 3
storage of spent fuel out of reactor pools, transportation, 4
and, of course, low level waste management-at the user sites.
5 I will look first at transportation.
Transportation 6
is an area where we provide the agency lead, if there is a 7
matter dealing with transportation, it flows through my 8
office.
9 We also in that lead role, provide the agency 10 contact with other agencies.
And there is a significant 11 amount of contact in this particular function, since f-12 fragmentation is fairly well fragmented throughout the 18 government.
14 in transportation some years ago we recognized a 15 coming interest in transportation. We have been doing our 16 certification role, as well as trying to look ahead to make 17 certain that the agency is in shape to handle any problems 18 that may come up in the significant increase in transportation 19 of large shipments for low level waste -- for high level 20 waste.
21 Right now though, there are about three million 22 shipments of radioisotopes made each year. About 94,000 of 23 these are made in shipments or in casks or containers which we 24 certify.
And, about ISO of these are spent fuel shipments.
25 So, it is a fairly active endeavor even used at the present
21 1
time.
2 The largest number of these three million of course, 8
are done in what are called Type A containers, which basically 4
we have no involvement in other than to make sure they are 5
loaded properly and unloaded properly.
The total 6
transportation comes under DOT, unless something goes wrong.
7 If something goes wrong, usually NRC gets called.
8 We, in looking at our workload, we did forecast 110 9
planned certification cases this year.
A certification case 10 can be anything form a simple amendment to an existing cask to 11 the complete review of a new cask. And we basically do this by 12 using modeling and computational approval of the cask.
Not
-~
18 by testing.
14 We completed 71 of these cases versus 110.
Both 15 receipts and completions are up.
Receipts are about 50 16 percent of what we forecast, completions are about 64 17 percent.
18 Our experience -- may particular office has been in 19 business for years and years and years. We have quite a 20 history of flow of applications.
And we usually forecast out 21 pretty good.
If you look at our materials, where the big 22 workload is, or the caseload is, we usually come within 5 28 percent -- our forecasts usually come within 5 percent of 24 actual 25 And looking at this, some cases are easy, some cases
22 1
are difficult.
And when you get at it, you can do the easy 2
ones fast, and the more difficult ones take more time. So, we 8
do fluctuate during the year, but by the end of the year we 4
will probably be quite on target.
5 in addition to the certification, what we, as I 6
mentioned, are looking forward to a rapid increase in the 7
attention given transportation.
Last year we, or the 8
Commission published a policy statement on our role in 9
transportation accidents.
And, our role in transportation 10 accidents basically is, we are not in charge.
11 This year, in fact in April, with IE and Region 12 Ill we had a Joint Headquarters-lllinois-Region ill exercise 18 having to do with transportation.
My impression is we did 14 relatively well.
I guess the biggest thing we learned is that 15 the NRC definitely has a tendency to take charge.
And so.
16 consequently we had to make certain -- and Wayne Kerr will be 17 making certain in his upcoming meeting with state officials, 18 that they clearly understand what that policy statement 19 says.
20 There is a growing interest in transportation.
We 21 will be having a transportation seminar in early August of 22 this year with us and DOT to explain to the states, the local 28 government and the Indian tribes, our roles and 24 responsibilities.
DOE will also be present, and of course it 25 will be an open meeting.
There has been a great deal of
23 4
1 interest expressed in this.
2 part of this seminar it is being done in Chicago, 3
and we will have set up actual casks and so forth for people 4
to see.
And Illinois has agreed that they will demonstrate 5
some inspections and so forth.
We anticipate it will be 6
pretty interesting.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think that is a very S
useful thing to do. The sense'l get is there is a great deal 9
of interest in the states on that.
I think something like 10 this will help.
11 MR. DAVIS:
We hope so.
It is an area that we think
(--
12 we are still in front of the curve of interest.
But, that 18 curve moves very rapidly.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
More people talk about 15 MRSs and the more repositories that get identified, the more 16 interest you will see.
17 MR. DAVIS:
The corridor states are extremely 18 interested.
One of the things we have been doing, of course, 19 recognizing there will be an increase in the movement of large 20 sh.i pmen t s, we have been looking at the existing rules to make 21 certain that the rules are the proper rules. We don't want, 22 for example, for DOE or the industry to begin to build a new 23 generation of casks and then find that we have to change the 24 rules halfway through.
25 So, we have two studies looking at this.
One we
24 1
call the modal study, and one we call the institutional 2
relationship study.
The modal study occasionally attracts 8
interest.
4 What the modal study did, it went out and surveyed 5
actual accidents that have occurred that didn't involve 6
radioactive material, just actual accidents which have 7
occurred.
Then, using computational techniques the forces 8
associated with these accidents are being compared against the 9
specifications of our rules. And, of course, what we are 10 alming towards is, identify what we call the outlying 11 accidents, those where the forces would exceed our rules.
4 12 And we will be examining these accidents as to two 13 things; one, probability. Would there be an actual release?
14 And, should there be some regulatory changes?
15 But, we hope by going through this effort we will 16 make sure that the regulatiens are proper.
17 Also, it has been some years since we did a=GEIS on 18 the transportation, and we will be updating that.
So, it will 19 be, I think, usable at the time that it will be needed.
20 I am going to turn now to the materials program.
21 The materials program is our word for the
~
22 radioisotope program.
To a large degree, this has been
)
23 decentralized to the regions.
In fact, except for two 24 licenses or two types of licenses, that decentralization has 25 been completed.
25 1
in the course of decentralization, we found it 2
necessary to more standardize our guidance to make it a 3
little bit more precise.
And the first bullet we have here, 4
complete nine of fifteen standard review plans relates to 5
that.
6 It is more formalization of regional guidance.
They 7
do have guidance now, but this will formalize it.
8 We do anticipate we will be on track in the 9
production of these.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are the regions satisfied 11 both with the guidance they are getting now and with the 12 amount of resources that they have to do the materials 18 licensing work now that it has been assigned to them?
14 What prompts my concern is, I know in the early 15 stages of regionalizing this effort, there were some concerns 16 on the part of some people in the regions that first the 17 program officers were doing more of an inspection, and some 18 kind of formal arms' length inspection effort of what they 19 were doing, rather than helping cooperatively.
And second, 20 the resources had been underestimated.
21 MR. DAVIS:
In NMSS we have not done that.
I 22 wouldn't even call it audit of the region. We have a term for 23 it, national program review.
In fact, DIA just audited us.
l l
24 think, if you don't have the results, the results are 25 relatively positive.
o 26
'f 1
The way we'look at it, we have a continuing 2
interchange with regions by telephone.
Then also, we have 3
occasional, what we call counterpart meetings where they meet 4
face to face and discuss problems.
5 Then annually, we do go out and do an on site 6
national program review.
We are just as interested in a 7
national program review for the regions upfeed as to problems 8
they are having with headquarters, as our downfeed to them.
9 Maybe that is turned upside down, but of problems we have with to them.
We are committed to the fact that we don't backlog 11 problems.
In other words, when a problem comes up, we don't
~
12 wait until the national program review in order to solve the 18
. problems.
When they come up, we solve them at that 14 particular time.
~
15 We have been very successful, we think, in working 16 with IE.
The IE and the NMSS reviews for those things coming 17-in the NMSS responsibility is done jointly.
I think one of 18 the regions' consistent complaint is, of course, they are very 19 busy and they have very little time to work with these 20 characters from headquarters.
21 So, what we try to do is limit that as much as 22 possible by going there prepared, and by this continuing 23 aspect of it.
24 MR. DIRCKS:
I think he brings out a good point, 25 that materials licensing effort.is the oldest one we have out
27
{
1 there, and we are learning a lot from that.
We are applying l
2 it to the other programs that are out there in the regions.
S We have gotten very -- I think OIA did give us a very good, 4
favorable review -.as much as you can get from any audit 5
report.
We got a positive, I think, feedback on John's 6
efforts.
7 But the effort is to make sure that we don't have 8
this arm's length review, that there is a lot of interaction.
9 If there is one shining benefit from this attempt to get more 10 programs in the regions, it is to get much more counterpart 11 discussions going on between branch chief to branch chief, 12 reviewer to reviewer, inspector to. reviewer and so on.
And 18 that is what we are trying to do.
14 Harold is doing it through his program, and we are 15 learning, I think, as we go along.
Even from my office I am 16 sending out a group of people every once in a while to go up 17' at the regional administrator level and his staff, to see if 18 they have any feedback on the various program audits.
19 And I think i have used Tom Rehm a lot on those 20 trips.
We are getting very good reports critical reports, 21 but good feedback reports.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me observe at the rate we 23 are going, if we go into this depth on every one of these 24 topics, it can be approximately two hours.
I don't want to 25 discourage discussion, but let's be brief.
_ _ _ i _ -_ _ -
~
. =..
~
~
28 1
MR. ROE:
Maybe I can suggest then that 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I just make that observation.
8 MR. DIRCKS:
Why don't we just let John move through 4
as quickly as he-can.
5 MR. DAVIS:
I'll just touch on these. Then if you 6
want to ask-a question, we wiIl do it that way. All right?
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I'd like to know, were there 8
any problems on this?
9 MR. DAVIS:
There's a lot of problems.
10 (Laughter) 11 MR. DIRCKS:
Let me rephrase, at the beginning i
~
12' said we also wanted to give you some sense of accomplishment 18 here.
And, I think we are.
That, you don't hear very much 14 about.
You hear an awful lot about problems.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It is important to do 16 that.
17 MR. DIRCKS:
We-have had an awful lot of discussion 18 from outside groups about problems in the agency.
We are 19 trying to give you also some of the accomplishments that you 20 can be proud of.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have complete confidence 22 that we have accomplishments.
28 MR. DIRCKS:
We don't hear too much about them.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
This is important.
25 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Let's not dsbate.
Otherwise
I 29 1
we are going to be --
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
This is an important 8
activity.
If it takes two meetings, it takes two meetings.
4 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Let's go.
5
'MR.
DAVIS:
1*ll just mention very rapidly, we are 6
basically on target on the workloads the transfer to the 7
regions is basically complete.
8 As a result of the Makican steel incident of last 9
year, we have worked up a plan which we think adequately 10 covers that.
We had the plan reviewed, and have a lessons 11 learned report out on it.
We even had two opportunities to 12 exercise the plan on caskets from Taiwan and from Brazil, and 18 they work pretty well.
14 As you know, we do have before you part 35, the 15 revision to the medical licensing, we are moving on.
We are 16 looking at radiological safety, and I think if there have been 17 people in the business who have been physically hurt by 18 radiation, it is in this area.
And-we have had a very 19 long-term look at it, and are continuing to look at it with, 1 20 think, a lot of interest from down here.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
I hope you keep 22 after that.
I think there are some things that can be done to 28 substantially improve the situation.
You are absolutely 4
24 right, that is the area where you get the exposures.
25 MR. DAVIS:
There are basically relatively large
30-1 sources out of fixed facilities with technician people in 2
charge.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
There ought to be 4
something that could be done.
Basic technology --
5 MR. DAVIS:
Dick Cunningham was on a trip to Europe 6
a few months ago, and while he was there he took the 7
opportunity to look at the European practices.
So, I think we 8
may learn something from that.
9 (Slide) 10 On the next page, the top of page 5 It talks about 11 our workload completion.
Our completions are a little bit 12 down, and the reason is because we are working at the current
(*
%./
18 time on. cases which have a higher labor rate.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You do expect to have a 15 shortfall on your target on the first item there?
16 MR. DAVIS:
No, we anticipate by the and of this 17 year, it will all level out.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Do the tough cases first?
19 MR. DAVIS:
Right.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You do expect to achieve your 21 roughly 5000 licensing by the end of year licensing?
22 MR. DAVIS:
Yes, sir.
28 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
By the end of the year we will 24 make that.
25 MR. TAYLOR:
On the inspection side of materials, we
31 1
are basically on target at mid year for the amount of l
2 inspections that we normally plan. We have had some unusual 8
situations in the materials area.
4 The J.
C.
Haines case is one which you probably have 5
heard about, and which I recently had to issue two orders, in 6
order to get that situation under control out in Ohio.
That 7
is proceeding well.
Region 111 has been on top of it. The 8
cleanup has started, and epa has picked up the costs for j
9 that.
In the next few weeks we hope we will be in a situation f
10 to report that that site it cleaned up.
11 Also, you have heard of nuclear pharmacy in which we l
l
~
12 have had to issue orders.
And, we do have some unusual I
j 18
. material cases. But generally -- and, we, of course, have a I
i'_
14 pattern of enforcement in medical uses, too.
But, I think our 15 inspections are uncovering the types of problems that they 16
- should, 17 in the radiography area, because of the concern we 18 are shifting heavily to get in a little bit more field 19 observation of radiogr,aphy.
That is where the mistakes are 20 made, not back' with radiation and safety officers.
So, we are 21 pushing in that direction through the field, where the real 22 errors come up.
28 So that is a thumbnail on the materials 24 inspections.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I hope in that area, too,
32 1
you take advantage of some of those state experiences.
Some 2
of those state inspectors are very adept in sneaking around
'8 and finding out what is going on at those radiography sites.
4 MR. DAVIS:
In the area of fuel cycle, which is 5
basically all of our licensing actions with the exception of 6
radioisotopes, we have had a-long-term program called a 7
remedial action program, which was instituted, believe it or 8
not, in 1977, where questions are raised about the 9
contamination level at sites which are no longer active.
10 There were 20,000 of these which had to be reviewed, 11 and we have finally worked down and only have one to go.
So,
(~~
12 this program will be winding down in fiscal year 1985.
18 (Chairman palladino left the room.)
14 Our workload, we are a little bit above our cases 15 completed in fuel cycle, and the incomings are a little bit 16 down in this area.
You might want to talk.about that.
17 MR. TAYLOR:
With regard to the inspection loading 18 fuel cycles, it is a bit up for the first half of this year, 19 principally due to two areas.
One is NFS Irwin, and the other 20 is GE Wilmington.
21 At NFS Irwin we have had several. problems, some of
'22 which have reached the escalate enforcement stage.
But of 28 particular note, they had an accumulation of uranium in the 24 uptake of the scrubber in the scrap area down there, which we 25 considered they had seen the forerunners, they had the hints.
33 1
and didn't react.
So, we took enforcement action.
O We are paying particular attention to that area in 3
that facility.
They went on strike last night, so the line is 4
shut down, basically the production line.
But that has cause'd 5
an increase of attention at Irwin.
6 Several of us have been down there.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
They are on strike again, 8
the second time in about four years?
9 MR. DAVIS:
I think every other year.
10 MR. DIRCKS:
We just got a letter from the union 11 down there listing many allegations about that workplace.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I don't want to make an 18 issue of this point, but has anybody ever asked whether the 14 prolonged tense union / management relationship down there does 15 not become a matter of public health and safety?
16 MR. TAYLOR:
I would say that what we know about it 17 doesn't indicate to me that that is the case.
18 Jim partlow, would you want to comment?
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That sure was the case in 20 about 1980 --
21 MR. TAYLOR:
Do you have anything to say on the 22 tense managment/ union relationships?
The current situations 28 that we have been finding wrong down there aren't necessarily 24 reflective of that.
25 MR. PARTLOW:
I guess in 1980 i recall down there
34 f
1 they did go on strike.
The management operated the plant.
2 The union objected to that. But my recollection is that our 8
inspection efforts during that time indicated that the 4
management operated the plant safely.
5 (Chairman palladino returned to the hearing room 6
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I may have my years wrong.
7 since they apparently did this every other year, but there was 8
a period of violence down there, and a period where there were 9
very serious safety allegations being made by the worker.s, 10 which disappeared as soon as the strike was over.
And that 11 kind of thing just seems to me it may be embarrassing looking 12 over the long term, if this is a continuing pattern.
18 MR. DAVIS:
Cawmissioner, I don't recall the year, 14 but I will say over the last several years there has been 15 significant upgrading in that plant from the safety aspects of 16 the plant.
Very significant, wouldn't you say so?
17 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
18 We haven't been able to make the tie.
I understand 19 the question.
20 The other i s ', we have a petition in on GE Wilmington 21 from a Vera English, which is a case which is being handled by 22 the Department of Labor. She was discharged, and there is 28 allegations of contamination control.
That is requiring quite i
N 24 a bit of attention to GE Wilmington.
25 Those are two problem spots right now in the l
r-1 35 1
inspection area.
2 MR. DAVIS:
This last area in fuel cycle I would 8
like to mention now is this West Valley project.
4 The West Valley project really -- West Valley at one 5
time was the only licensed separation plant that existed.
It 6
did its last processing around 1972.
7 It has about 600,000 gallons of high level waste 8
stored on site in tanks.
9 A bill was passed in Congress that permitted a 10 cleanup of this, a Demonstration Act, and also the 11 decontamination of this particular plant.
12 We are not in a licensing mode with that plant, but 18 we are in an oversite, safety oversite mode, and it is moving 14 along relatively well.
It is a fairly massive undertaking, 15 and sometimes in your travels you might find it very 16 interesting to take a look at it.
17 in nuclear waste, the nuclear waste program within 18 NMSS is our largest consumer of resources.
It is basically 19 at the current time tracking the DOE national waste program.
20 1 do have listed on'the chart a series of 21 d e l i v e r a b l e.s,- either which you have seen or which you will 22 see.
28 Basically, the program is progressing.
DOE is at 24 the present time quite swamped because of their environmental 25 assessments, which we commented on on time, by the way.
They
-,,w-,
,---,c_
36 l
s 1
got 1600 letters of comment on their EAs, and then counting 2
the number of comments, apparently about 17,000 comments.
]
8 You do have before you a preliminary draft of the 4
project decision schedule, which is an extremely important 5
document, since this does, as they say, nail down the l
6
. schedule.
And, if NRC is unable to meet the agreed upon 7
schedule, then it is required to notify the Congress as to 8
why.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are we going to proceed on 10 the present schedule of the finalizing the EAs?
11 MR. DAVIS:
DOE has not announced a shift, other 12 than to change'the date to a season of the year.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
14 MR. DAVIS:
They are now talking about fall.
15 COMMISSI'ONER ASSELSTINE:
Fall.
Okay.
16 MR. DAVIS:
We do have, of course, a rule change on 17 site characterization, where staff believes what it is doing 18 on part 60 is moving it into conformance with the act.
19 There has been a great deal of interest on this 20 rule, particul'arly in state's. And I believe there are three 21 letters to the Cannission asking to be heard by the states 22 before you make the decision on this rule.
28 There will be coming to you this summer, another one 24 of the major rules.
Just as Part 20 you talked about 25 yesterday, the very major rule change, the definition of high
37 1
level waste is a very major rule change. And, we will be s
2 getting the ANpR down to you we hope, middle of the year in 8
June.
Very major rule change.
4
. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But you are going to 5
follow the approach of an advance notice?
6 MR. DAVIS:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you expect to meet the June 8
date?
9 MR. DAVIS:
We think we will, yes.
10 With regard to spent fuel storage, we do have seven 11 topical reports in which.we are reviewing at the present time.
~
12 As you know, the topical report, what that basically
-18 does is approve a dry cask, so that it-is almost an 14 off-the-shelf item. And when a particular utility desires to 15 store fuel in a dry cask, then they select one of the seven 16 and the licensing centers only on the site-specific 17 activities.
18 We do have two dry spent fuel applications before 19 us, Uepco for Surry and Carolina power and Light, Robinson.
20 The Vepco case is a time-sensitive case, and it 21 involves either storing the fuel on site at Surry, or 22 transferring the fuel to North Anna.
23 The sentiment in Virginia is strongly in support of 24 storing it on site.
Surry says that 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Certainly in the vicinity
38
(
)
of North Anna.
2 (Laughter)
S MR. DAVIS:
Yes.
On the roof, too.
4 in any. event, Surry tells us that they need to begin 5
construction of the pad before we can lasue the license. And 4
6 so consequently there is under development a paper explaining 7
this which will be down to you quite promptly.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are we making adequate 9
progress on the topical reports and on the license 10 applications?
11 MR. DAVIS:
Topical reports -
,we have been somewhtt 12 surprised at the slowness of the vendors.in responding to our 18 ques t i on.s.
In fact, that is where the delay is in the Uepco t
14 case.
If the vendor had responded promptly, there wouldn't be 15 this problem of pad construction.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
ls there a way to 17 communicate that concern so that this moves ahead on a 18 reasonable schedule?
i 19 Or, do the vendors understand that new?
lite' ally think -- my 20 MR. DAVIS:
tJe tried.
But, I r
21 personal belief is that when you talk about this interim 22 storage at sites, there is an interplay between this and the 28 MRS from some people's perception.
I think they are kind of 24 looking at what is going to happen.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
39 s
1 MR. DAVIS:
If you turn to the next page, on 7.
2 (Slide) l 3
This talks about an interface with EPA.
We still 4
carry on a s on rwha t strained interface with EPA.
We are 5
trying to identify a methodology in dealing with'these 6
alternative concentration limits where EPA does not feel 7
constrained to concur case by case.
O CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
When will the methodology be 9
developed?
10 MR. DAVIS:
We think we have identified a site on 11 which to develop that methodology.
It will be a DOE Title 1 k -
12 site.
We believe all three agencies agree. This isn't a 18 perfect site. We will do our hardest, they will do theirs, and 14 then we will see how they mesh.
~
15 We are I hate to ever say we are optimistic --
16 maybe I won't even say we are optimistic, it is something we 17 are trying.
18 CHA I RM'M I P ALLAD I NO :
Do you have any idea how long 19 it is going to take us?
20 MR. DAVIS:
It will take some months.
l l
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is the delay caused just 22 by working out the details as opposed to lack of a cooperative 28 effort?
24 MR. DAVIS:
No, we don't detect currently any 25 footdragging with EPA.
I think there may be sema significant
i 8-40
(
l' differences of what a methodology is, but I think the staffs 2-are committed to try to give it a good try.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
John, on this May 1985 date on 4
Item number two, do you expect to meet that?
3 5
MR. DAVIS:
Yes, sir.
This will be, of course, for
._6 the radiological aspects.
7 Nonradiological aspects of epa rule went out in 8
advance notification for proposed rulemaking.
They were 9
recently closed,'and we are examining the contents now.
10 But for the radiological aspects, we expect that 11 will be done, too.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
John, on a preceding slide
(-
18 for the MRS, where do we stand in terms of your working on the 14 licensing and regulatory framework for the MRS7 15 MR. DAVIS:
We should get that down to you quite 16 promptly.
17 I just got on my desk the proposed revisions to part 18 72, which would do those modifications to make it amenable to 19 an MRS.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Ohat kind of hearing 21 structure is contained in that, legislative type?
22 MR. DAVIS:
Of course, you know it is one stop, and 28 then we announce for hearing.
I think a regular hearing, but 24 I will get back to you on that.
4 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
41
\\
l
.(.
1 MR. DAVIS:
We don't see this as any -- the way we 2
look at it, is this is what you wish you had for reactors i
a programs.
Maybe we are wrong.
We would have to come in with 4
a complete design.
5 But, I th i nk we wou ld be ver - happy to come down and 6
talk to you.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I suspect now that 8
potential sites have been identified. there will be 9
.significant official interest in that framework.
10 MR. DAVIS:
I am sure there will.
That, plus the 11 transportation aspects.
12-COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
18 MR. DAVIS:
The last topic will be on safeguards.
14 And, of course, this lays out our accomplishments.
-15 I would like to mention, rather than go through 16 these, that we see safeguards as being a matter of particular 17' interest to you within the next several months.
18 We did have a paper down to you dealing with the 19-threat, and we are prepared to come down and talk with you 20 about that.
And there are various aspects of those safeguard 21 issues.
22 Of course one of them is the nonpower after 28 question.
So, we think it would be of interest.
24 I believe Mr. Dircks agrees with me that the 25 capstone of all of this should be the discussion of threat.
l 42 1
l
'(
1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We should get on with 2
that.
8 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
The first item you say, 4
completed six regulatory effectiveness reviews so far, and you 5
are going to do eighteen.
6 MR. DAVIS:
Yes, we fully intend to do twelve in the 7
next six months. We think we will finish.
8 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
So you are going to fall short?
9 MR. DAVIS:
No, sir, we think we will finish them.
10 MR. DIRCKS:
We will do the remaining twelve.
11 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
You will do ths remaining e
12' twelve?
k 18 MR. DAVIS:
We think so.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why that disproportionate 15 amount in each half?
16 MR. DAVIS:
Well one thing is we have had to bring 17 in some new people. And one of the aspects.of it is getting 18 the people up to speed. But we think we will get that going.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
On the inspections side, the safeguards 20 inspections out at regions are basically on target for this 21 time of year in terms of the accomplishments.
We are setting 22 up some special training for residents, because part of what 29 we expect.the resident to do is keep his eye on this aspect of 24 the operation you know, on a day-to-day basis.
25 So, we are working through the regions to.get some
43
('
1 specialized training to each of the operating plant 2
residents.
And that is proceeding well They can pick out 8
the more obvious safeguard deficiencies.
Some do come up.
4 MR. DAVIS:
That concludes --
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Also on reactor licensing, you 6
say 127 versus 340 planned.
7 Are we going to fall short there?
8 MR. DAVIS:
We may fall short, simply because the 9
cases may not come in.
Our forecast of 840 included some 10 applications having to do with the insider rules.
And since 11 that slips, that forecast may have to be adjusted.
12 MR. ROE:
The next area is the one associated with 18 reactors in operation and other reactor related areas.
14 Harold and Jim Taylor will address those.
15 Basically six areas, reactors in operation, reactor licensing, 16 issues of quality assurance, and then enforcement and risk 17 assessment.
18 So, Harold, would you go through.and highligh't those 19 areas?
20 (Commissioner Bernthat left the room) 21 MR. DENTON:
Reactors in operatlon.
The main issue 22 I wanted to keep you up to speed on is our tech spec 23 improvement program.
24 (Slide) 25 I think I mentioned at earlier briefings, that we
'44 1
had as an objective to relook at tech specs, because it is
-2 tech specs that drive the number of licensing actions we have 8
to take and in order to make a big change in that area we need 4
to relook at what is.in the specification.
5 I told you I had formed a group earlier.
We have 6
now had several meetings with all the owners groups of the 7
utilities. They have -- each of the owners groups have 8
combined under one organization that we are interfacing 9
with.
10 We have met with the operators at St. Lucie, 11 Sequoyah, Trojan, Oconee, LaSalle, pilgrim, several other e
12 plants.
L 18 We have also combined with research and made some 14 special trips to Duke power, Florida power and Light, to look 15 at the surveillance intervals and how they might be adjusted.
16 We met with our resident inspectors, regional 17 offices.
18 I think we are still on schedule to come up with a 19 possible new approach in this agea by September. We plan to 20 meet with public interest groups as a part of this effort.
21 We have an advisory group that includes members from 22 the ACRS.
28 I think this is an area that we are putting a lot of 24 focus on at the moment while we are keeping the operating 25 plants cared for and fed.
45 o
1 (Commissioner Bernthal returned to the room.)
2 One thing in regard to standard plans, we have 8
talked.a lot about standard plans.
We want to make sure we 4
get the concept of tech specs into the standard plans, so l
l 5
when a standard plan is designed and licensed, we have a set 6
of tech specs that go with it.
So, it goes as an integral 7
package.
And that is a last-minute item.
8 Looking at our accomplishments in the operating 9
actions 10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
On the tech spec review, 11 are you looking at the problem from both the standpoint of the 12 custom tech specs from perhaps some of the earlier plants, and 18
.these more recent standard tech specs'for the NTOLs.
It 14 almost seems to me you have got two extremes. Some of those 15 early plants had v'ry limited tech specs, and then the new e
16 ones today have the ones that are probably overloaded, so 17 detailed and so complex.
18 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
We haven't drawn any 19 conclusions.
We are just listening to everybody and seeing 20 what they think should be in them.
And we intend to approach 21 both the old ones and the new ones when we have a solution.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Great.
28 MR. DENTION :
We are running about 10 percent less 24 operating actions than we had planned by the middle of the 25 year. But I think by the end of the year we will be able to
46
(-
1 make that up or exceed it. So, I don't think that is an 2
unusual occurrence.
J 8
We have acted on almost 500 amendments that required 4
treatment according to Sholly.
l 5
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
How much does that cost to 6
go through this exercise that has
.2 of one percent i
7 probability of substantive consequence?
l 8
MR. DENTON:
I prepared those data.
It is costing 9
us about 1000 or 2000 man days per-year to carry that out.
10 And it cost OELD about 500, 600 man days per year.
And, i 11 spend about $150,000 a year to pay the printing cost to 12 publish the results.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I thought we were going to 14 explore some rationalization in that process.
Is that 15 ongoing?
16 MR. DENTON:
We owe the Commission a paper on that, l
17 which I am trying to find ways to make the living under the 1
18 current approach as effective as we can.
And, I hope to get 19 that onpr to Bill shortly.
l.
20 it didn't include readdressing Sholly, but rather-21 trying to live with Sholly in the most effective way.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I hope that you will at 28 least consider as part of that, the approach of instead of 24.
doing these analyses and publishing every one of them, 25 publishing the amendment saying, here is the proposed
47 1
amendment that we have received, and only doing the analyris 2
If you get a request for a hearing.
Because requests for 3
hearings are so small in number.
Even though you might delay l
4 those a little bit, that would decrease your workload by what',
i l
5 99.5 percent.
6 MR. DENTON:
I think our preference would be to have 7
that option.
Maybe not do it every time, but if there are 8
cases where we are satisfied with the incoming material and 9
its evaluation, to go ahead and notice that immediately.
10 Because, as you say in the great bulk of cases, there is not 11 interest in having it an issue anyway.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And I gather -- I get the 13 sense from talking to some utilities that they have got a 14 problem about having to do that analysis at the outset, too.
15 They are spending a tot of time and effort doing that.
- And, 16 if it is only for half a percent of these cases that people 17 ask for hearings, you could cut down their worklaad and ours 18 if you simply said, tell us if you want a hearing and then wo 19 will do the analysis to see whether it is a no significant 20 hazards consideration amendment.
21 MR. DENTON:
It certainly has probably added ten or 22 fifteen man years and considerable dollars to our effort 28 there.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One public mment out of 25 476 notices?
48 4
1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
That's it.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Why are we doing it?
8 (Laughter) 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's precisely the 5
question.
6 If you are going to get that small a request for 7
hearings, then do the analysis for just those.
8 MR. DENTON:
1 might mention SALp reviews.
I think 9
SALp reviews have had a big impact on operating reactors.
And 10 we are getting more and more formal as time goes by.
11 1 now have a practice in place where every reviewer 12 that reviews an operating action provides a project manager 18 his view of the licensee's performance -- how effective he is 14 and how timely that is.
15 We have also assigned an SES member to each SALp 16 review.
So, for about the past six months every SALP review 17 includes a member of management from NRR and a - tabulation of 18 the areas in which the licensee has done outstanding work or 19 done poorly.
20 I think we are putting more effort in the SALp 21 reviews than ever before, because I think'that is becoming a 22 very valuable annual way of looking at, should we give a 1
23 licensee more attention or less attention.
4 24 The number of licensee actions has remained about 25 constant.
We keep working at ways to get it down, but we are
'49
[.
I feeling the impact of Salem, which we put in the pipeline last N
l 2
year.
That is continuing to have items.
l 3
We are now doing the pilot integrated assessment 4
program for two plants. The Commission recently approved 5
that.
6 We are doing Millstone and Connecticut Yankee.
We 7
would have those finished by the end of next year, and then 8
could decide what else to do.
9 We continue to have unanticipated operating events 10 that require attention.
1.Just hit a few of them for you 11 that you may not have heard of.
As you know, we meet once a 12 week, all the major offices and go over everything.
We decide 13 what needs to be picked up.
14 Fermi had problems with its diesel generator, 15 lubrication problems.
You may recall Farley had tendon 16 baseplate fracture.
Susquehannah lost all AC power during a 17 test of that area.
Sequoyah had problems with their reactor 18 testing system logic that raised a question, should we reopen 19 the Westinghouse ATWS issue. McGuire had a failure in their 20 isolation valves on the upper head ejection system that had 21 the potential to eject not only water, but also a nitrogen 22 bubble.
So, that forced us to look at that.
23 So, those sorts of activities continue to take a lot 24 of our resources in addition to just processing normal 25 actions.
50 o
i
(
1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think we need to think 2.
on-the Commission side of the table how we want to follow up 8
on those things, because I think those are the significant 4
operating events that you have identified in the first six 5
months of the year.
6 We weren't involved, or didn't have a meeting on any 7
of those, and I think we need to think about how to follow up 8
on those ourselves to understand what went on, what the route 9
causes were, and what the staff is proposing to do to address 10 those things.
Whether it is a review of the Quarterly 11 Abnormal Occurrences Report, have a meeting to discuss those 12 or whatever. But, I think we need to think about that, because
~
18
.they are the significant events.
We haven't heard about one 14 of them 15 MR. DENT 6N:
These are highlights.
There is 16 something happening every day that Jim and I are routinely 17 responding to.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
This agency is rapidly 19 converting to a review of operating reactors. The Commission 20 really isn't very involved in that process.
21
,M R. DENTON:
Why don't I turn it over to Jim?
22 MR. TAYLOR:
With regard to operating plants and the i
28 residents, we are moving ahead.
As you know, the caseload is 24 growing as more plants are licensed, come in to preop and op, 25 so the demand for residents remains high.
51 a
1 The regions are continuing to recruit. Right now we 2
have 134. That number doesn't mean anything particulary.
You 3
know, they are multi-unit and single-unit sites.
We are 4
moving in accordance with the budget direction that we have 5
for this next year, to get additional 19 residents in 6
single-unit sites, which we think is a good move.
7 And that will, of course, increase our inspection 8
capability, since.we get much more inspection time out of 9
residents than we can when they are region based. The region 10 base bringing in a specialist-type inspection for the site.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Apart from the resources, 12 are we having difficulties in getting those people?
13 MR. TAYLOR:
We are behind.
part of it is we are 14 trying to get more entry-level type folks, younger folks who 15 are with experience.
But, we have been able to keep up with 16 the traffic, c
17 dim, do you have any information that you might want 18 to supplement?
19 It is a race, we look for the same kind of people 20 the industry likes.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And they can pay more.
22 MR. TAYLOR:
And they can pay more.
But, I think we 23 are holding our own.
We don't see any diminishment in them 24 putting somebody fresh off the block out to take charge.
j 25 We are running the PAT program fairly well on l
52' 1
schedule.
That is all in Bethesda now.
Remember, a few years 2
ago that was dispersed through the region.
3 And PAT, I think is providing a valuable input-both 4
to look at our own programs, to look at INpO.
I believe 5
Mr. Humananski is up with the PAT team right now at Maine 6
Yankee.
7' COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Yes, he is.
8 MR. TAYLOR:
I hope we get some idea of the type of 9
work these fellows do, in order to get a little longer look to each year beyond the three inspections by the PAT team, we are 11 taking one or two of the PAT people who are particularly 12~
conversant in areas like operations, maintenance and 18 surveillance, and doing a week long assessment type inspection 14 at several plants each year.
15 This is increasing our base of understanding of how 16 our programs are working out there, just to get a little bit 17 of independent look.
18 One accompIlshment that has come out of that that i 19 think is very worthwhile, is some of our people who are doing 20 that are fairly expert in batteries, and we a.re finding 21 problems with station batteries.
They are a static device, 22 and people are not maintaining them.
28 This is the old submarine experience with 24 batteries.
They are not maintaining and doing the tests, 25 periodic tests, discharge rate and so forth.
And the battery
53 1
just sort of sits there until you need it.
And when you need 2
it you are pretty desperate.
8 So, it is an important piece of equipment.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
There are no battery meters?
5 MR. TAYLOR:
There are things like test discharge, a 6
whole series of tests.
Meters, in terms of charge, you can 7
measure the voltage and so forth.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
All of those things are 9
passively measurable, though.
I don't understand why there 10 isn't a system to find out.If there is a problem.
11 MR. TAYLOR:
We find they are not doing the 12 discharge test properly on batteries.
The state of charge-of 18 the batteries are not being maintained and checked in 14 accordance with the programs that are in place.
That is what 15 we are finding.
So that the capacity of the battery isn't 16 what it ought to be.
17 Nor are the tests being properly conducted to ensure 18 they are okay, so it's a matter of. them not implementing --
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
They have testing 20 procedures, and they're just not following them.
21 MR. TAYLOR:
Right.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
My question is, why isn't 23 that something else that's automated?
It's obviously 24 automatable.
It's just not done.
25 MR. TAYLOR:
Maybe we ought to give you some more
)
54 j
(.
1 feedback on that.
That's the first time someone's asked me 2
that.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Could you tell me how many 4
PATS you do each year, you plan to do each year?
5 MR. TAYLOR:
Three each year.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And how many assessment
.7 inspections?
8 MR. TAYLOR:
Jim, would you like to say how many 9
each year?
We haven't really set ourselves a formal target.
10 We're trying to work those between --
11 MR. PARTLOW:
We're not in steady state yet.
. We r
12 intend to do more than that.
I would think we'll be doing at 18 least a half a dozen of those in addition to our PAT 14 inspections.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What's the difference 16 between the two of them in terms of scope and coverage?
17 MR. PARTLOW:
Primarily in scope.
PAT covers six or 18 seven different functional areas.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It takes a couple of 20 weeks, right?
21 MR.-PARTLOW:
Yes.
Three weeks on site.
So far 22 we've honed in just on surveillance operations.
23 MR. TAYLOR:
And maintenance.
24 MR. PARTLOW:
And maintenance.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Those are good areas.
,.. -. _ _ _.. ~. -
55 0
4 1-MR. TAYLOR:
I guess the next slide is Slide 10.
2
[ Slide.]
8 1 think, without spending a great deal of time on 4
this, let's go through some of the things that I think you are 5
aware of with regard to support of operating reactors and our 6
new Operations Center which you've all seen.
7 We've had several reactor exercises, transportation 8
exercises, some on full-scale.
The Chairman participated in 9
the transportation exercise.
We are doing our appraisals of 10 emergency preparedness exercises at reactors, principally 11 regional with some Headquarters overview.
12 We are proceeding as facilities are completed in the 18
.ERF area to go out and make sure that they've got a functional 14 and operational ERF.
15 CHAIRMAN ~pALLADINO:
You say you've done thirty 16 emergency preparedness exercises for power reactors this year?
17 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What's your target, or what do 19 you see should be required?
20 MR. TAYLOR:
Remember, thn' frequency has changed, so 21 there's a new target.
So I'll have.,to get that for you, sir.
7 j
22 Because of the change in frequency.
28 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
How many do you see being 24 needed in '85?
Okay.
25 MR. TAYLOR:
We did tell the Commission we're going
1 56
(
1 to take some unique looks on how to do inspections.
We had a 2
pilot program in Region ill and a pilot program in Region U.
8 We've gotten reports and worked with the regions.
We're 4
looking at how to factor that back in.
5 Frankly, we think the increased resident situation 6
is something that is extremely desirable, and we're proceeding 7
with that.
O We did do our program in Region fil where we had 9
just a single resident and performed basically reactive 10 Inspections.
These were some of the better plants.
But we 11 didn't feel we got enough information out of that to really 12 feel secure about running an inspection program across the 18 board like that.
14 The Region's reaction to that and the management 15 reaction was that there just wasn't enough out of the single 16 resident without sending the region teams out occasionally 17 and, you know, just didn't give enough information.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What do you think about 19 this GAO report on the inspection program?
.20 Part of what. prompts my question is, so much of 21 their conclusions and findings seem to be based upon the 22 feelings of a fair percentage of our own inspectors.
23 MR. TAYLOR:
That was an anonymous survey, and i 24 think some of the write-ups emphasize what we that was done 25 about two years ago -- knew to be some of the problems.
We
57 1
think we -- andque told the GAO, and we've been in contact 2
with them -- we'think we are addressing each of the major 8
issues or flaws.
4 Frankly, it was gratifying to see such a large 5
percentage of the people, because we had revamped the 6
operating reactor inspection program drastically in the period 7
of 1981 and
'82, that we really moved it in the direction of 8
operational safety.
I held my breath until the survey was 9
complete, but it did show that.
I think a large percentage, 10 so --
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Clearly there were some 12 positive-things, like the overall judgment that the program 18 had improved since TMI.
14 MR. TAYLOR:
And is effective.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Some of the weaknesses, 16 particularly the concerns on the part of the inspectors 17 that they didn't have enough time to ensure compliance.
18 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
The additional residents will 19 help to alleviate some of that.
There is no question, in a 20 single-unit site that l' s busy, a single resident has his hands 21 fulla he really does.
22 1 think some of what we are doing, the introduction 28 of pRA to try some of the things that came up in that report 24 are things we are trying out or had in the mill since the time 25' that the GAO started the survey.
So I hope that we can give
58
<i 1
you a full report on that sometime in the --
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Our comments are due in 8
what?
Another month or so?
4 MR. TAYLOR:
Jim, when are they due?
The GAO 5
comments.
6 MR. pARTLOW:
It's within the month.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
8 CHAIRMAN pALLAOINO:
One thing, though.
I continue 9
to be impressed with the quality of the resident inspectors.
10 1 meet new ones every time i visit.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
I think that's 12 absolutely right.
Although, again, when I met with the i -.
la residents in one of the regions lately, one of the comments i 14 got was, "You know, you're asking us to do an awful lot of 15 things.
Every time there's a problem, that's one more thing 16 you ask us to do.
You'd better recognize there are limits to 17 what we can do, and don't overload us.
Don't ask us to do too 18 many things."
19 MR. TAYLOR:
We're sensitive to trying not to do 20 that.
I hate to get residents doing things that I can't tie 21 to the direct operational safety.
22 So although I mentioned they're doing some security 23 looks, that's not going to dominate their lives.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Then that gets into the 25 training part where most of them felt that they weren't
59
[
t getting the training that they needed.
If we're going to ask 2
them to do those kinds of things, we've got to make sure that 8
they get the training they need to do those extra jobs.
4 MR. TAYLOR:
Right.
I agree.
I think some of what 5
we're doing in the Training Center, some of the special 6
courses will help to alleviate that.
As we get new people, it 7
gets harder too.
They have to go through that whole process.
8 We do have a formal program on how to qualify 9
residents.
We have a formal journal type.
Each region runs 10 its own program, and we overview it out at Chattanooga.
11 l'Il quickly move along and say that basically with 7
12 regard to operational reactor inspections, you can't tell a I
18 tot by inspections some are big, some are small -- bu t the 14 numbers of inspections are running what we would anticipate 15 at this time of year.
16 We are and the regions are continuing to take 17.
occasional use teams where they think there's a problem. I 18 think there's a great benefit from the crossflow between team 19 members when you get into a particular problem area.
So they 20 are utilizing that, and our program gives them that type of.
21 direction.
22 CSilde.3 28 MR. DENTON:
Moving next to page 12, you are 24 probably very familiar with the licensing issues.
We briefed 25 you just a few weeks ago on all plants.
60 1
CSlide.]
2 l'd like to mention a word or two about project 3
managers.
We have a total of 90 project managers.
Two-thirds 4
of them are on operating plants.
5 ECommissioner Asselst.ine leaves the meeting.3 6
MR. DENTON:
We are spending more effort in this 7
area than we had budgeted.
8 If you look at the second bullet, the 42 FTEs, we've 9
spent more than we planned.
About twenty of them came from 10 NRR, about $3 million.
Some of the difficult cases are 11 requiring more effort than we had budgeted.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Where are the resources coming 18
.from?
I don't mean in terms of a particular place, but in 14 terms of what is the impact of diverting these resources.
15 MR. DENT 6N:
We only have three broad categories:
16 safety technology, reactor licensing, and operating plants.
17 So they come from operating plants.
18 That's one of the reasons we have to struggle to 19 keep the number of operating plants up all the time.
We will 20 spend more resources in one budget area in one quarter and 21 less in the next quarter.
So we try to get it so that over a 22 yearly basis, it works out the way we planned.
And if we 23 have operating problems, we put more effort into that area.
24 MR. DIRCKS:
This has impacted on other programs, 25 t oo -- plants such as Comanche peak, which has taken a lot of
61 1
resources for us to review.and stay ahead of the problems down 2
there.
8 For example, we have a very key official from Bob 4
Minogue's operation, Larry Shao, who is one of the key 5
figures in this Comanche Peak review, and we have borrowed
_6 Larry now for such a long period of time that Larry is getting 7
concerned about his own position, his own responsibilities 8
back in Research.
But Larry does bring unique qualifications 9
to.the project.
10 We feel that's a high priority of need right now.
11 and I think Bob is understanding of this.
~
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You say this has taken 42 i
18 people and somewhat over $4.2 million to mid year?
Do you 14 expect it to be higher for the second half?
Lower?
15
[ Commissioner Asselstine reenters the meeting.]
16 MR. DENTON:
I think so f ar -- this is the mid-year 17 number.
We have expended this much resources.
-So if we stay 18 on target and we follow our original game plan, we would still 19 and up at the end of the year with this many people and
-20 dollars expanded above our budget.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But you might have more?
22 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
28 MR. DENTON:
We might have more.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'm trying to get a feel for 25 whether the second half is going to go at the same rate, even
62 1
greater?
2 MR. DIRCKS:
We have to emphasize that we keep 8
talking this is a no-contingency operation.
4 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I understand.
5 MR. DIRCKS:
We have gone over the Wolf Creek 6
matter.
We have gotten through Waterford.
We're working on 7
TMI-1, Diablo, heavily involved in Comanche, and yet that may 8
not be the end of these issues.
9 We have, as you know, some issues with TVA.
We are 10 only beginning to get into those issues, and that's probably 11 going to divert more resources.
(
12 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
The reason I was interested in 18 this question is, I don't have a good feel for what is 14 suffering as a result of this.
15 MR. DENTON:
It's operating reactors.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's the problem.
17 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I'm not sure exactly what is 18 suffering.
19 MR. DIRCKS:
It's the backlog.
20 MR. DENTON:
'The backlog.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
Amendments.
22 MR. C ENTON :
Amendments.
We're down ten percent 23 there.
If we had not encountered these problems, we would 24 have put in more effort in eperating reactors and we would 25 probably be at the target or above it.
63 1
We have some flexibility to reassign, and I don't 2
let it cut.Into operating reactors too far, but each time 3
there's a problem, we have to decide where to put the 4
resources.
5 Operating reactors always get the first priority, 6
but we try to also keep the plants being licensed on schedule, 7
and it's a continuing adjustment every week as to what we will 8
do next.
9 Let me mention TVA just a little bit.
We have now
.10 talked to some 25 individuals who are employed by TVA about 11' their concerns.
I'd say about a third of them have safety or 12 programmatic concerns that they've expressed to us.
Most of 18 these individuals want to remain anonymous.
14 We've developed a plan that involves l&E and Region 15 ll to pursue this.
We're looking at their employees' concerns 16 program.
They've just implemented a new program to be sure i
17 they capture or deal with employee concerns.
We're looking at 18 how the QA function-has performed within the company.
They've t
19 gone through several organizational changes in that area.
20 We're'looking at~ management control within the 21 company, plant operations and maintenance, enforcement 22 history, the effectiveness of the Nuclear Safety Review Group, 23 and an overall integrated evaluation of all the TVA plants.
24 That activity is underway, taking a lot of 25 resources, and was, I guess, unanticipated at the f*lrst of the
.... ~. _ _. _. _ _., _. _, _
.. _ ~.,. _ _... _. __
64 p
1 year.
2 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I don't expect, then, your rate 3
of resource diversion is going to change much for the second 4
half of the year.
3 MR. DENTON:
We're continuing on operating reactors Sj to do the most important thing.
I'm still pushing TMI 7'
action items.
By the end of this year, I hope to have 8
essentially all the TMI action items complete on all plants.
9 But obviously, if these resources weren't here, they'd be 10 working on operating plants.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Hear me one specific 12 example, if I may, Harold, to see if anything is happening.
18 I was at San Onofre months ago, I guess now, and one
.14 of the things that was striking to me was that they had 15 something like, I guess, 75 or 100 license amendments pending, 16 a source of great concern to them, and I can well imagine that 17 it is their Judgment that in some cases those might ce things 18 aven that would affect the fission, if not the safe running of 19 the plant.
t 20 Has anything happened to that backlog?
Where ar's 21 we?
I'm sure there are other cases, but that's one.
22 MR. DENTON:
What we've done is try to spend more 23 money more effectively, so we farm out some of these things 24 and get them done by our contractors.
About half of our 25 review of operating actions are done now by contract money.
65 O
1 We recently sent several hundred more to the 2
regions.
We had a meeting with three Regional Administrators 8
and decided they could do more.
We've given them those.
4 We've asked each project manager to prioritize the ones thai 5
are most important and do it in concert with the utilities, so 6
that we are working concurrently on the ones that are most 7
Important.
O But I don't think we have made great headway on San 9
Onofre.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So if I looked out there 11 tomorrow, I would not see much change from where it was three 12 months ago?
18 MR. DENTON:
Not a lot in that plant.
But for 14 plants which we think have low SALp ratings and need 15 management attention are the ones we tend to give our 16 attention to, such as we singled out Brunswick a few years 17 ago, doubled the number of project managers on it.
18 So for plants where we seem to be having an impact 19 by not processing faster, we do give attention, but I just
.20 don't have the resources to move San Onofre down.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
I think it's going to get worse.
We 22 have to be honest.
28 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's really a serious 24 problem, it seems to me.
25 MR. DENTON:
Yes, it is.
1
66 e
/
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
If we've got to have the 2
people to do that, we ought to be getting the people, it seems 3
to me.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All I can say is, you 5
should support my recommendations to the Congress.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I supported you on many, as 7
you know.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
You did.
9 That's true.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And focusing on the plants 11 with poor SALp RATINGS is clearly where the priority lies.
12 But you get the feeling when you talk with people who have put 18 in a hundred license amendments at the NRC, that they can't 14 get turned around, they bagin to ask themselves, "Why'are we 15 beating our heads against the wall?"
It becomes a morale 16 problem and ultimately, I think, a safety problem.
Then 17 you're going to get lower SALp ratings.
18 1 know it's not your fault.
We do have limited 19 resources, but there's 20 MR. DENTON:
I have 68 prelect managers for the 93 21 plants in operation.
Those guys turn out about thirty or more 22 license amendments, including the Sholly process, a year and 23 are running full speed.
We're alwsys trying to find a way to 24 do it.
25 MR. DIRCKS:
I think that's our problem.
Every time
67 1
you move something to a higher priority issue, something else 2
is going to suffer.
Small things, we're trying to cut back in 3
small areas.
4 l'm being called down to the ACRS to say why can't 5
we make more of our people available to more of their 6
out-of-town meetings.
7 I think Harold is under some pressure to cut back, 8
not from the point of view of travel money so much, but just 9
from the staff availability.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You lose time every time you 11 do that.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
We lose time, we lose project managers, 18 and we lose reviewers.
So we keep trying to yst this message
-14 across.
The thing doesn't have any more give in it.
Every 15 time we get something new and novel and nice to do, if we do 16 it, we're going to pull people out and pull resources out of 17 other activities.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Will the fix on the Shelly 19 business help much?
20 MR. DENTON:
I think ten or fifteen man years into 21-the agency.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, let's get the 23 Commission to do that.
24 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
What does t take to do it?
25 MR. DENTON:
At the moment, we're operating under
68
(
1 your procedures for that.
We'll have to propose some change, 2.
or you'd have to propose legislation.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think it probably takes 4
a change in the rule,.doesn't it, at least, to switch to doing 5
.the analysis after we get a request for a hearing.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Will you check into it and 7
advise us?
I agree with my colleagues.
O COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
If we have to treat it as an 9
urgent matter, let's just handle the rule.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
That's fifteen more 11 people.
12 MR. DENTON:
Ideally, on operating actions, we 18 should have only a handful of them pending at'any given time.
14 ff the utility wants to make either a plant-specific change or 15 the Commission wants to make a change in the plant, they 16 should go much faster than we are able to do it.
But we 17 prioritize and spend a lot of our time on that.
18 One more item to mention, Beaver Valley, we spent 19 some time getting educated on backfitting policies and meeting 20 with Beaver Valley.
I think out of the sixteen items that 21 were in contro,versy between us now, that we're communicating 22 well.
We're down to just four.
28 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In fact, they postponed on i
24 one of those recently, didnt they?
25 MR. DENTON:
I expect those four to perhaps get
69 o
1 resolved without further meetings.
So I think we have made 2
further progress in resolving those areas.
8 That's about all I have on the licensing side.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Harold, on the TVA 5
employee concerns that you're looking at, do those deal with 6
construction or operation or both, and are they focused on one 7
particular site or their whole program?
8 MR. DENTON:
It's some of each.
We have some 9
concerns which cut across all plants and operations and some 10 which are particular to Watts Bar.
11 MR. TAYLOR:
On the inspection side, each of those 12 problem plants'do take a demand, too, from some of the la
. region-based inspection staff as we have assigned people to 14 help in the problem plant creas.
15 We have also tried to use Headquarters people who 16 have construction experience in the appropriate disciplines, 17 as well as contractors, to help out.
So we've tried to hold 18 the fort, so we don't lose our entire inspection program at a 19 particular site.
20 Comanche did pull ~ people away from Wolf Creek during 21 periods of construction, and we had to mount a Herculean 22 effort out there to get that inspection program completed 28 before you licensed or before Harold issued the license for 24 that plant, but there is a toll.
25 in the construction area, we are now at two resident
70
[
t inspectors per construction site, which we got through the 2
budget and Congressional guidance.
We are continuing our CAT S
program.
A CAT team will start at Clinton next Monday, as the 4
next CAT inspection.
As a result of this inspection, the 5
Intervenor has agreed to drop the issue and, I believe, a 6
contention in the hearing, awaiting the results of this 7
inspection.
So it has helped in some of the legal aspects of 8
the Clinton licensing process.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How many CATS are we doing 10 a year, Jim?
11 MR. TAYLOR:
We're doing four CATS a year, and we're 12 fairly well on schedule to achieve that.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So you've done three.
If 14 you pick up the fourth, you're ahead of schedule?
15 MR. TAYLOR:
A lot of vacations in August.
16 CSlide.]
17 Otherwise in construction, I think in terms of our 18 across-the-board effort, we are basically keeping up with the 19 program.
A few places we're worried about because of the 20 diversions to the problem plants, but we're trying to keep our 21 eye on being sure we keep up.
22 That's all I have on the construction.
28 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have to comment, you 24 know, Jim, on your point that we're moving into an era of 25 operations,. is not quite true yet.
I mean, we are, but the
7?.
.(
1 problem, as Harold is acutely aware of, I guess, as we just 2
heard, is that we're also in an era of the largest number of 8
plants we've tried to license at any time in this agency's 4
history in a comparable period of time.
5 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes, for one more year.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And here we are, you know, 8
being nickeled and dimed, when we've got that kind -- it's a 9
trillion dollar priority, and I realize the press aren't here
+
10 to hear it, but I wish the Congress would hear it.
We aren't 11 doing this right, that's all 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It's a point you and i 18 have been making all spring.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLAOINO:
Are you going to go on t o --
15 MR. DENTON:
page 13.
16 ESlide.3 17 page 13, I think I'll skip over, unless there is 18 some question.
The operator ricensing program is completely 19 regionalized.
We folics the same program John mentioned in 20 auditing that program.
I think that's running very well in 21 the field, and that was included in the recent DIA audit.
1 22 think there are favorable comments on that program.
Let me 23 move to the --
V 24 CHAIRMAN PALLAOINO:
Before you do that, let me ask 25 the Commission a couple of questions.
72 O
1 We're not quite halfway in the number of slides.
We 2
could go until twelve o' clock, if you're interested, but 1 3
expect also that we're going to have schedule another meeting 4
to do this job as effectively as we would like to do it.
5 So would you like to go until twelve o' clock and 6
reach a stopping point, maybe after safety issues?
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sure.
O CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Th'en pick it up.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That sounds good.
10 MR. DENTON:
l'Il try to hit the other items on 11 safety issues -- page 14 in just ten minutes.
I think it 12 might be useful to give you a wrap-up of where the unresolved 13 safety issues stand.
14 We're prioritizing all issues.
But the issue comes 15 up about unresolved safety issues.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Harold, before you do 17 that, you mentioned operator licensing.
You said you thought 18 things were going well with the regions.
19 Do you have that same sense of confidence for what 20 we're doing in the requalification area?
I get the sense that 21 that's not an area that is going real we l 'l or at least needs 22 attention.
23 MR. DENTON:
There is a lot of controversy in that 24 area.
Operators think we're focusing too heavily on too 25 radical aspects.
We thought we had switched to an
73 I
j.
1 operational.
We have had several meetings.
I have met 2
directly'with SROs.
Hugh Thompson had gone out to meet with 8
them.
We promised to revamp that area.
1 4
Frankly, what I hope we are leading to is to 5
complete our exam bank, based on the job task analysis sort of 6
thing that INPO has put together.
Let the training people 7
review our exam bank on sort of a nationwide program to be 8
sure the questions are understandable and clear, so we'll have 9
thousands of questions, then so that when we administer an 10 exam, there will be no doubt but what the question was a good, 11 appropriate question.
The utilities wouldn't know what f
12 question we're going to ask.
18 People have worried about our disclosing our 14 questions when I have a feeling that if an operator could 15 answer all the thousands of questions in our exam bank, he'd 16 be a well-qualified operator.
17 Claughter.3 18 So that's the way we are heading in that area.
I 19 hope maybe in a year we'll have that area calmed down and wil.1 20 match, then, what INp0 is saying is required.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Exactly.
I may be 22 misreading it, but the sense I get from the Crystal River 23 experience recently is that somehow or other, the system isn't 24 communicating right.
Either the utilities don't know what it 25 is we're looking for and expect, or disagree with what we're
74 i
1 looking for and expect, and that there's a mismatch between 2
what we're doing and what the utilities are doing on their 3
own.
4 MR. DENTON:
We've had a lot of meetings on that.
I 5
think it is one on whi h progress is being made.
But you've 6
pointed out one where we need to continue to work.
7 CSlide.]
8 On unresolved safety issue, if I can run through 9
them -- it's on page 14 -- steam generator tube integrity, you 10 had approved issuing a letter.
We sent a letter out to all 11 licensees April 17th.
12 Systems interaction, A-17, that's one of the 13 three.
I think we've got at a staff level a resolution of 14 all unresolved safety issues now but three.
So the large list i
15 of unresolved safe'ty issues, I think, is something of a 16 misperception.
We may not have made it all the way through 17 the process, but we do have a solution.
i 18 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Is effort going on, and how are 19 you doing with regard to implementing the resolutions?
20 I t h'i nk the questlon is of' ten asked of us.
~
21 MR. DENTON:
Many of them are resolved without 22 requiring -- you take one that we resolved without requiring 23 an action.
But on a few plants, it goes into the licensing 24
. action, and we review the licensing action, so they all turn 25 in the licensing actions eventually.
75 1
The level of resources we're putting into resolving 2
them, we're on target.
We're not taking any effort away from S
this area and not diverting any effort from resolving the 4
issues.
5 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I don't think I got an answer 6
to my question.
7 is somebody giving attention to making sure that O
they are implemented after you do all of this hard work 9
and get them resolved, because if they are really unresolved 10 safety problems, then when they are resolved, they cease to be 11 problems?
12 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
But in order for them to cease 14 to be problems, somebody has to do something about it.
15 l ' ra not saying it's necessarily your job, but 16 somewhere in the agency --
17 MR. DIRCKS:
I think Harold is sayir.g that the final 18 result will be the amendment into the license, and the 19 requirement is passed on to the licensee, and then the ISE 20 program will pick up.
21 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I can't g e n e r a l l:z e, but some of 22 them may take hardware changes, somebody making sure that 23 these people are doing the hardware changes.
i 24 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSEL3 TINE:
procedures.
- i 76 1
1 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I just don't have a good feel 2
for that.
8 MR. DENTON:
GAO faulted us when they reviewed this 4
area for not having a good tracking system in it, and we 5
committed to doing it.
So we will follow all the way th' rough 6
to be sure that it doesn't get swept in with the other 7
thousands of things, but rather that it really gets 8
implemented and inspected.
9 On the inspected side, _ l don't think we committed 10
'to inspect the resolution, the. actual one, because inspection 11 is an audit process, and GAO had recommended that we actually 12 insoect the implementation of every resolution, and I don't 18 think ISE had the resources to commit to do that when we 14 responded to that report.
You would select the ones that you 15 want to check the implementation on.
16 MR. TAYLOR:
We may pick up on that in part of our 17 outage program work, too, when we get to a plan on that 18 program, which we've started.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'd be interested in a little 20 more detail -- not now'--
on our implementation process.
21 MR. DENTON:
We'll get some examples.
22 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
And meybe either have a 28 separate briefing on it, or maybe a brief paper on what your 24 plans are.
25' MR. ROE:
Let's just include that in our next
77 1
quarterly ppg report to you and highlight that.
2-MR. DENTON:
I mentioned steam generator tube 8
integrity, A-17 systems interaction, and I expect a CRGR 4
review-in August or September.
We have finally a substitute 5
piece of work in that area that we're going to propose.
O A-40, seismic design, every time we march up that 7
hill, a little new science develops.
I think we'll go to CRGR O
soon on that.
There was just an earthquake in Chile fairly C
recently where they had a lot of strong motion earthquakes to very near a fault.
So that's a fertile --
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Where was this?
And *e're getting those 12 MR. DENTON:
Chile.
w 18 records.
And we have so few instruments near major faults 14 that that information deserves a look.
15 A-48, the containment emergency sup, we met with 10 CRGR several times.
We think we now have a resolution.
We'll 17-be meeting with CRGR in July on A-43.
18 Station blackout, that's a very important issue.
19 The more I look at it, the more I find that if you do have 20 if you can maintain AC' power in the plant, there's an awful' 21 lot you can do.
That's a vital area.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The converse-is also true.
4 23 MR. DENTON:
It sure is.
It makes the batteries 24 more important.
That's one reason we're looking at batteries 25 also.
78
.~.
i 1
We forwarded a proposed rulemaking package to the 2
Commission.
We have just got the Utility Group's submittal of 3
their views on this topic, and we have committed to send down 4
to the Commission a report, after we have read what-the 5
industry --
4 6
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I concur on this business of 7
needing AC power.
I've maintained for several decades
,8 now, as long as you've got power at the site, you can handle 9
9 almost any accident, but, boy, you're in trouble if you don't 10.
have power at the site, t
4 11' MR. DENTON:
A-45 is one of the three that we have
.12 been struggiing with, shutdown decay heat removal.
We now 18 have preliminary reports from our consultants for two plants.
14 We expect reports on the other five plants fairly early, i
15 What they're finding is, there are ways to improve 16 heat removal from plants, however, these tend to be very 17 costly, large improvements in plants, and A-45 may be one that 18 we don't resolve in
'85.
It looks more.like early
'86, 19 because of time d i f f erences in design between 2-loop, 3-loop' 20 plants, and within plants.
But we're making progress.
We are-21 meeting with the ACRS on the two plants that we have looked at 22 in detail.
23 A-46, seismic qualification of equipment, we have
(.
24 revised our package on that, I expect CRSR review in June of 25
'85, and this is one where there has been a big industry
79
(
1 effort to assist in collecting information on the seismic 2
resistance of equipment.
8 A-47, control systems, this is one of the three that 4
we don't have a resolution at hand on.
A lot of technicai 5
work is coming together.
I expect the CRGR review in the 6
fall.
7 A-48, hydrogen control, we're still doing some 8
work on Ice condensers, Mark Ill containments, and some 9
tests are still going on.
But I expect that to work out well.
10 A-49, thermal shock, the final rule is awaiting a 11 Commission decision on that one.
I think that one is larget; 12 in hand.
c 18 Finally, one that we have not called a USI, but 14.
that's the issue we talked about, the integration of issues.
15 We are continuing'to look at ways that we can come up with a 16 way to integrate these remaining issues I talked about into 17 one sort of task.
So we're attempting now to consciously 18 think about-these remaining ones and a way of integrating 19 them.
'n effect, I 'think we've got a solution on all 20 But i
21 but the three, and progress is being made on those three.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Harold, I wanted to go back, 28 since we're not going to come close to finishing all this 24 today.
I might as well do some while we're here -- a few s
25 things right.
80 l
1
(
1 If we could go back to page 18, I wasn't sure --
2 maybe you brushed over it so quickly I didn't hear it -- but 3
exactly where are we now, then, on GESSAR-2, completion of 4
staff and ACRS review?
Is that really going to be done by 5
this summer?
6 And also where do we stand on what i guess you would 7
call a kind of hybrid review, if that's indeed what we're 8
doing with the CESSAR standard plant.
9 CSlide.3 10 MR. DENTON:
I think they are both very close.
Once 11 the Commission issues a final' view on these matters, and i 12 think there's some rewrite, and we're still --
~
13 MR. DIRCKS:
We just got it, I think, a day or two 14 ago.
That's your severe accident policy statement.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Where does that stand?
16 MR. DIRCKS:
It just arrived about two days ago.
17 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
We just have it now.
18 MR. ROE:
It incorporates the corrections.
19 CSimultaneous discussion.]
20 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
It took us longer to get the-21 staff requirements memo than it did for you to give us the 22 response.
23 MR. DENTON:
So we'd be prepared to issue, I think, 24 FDAs promptly for the two plants which were standard.
And 1 25 think for the GESSAR review, we do expect the ACRS review to
81 1
be wrapped up.
I think they just had a meeting and probably 2
another meeting scheduled.
I would anticipate, then, we could 8
move ahead on GESSAR.
4 So I would think in the next few months that those' 5
reviews would be complete.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Good.
I'm pleased to hear 7
that.
I would hope at least by now you have an inkling of 8
what the Commission wants, even if we haven't got it on paper.
9 MR. DENTON:
I think.we do.
10 MR. DIRCKS:
We think we got what you wanted.
11 That's why we sent that down.
12 ELaughter.]
(-
18 MR. DENTON:
Every effort will take considerable 14 resources when they start rolling.
I think I mentioned that 15 to you before.
16 l've covered, then, page 14 and 15 in essence by --
l l
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I have a couple of questions on l
18 15.
19 MR. DENTON:
All right.
20 ESlide.]
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You have completed resolution 22 of four generic issues, and you say you're going to do 28 twelve additional is that realistic?
24 MR. DENTON:
These are generic issues.
These are 25 not l'
F
- 82 r^*
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I thought you were going to.
2 pass page 15.
3 MR. DENTON:
Yes, I think we will complete twelve.
4 These twelve are not the USIs, but these'are -- yes, I think 5
that's realistic.
~6 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Then the four that you did were t
7 more difficult?
It just seems like half the time is gone, and 8
you're going to do three times as much in the second half as 9
you did in the first half.
10 MR. DENTON:
I think they're not all apples.
I see 11 no difficulty in completing the twelve.
We really budget 12 these to be completed during the year, and when you.take a 13 miniature snapshot of it, and I don't see any difficulty in 14 getting these twelve out.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Did you take a look on that same 16 page at the generic issues, the medium priority ones, to see
.17 whether some should not be placed in the high category or 18 perhaps even some in the low category?
Have you taken another 19 hard look at that?
20 MR. DENTON:
Yes ', we did.
We have not identified'a 21 medium priority since March.
We are rea l-ly looking at them.
22 The one that got into the high priority was the pump seal 23 Remember, we had proposed that as a USl, and the Commission J2'4 decided to treat that as a high priority, so that one is being 25 treated that way.
i w.
83
?,9
{
1 I think the prioritization we do is now getting wide 2
acceptance.
We have talked to the ACRS and the industry about 8
it.
LJe more or less agree now that the high, medium, low can 4
be effectively handled.
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
But you reviewed the medium ones 6
here.
You say you're not going to schedule for resolution 7
after March of
'85.
None of that category you think should be 8
placed in the high category.
9 MR. DENTON:
That's correct.
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Or even in the low category?
11 MR. DENTON:
That's correct.
We looked at them --
12 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Okay, thank you.
13 MR. DENTON:
-- and we didn't change them after 14 March.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
All right.
16 MR. DENTON:
TMI clean-up on page 16, I will just 17 mention what happened yesterday.
18 ESlide.]
19 They succeeded in lifting the plenum assembly.
It 20 was uneventful, and the assembly is now underwater in the end 21 of the pool As far as I can tell, everything went as 22 planned, and there was no unusual equipment malfunction, 23 personnel errors, or overexposure.
So i consider that a 24 success.
25 The effort now there will be to clean up the water
84
(
1 and taking the assembly out and restart up the water.
So 2
there will be a period of the clean-up system running to build 8
a bridge to go over the top of the assembly to the reactor 4
vessel and install lighting, and then later on this summer to 5
begin the clean-up process.
So I think yesterday was one more 6
major milestone.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
The point you have.at the bottom 8
of the page, approximately 95 percent of the radioactivity 9
. released from the primary system during accident, shift 10 offsite.
11 That's a very significant matter.
I wonder how 12 well known that is.
That's very important to know, that 95 13
. percent has been removed'from that reactor.
14 Has that been widely publicized, or is that 15 recognized or not1 16 MR. DENTON:
Probably not very widely.
And let me 17 try to 18 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It's very important.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That does not include the 20 core.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It means an awful lot to me.
Of 22 course it does not mean the core.
23 MR. DENTON:
It means the activity that was in the s
24 water that was released to the bottom of the containment and 25 to --
85
(.~
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
primarily that which was in the 2
water.
8 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Clean-up, what they could do.
5 The core is still to come.
6 MR. DENTON:
They did recently announce a several 7
months slip in their overall schedule, but I don't see that a.
8 a major item with regard to the progress that we are finally 9
making here.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So yesterday they proved 11 that they could get the plenum out without any problem.
12 MR. DENTON:
They did lift it out and removed it.
18 They lifted it, and they put it in the bottom of the pool, so 14 I think the radiation levels were quite low in there at the 15 time, and everything performed satisfactorily.
16 MR. ROE:
Harold, while you still have the' floor, 17 maybe if we could shift to 20 and 21 and see if there's any 18 additional comments you'd like to make our risk assessment 19 activities right now.
20-MR. DENTON:
I think we are finding risk assessment 21 a very useful tool in prioritizing our workload.
22 ESlide.]
~
2Q We've had a Branch Chief go out to the region and 24 get their input on how we're prioritizing, so that all the 25 generic issues now are reprioritized, relooked at about every
86 1
quarter, and that process seems to be a very useful use of 2
PRA.
We used Limerick PRA in the course of a proceeding, and 8
I probably should mention Zion.
4 Now that the Commission has acted on Indian Point, 5
Commonwealth Edison is interested in our acting in some manner 6
on the order I issued to them in the same timeframe.
So we're 7
putting some attention to how we might conform my actions 8
back in 1980 to today's perception of risk.
9 One area I will mention as a lead-in to Bob, we had 10 anticipated being able to start resolving the severe accident 11 issues in the middle of the summer, based on the coming g
12 together of a methodology of how to approach severe accidents.
18 You may recall that IDCORE had proposed several 14
. years ago that they would develop a methodology.
We would, 15 through our laboratory effort, develop a way to check their 16 methodology.
I understand now that we're not going to 17 be or have that methodology in hand, especially for boiling 18 water reactors, for some time longer.
That's going to prevent 19 me from really kicking off a review of the IDCORE effort that 20
-they had hoped to kick off in the middle of the summer.
21 It appears we are closer together on PWR large 22 containments than we are for boilers.
Maybe with that 28 lead-in, I'll --
24 MR. ROE:
If we could, let me suggest, Mr. Chairmara, 25 we do have two slides, several slides on quality assurance
87 1
enforcement.
I think'to meet your time schedule, I would like 2
Jim Taylor to address those, highlight anything in there.
S.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Would this be a good place 4
to stop?
5 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I thought this might be a good 6
place to.stop.
I just discovered I have had somebody waiting 7
since 11:30.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sounds Ilke an excellent 9
place to stop.
10 MR. ROE:
When we reconvene, we'll have quality 11 assurance enforcement, and then we'll go into safety research 12 programs.
(
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You might take a look at our 14 agenda, so that when we get the agenda planning, we can 15
. schedule another meeting.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
These were good 17 presentations.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
I think it was a very 19 good discussion also.
I think we also have to add something 20 for our additional meeting's on Part XX.
c 21 Thank you very much.
I think it was very 22 profitable.
We stand adjourned.
23 (Whereupon, at 11:55 o' clock, a.m.,
the Commission i
24 meeting was adjourned.)
25
~
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of:
Commission Meeting 9-
.9 Name'of proceeding:
Mid-Year Budget and Program Review 10 11 Docket No.'
12 place: Washington, D. C.
,.(
-13 Date: Thursday, May 16, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
13
' N,
'r g
d'tg[
,(
(Signature)
(Typed.Name of Reporter)
Mimie Meldzer 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.
24 25
a U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MIDYEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW
- BRIEFING TO COMMISSION i
NAY 16, 1985 j
j 1
i e
l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
~
FY 1985 MIDYEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW
($ IN THOUSANDS)
AMOUNT-FY 1985 FUNDS AVAILABLE:
FY 1985 APPROPRIATION
$448,200 FY 1984 UNOBLIGATED FUNDS CARRIED OVER TO FY 1985 5,699 OCTOBER 1, 1984 - MARCH 31, 1985 - DE0BLIGATION OF FUNDS OBLIGtTED IN PRIOR. YEARS 2,111 DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT RESCISSION
- 4,329 1/
TOTAL
$451,681 FY 1985 OBLIGATIONS TilRU MARCli 31, 1985 278,253 PERCENT OBLIGATED 62%
1/
THE FORTY-FIVE DAYS ALLOWED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION EXPIRED ON APRIL 24, 1985.
CONGRESS DID l
NOT ACT, AND THE FUNDS IIAVE JUST BEEN REAPPORTIONED TO NRC.
OMB ADVISES THAT AGENCIES SHOULD NOT INTERPRET THE RELEASE OF THESE FUNDS AS A MANDATE TO SPEND AND HAS INDICATED POTENTIAL CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO RESCIND THESE FUNDS AT A LATER DATE.
-.,.7-
-r n
n-.__
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 HID-YEAR PROGRAM AND. BUDGET REVIEW STAFF UTILIZATION AS OF MARCH 31, 1985 (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF YEARS)
FTE PERCENT AUTHORIZED USED NRR 640 49.5 NHSS 297 51.9 IE 242 47.8 RES 230 50.0 REGIONS 1006 50.9 ED0 STAFF 0FFICES 747 50.4 COMMISSION STAFF 0FFICES 329 49.1 3491 50.2
n 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MIDYEAR-RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW
~
FUNDING. REQUIREMENTS ANDLSOURCES
($ IN Til0USANDS)
, REQUIREMENTS SOURCES SALARIES AND BENEFITS - PAY Sil0RTFALL
$1,500 PROGRAM SUPPORT -
- MINOR UNDERRUNS 155 REGIONS - URANIUM RECOVERY 378 COMM - MINOR UNDERRUNS 19 ED0 - MINOR UNDERRUNS 65' A'DMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT -
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT RM - ADP 200 REGIONS REGION I MOVE DELAYED
-851 ADM - TELECOM 189 TRAVEL -
E0ulPMENT i
REGIONS 102 REGIONS ~- MINOR UNDERRUNS 100 j
RES 60 COMM OFFICES 67-EDO 0FFICES 28 TOTALS
$1,957
$1,957
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,~
FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW
' TRANSPORTATION, MATERIALS, FUEL CYCLE TRANSPORTATION:
[
COMPLETED 71 TRANSPORTATION CERTIFICATION CASES VS 110 PLANNED FOR FY 1985.
CONDUCTED A JOINT HEADOUARTERS/ REGION III/ STATE i'ICIDENT EXERCISE UTILIZING THE NEW PPERATIONS CENTER ON APRIL 30, 1985.
JOINTLY SPONSORING NRC/ DOT SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR TO BE HELD.IN CHICAGO IN AUGUST 1985.
j CONTINUED REVIEW OF RULE REFORM (MODAL STUDY AND INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS STUDY)
MATERIALS:
COMPLETED 9 0F THE 15 STANDARD REVIEW PLANS AND' COMPANION REGULATORY GUIDES PLANNED FOR FY 1985.
l COMPLETED TRANSFER TO REGIONS OF MATERIALS LICENSING RESPONSIBILITY FOR
[
FEDERAL LICENSES IN APRIL 1985.
REGIONS PERFORMING WELL.
t COMPLETED INTERIM NRC RESPONSE COORDINATION PLAN FOR MATERIALS CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS.
PUBLISHED LESSONS LEARNED TASK FORCE REPORT.
FINAL NRC RESPONSE PLAN TO BE COMPLETED IN JULY 1985.
EFFECTIVELY-HANDLED UNANTICIPATED EVENTS ON CONTAMINATED PIPE FITTINGS FROM l-TAIWAN.AND WELL CASING PIPES FROM BRAZIL.
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR 35 SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION IN DECEMBER 1984.
CONTINUED REVIEW OF UPGRADES IN RADIOGRAPHY SAFETY TO BE COMPLETED BY JULY 1986.
J 1
i
- 4.-
l 3
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW TRANSPORTATION, MATERIALS, FUEL CYCLE (CONTINUED)
COMPLETED APPROXIMATELY 21100 NUCl. EAR-MATERIAL LICENS!NG CASES VS 5800 PLANNED FOR FY-1985.
ARRANGED FOR DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL'IN THE J.C. HAYNES CASE.
INITIAL CAPABILITIES OF MATERIALS LICENSING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OPERATIONAL.
I RADIOGRAPHY' INSPECTIONS HAVE SHIFTED TO MORE ON-SITE OBSERVATION VS l
PAPERWORK REVIEWS.
CONDUCTED APPROXIMATELY 1100 INSPECTIONS OF THE 2300 PLANNED FOR FY 1985.
FUEL CYCLE:
REMEDIAL ACTIONS'AT CONTAMINATED SITES ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE; ONE EXPIRED l
LICENSE SITE REMAINS.
COMPLETED fl9 FUEL CYCLE FACill?Y LICENSING CASES VS 80 PLANNED FOR FY 1985.
AS A RESULT OF NFS ERWIN INCIDENT, SPECIAL INSPECTION ATTENTION BEING PAID TO CRITICALITY SAFETY AND BUILD UP OF MATERIALS IN UNSAFE GEOMETRIES.
CONDUCTED APPROXIMATELY 117 RADIATION SAFETY INSPECTIONS'AT FUEL FACILITIES, COMPARED TO 32 AT'THIS TIME LAST YEAR.
REVIEWED AND COMMENTED ON DOE PROJECT PLAN AND DESIGN FOR WEST VALLEY llLW SOLIDIFICATION PROJECT.
i
- REDIRECTION / CHANGE TAKEN.SINCE-STARI.0F FISCAL YEAR.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MIb YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM ~ REVIEW MANAGING NUCLEAR WASTE T NEEDED.
STAFF CONCLUDED THAT MOU WITH DOE ON NWPA INTERACT A PRELIMINARY DRAFY OF COMMENTED TO 57E ON NINE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM THE PROJECT DECISION SCHEDULE.
TO MANAGE THE COMMENTED ON DOE REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ALTERNATIVE A CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF ALL CIVILIAN RADI0 ACTIV TION AND NRC/ STATE /
PUBLISHED PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 60 FOR SITE TRIBE INTERACTION.
ANPRM ON DEFINITION OF HLW TO BE COMPLETED IN JUNE 1 R APPROVAL.
FINAL RULE 10 CFR 60 ON THE UNSATURATED ZONE SENT EPORTS FOR DRY CASK REVIEWING 2 DRY SPENT FUEL LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND STORAGE.
FORMAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
. MONITORING DOE DEVELOPMENT OF MRS PROPOSAL; ANTICIPATE DOE TO CONGRESS IN JANUARY 1986.
TED ACCESS TO LLW APPRISED COMMISSION OF REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
)
DISPOSAL SITES-AND RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC ACTION (SE
-G-
- 4. o._4
~
- ~ - - - -
NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW MANAGING' NUCLEAR WASTE
. CONTINUED)'
(
ERNATE. CONCENTRATION LIMITS CONTINUING INTERACTION WITil-EPA TO DEVELOP ALT METHODOLOGY.
t a
FINAL RULE ON NON-RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVER CONFORM TO EPA MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS TO COMMISSION IN IMPLEMENTING EPA STANDARDS FOR ALL 14 0F THE EXISTING CO l
5 COMPLETED 61 URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSING CASES VS 95 l
t i
A
_7_
,a-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY.CdMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR'RES00RCE.AND PROGRAM. RE s
SAFEGUARDS ED FOR
- COMPLETED 6 REGULATORY OFFECTIVENESS FY 1985, ANNUAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION.
SES VS 340 PLANNED FOR FY 1985.
COMPLETED 127 REACTOR SAFEGUARDS LICENSING CA l
CENSING CASES VS 110 PLANNED FOR COMPLETED 79 FUEL CYCLE-FACILITY SAFEGUARDS LI FY 1985.
ARDS LICENSING CASES VS 180 PLA COMPLETED 100 TRANSPORTATION AND EXPORT SAFEGU FY 1985.
CURRENTLY COORDINATING WITH VIRONMENT.
COMPLETED SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE THREAT EN DOE AND NSC (SECY 85-24).
~ T INSPECTORS WITH MORE INFORM INITIATED TRAINING PROGRAM TO PROVIDE RESIDEN SPOTTING POTENTIAL SECURITY DEFICIENCIES.
EACTORS, 50 AT FUEL FACILITIES AND 18 CONDUCTED 103 SAFEGUARDS INSPECTIONS AT POWER RR REACTORS, 4 AT NON-POWER REACTORS, COMPARED TO 100 AT POWE 16 AT NON-POWER REACTORS AT THIS TIME LAST YEAR.
. REACTORS IN OPERATION-o CURRENTLY 93 POWER REACTORS LICENSED TO OPERATE - 88 FULL POWER LICENSES, 5 LICENSES.
COMPLETED'APPROXIMATELY 1200 REACTOR LICENSING ACTIONG THROUGH THE E VS 2660 PLANNED FOR FY85 INCLUDING THE REVIEW AND PUBLICATION 476 NOTICES OF "NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARD CONSIDERATION" WHICH RES COMMENT AND NO REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS; AND 3 NOTICES OF "SIGNIFICANT HAZARD RESULTED IN NO COMMENTS OR REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS.
THE TOTAL LICENSING ACTION INVENTORY.PER REACTOR HAS. REMAINED RELATIVELY C INVENTORY HAS INCREASED TO ABOUT 4300.
INITIATE MODIFIED PILOT INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRA PLAN TO RESPONDED SUCCESSFULLY T0' UNANTICIPATED OPERATING EVENTS SUCH AS FERMI', FARL SUSQUEHANNA, SEQUOYAH AND MCGUIRE.
AT MID YEAR, 13fl OPERATIONS RESIDENT INSPECTORS ON-SITE.
CONDUCTED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL' TEAM (PAT) INSPECTIONS AT DAV NEXT PAT SCHEDULED AT MAINE YANKEE IN MAY.
IE ASSESSMENT INSPECTIONS IN THE OPERATIONS / SURVEILLANCE AREA ONOFRE, MCGUIRE AND SUS 0GEHANNA..
s a % gMD'a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM' REVIEW REACTORS IN OPERATION
-CURRENTLY 93 POWER REACTORS LICENSED TO OPERATE - 88 FULL POWER LICENSES, 5 LOW POWER LICENSES.
COMPLETED APPROXIMATELY 1200 REACTOR' LICENSING ACTIONS'THROUGH THE END OF MARCH,.1985 VS 2660 PLANNED FOR FY85 INCLUDING THE REVIEW AND PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER OF' 476 NOTICES OF "N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARD CONSIDERATION" WHICH RESULTED IN 1 PUBLIC COMMENT AND NO REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS; AND 3 NOTICES OF "SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS" WHICH RESULTED IN NO COMMENTS OR REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS.
LICENSING ACTION INVENTORY PER REACTOR HAS REMAINED RELATIVELY CONSTANT.
THE TOTAL INVENTORY HAS INCREASED T0 ABOUT 4300.
PLAN TO INITIATE MODIFIED PILOT INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR TWO PLANTS, RESPONDED SUCCESSFULLY TO UNANTICIPATED OPERATING EVENTS SUCH AS FERMI, FARLEY, I
SUSQUEHANNA, SEQUOYAH AND MCGUIRE.
i AT MID YEAR, 1311 OPERATIONS RESIDENT INSPECTORS ON-SITE.
CONDUCTED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM (PAT) INSPECTIONS AT DAVIS-BESSE AND COOPER.
NEXT. PAT SCHEDULED AT MAINE YANKEE IN MAY.
i IE ASSESSMENT INSPECTIONS IN THE OPERATIONS / SURVEILLANCE AREAS CONDUCTED AT SAN ONOFRE, MCGUIRE AND SUSQUEHANNA..
NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION' FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW REACTORS IN OPERATION (CONTINUED)
INCIDENT RESPONSE / EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS:
^
NEW' OPERATIONS CENTER COMPLETE -- OPERATIONAL FEBRUARY 1985..
CONDUCTED 3 REACTOR AND 2 TRANSPORTATION. EMERGENCY EXERCISES.
INCIDENT DATA COMMUNICATIONS TEST COMPLETED AT MCGUIRE.
PLANNING FOLLOW-ON WITH LA SALLE (COMMONWEALTH EDISON) AND SUSQUEHANNA.
5 OBSERVED 30 EMERGENCY' PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES FOR POWER REACTORS.
COMPLETED 3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITY APPRAISALS, 4 ADDI.TIONAL APPRAISALS PLANNED IN FY 1985.
j 4
IE REVIEW AND TESTING OF NEW APPROACHES TO ON-SITE INSPECTIONS (EXPANDED RESIDENT COVERAGE, MORE REGION-BASED TEAM ORIENTED INSPECTIONS, AND " REACTIVE ONLY" l
PROGRAM) HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
PRELIMINARY RESULTSLINDICATED THAT:
i INCREASE IS NEEDED IN RESIDENT INSPECTOR MANNING OF SINGLE UNIT OPERATING d
SITES.
(LIMITED RESOURCES)-
TEAM INSPECTIONS ARE-PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE FOR DIAGNOSIS OF PROBLEMS.
" REACTIVE ONLY" lllSPECTIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT IN EVALUATING UTILITY i
PERFORMANCE.
1 i
s NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
~
FY 1985'MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW REACTORS IN'0PERAT10N (CONTINUED) 4 -
TilROUGH MID YEAR,. CONDUCTED APPROXIMATELY ll0O INSPECTIONS FOR REACTORS Ih-OPERATION,
- COMPARED TO 920 AT-THIS TIME LAST YEAR.
NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PER UNIT REMAINS AT-ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN FY 1984.
TEAM-(VS INDIVIDUAL) INSPECTIONS ARE NOW FOCUSSING ON ROOT CAUSES FOR DEFICIENCIES.
SPECIAL INSPECTION ATTENTION TO CATEGORY 3 SALP AREAS.
AE0D REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY-DECEMBER 1984 SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION.
1 i
i t
.~
~'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW REACTOR LICENSING
- ' NEW OPERATING LICENSES RESTRICTED UP TO 5% POWER WERE ISSUED TO 8 REACTORS, 3 0F WHICil HERE LATER CONVERTED TO FULL POWER AUTHORIZATIONS.
AN ADDITIONAL 3 REACTOR LICENSES WERE CONVERTED TO FULL POWER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR A TOTAL OF 6 DURING MID YEAR.
FY 1985.
ISSUANCE OF POWER LICENSE FOR SHOREHAM DELAYED DUE TO LITIGATION, FULL POWER LICENSING OF LIMERICK DELAYED DUE TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.
i SPECIAL TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUPS REVIEWED ALLEGATIONS AT COMANCHE PEAK, WATERFORD AND TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC., DIESEL PROBLEMS.
1 i
REVIEWING OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR 30 POWER REACTORS.
}
COMMISSION POLICY FOR REVIEWING AND HANDLING LATE FILED ALLEGATIONS ISSUED.
NEW ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED.
l THROUGH MID YEAR, ABOUT 42 FTE EXPENDED AND $ll.2 MILLION OBLIGATED VS 27 FTE AND 1
$1.3 MILLION PLANNED TO SUPPORT LICENSING REVIEWS OF DIABLO CANYON 1, WATERFORD, l
COMANCHE PEAK, WOLF CREEK, TMI-l RESTART AND TDI DIESEL REVIEWS.
i ISSUED NRC/ FEMA REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO FACILITATE HANDLING OF NRC REQUESTS FOR FEMA FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS.
i AT MID YEAR, AT LEAST TWO RESIDENT INSPECTORS ASSIGNED TO ALL ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION-SITES.
j!
- CONDUCTED CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL TEAM (CAT) INSPECTIONS AT SHEARON HARRIS, BRAIDWOOD AND MILLSTONE.
NEXT CAT AT CLINTON.
a 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW REACTOR LICENSING (CONTINUED)
THROUGH MID YEAR, CONDUCTED APPROXIMATELY 500 INSPECTIONS FOR REACTORS UNDER
~
CONSTRUCTION, COMPARED TO 560 AT THIS TIME LAST YEAR.
INSPECTIONS PER UNIT UNDER CONSTRUCTION REMAINS AT ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN FY 1984.
ADMINISTERED ABOUT 540 EXAMINATIONS TO REACTOR OPERATORS.
GESSAR II SEVERE ACCIDENT FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL IS AWAITING SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY STATEMENT, AND COMPLETION OF STAFF AND ACRS REVIEWS (EXPECTED MID-1985).
4 DEVELOPING PROPOSED POLICY AND INDUSTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESUMING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AT.A DEFERRED FACILITY.
DRAFT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING AND STANDARDIZATION LEGISLATION SENT TO CONGRESS.
STAFF DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.
REVISIONS TO 1978 STANDARDIZATION POLICY UNDERWAY TO. REFLECT SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY.
PUBLISHED PROPOSED POLICY FOR REGULATION OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
STAFF PARTICIPATED IN MEETINGS WITH DOE, UTILITY, AND INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH CURRENT DESIGN ACTIVITIES IN ADVANCED REACTORS.
5 L
a-a a
4 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW SAFETY ISSUES UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUES:
FINAL RULE FOR PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK, USI A-49, SENT TO COMMISSION FOR f
APPROVAL.
REGULATORY GUIDE IS'UNDER DEVELOPMENT.
FINAL RESOLUTION FOR USI A-43 PLANNED FOR LATE FY 1985.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS OF USI A-3/4/5 ISSUED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED TECHNICAL RESOLUTION FOR USI'S A-40, A-44, AND A-46 PLANNED FOR LATE FY 1985.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED TECHNICAL RESOLUTIONS FOR.USI'S A-17, A-45, A-47 AND A-48 IS PROCEEDING.
COMPLEXITY OF USI'S A-17, A-45, AND A-47 MAY REQUIRE EXTENDING ISSUANCE OF-PROPOSED TECilNICAL RESOLUTION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BEYOND FY 1985.
Tile ABOVE REPRESENTS ALL ACTIVE USI'S, l
l HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM PLAN:
j IMPLEMENTED COMPUTERIZED EXAMINATION QUESTION BANK FOR USE BY NRC REACTOR j
OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINERS.
MONITORING INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCREDIATION OF TRAINING.
^
PUBLISHED POLICY STATEMENTS ON TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS..
DEVELOPED MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM PLAN.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE.AND PROGRAM REVIEW SAFETY ISSUES-
-(CONTINUED)
COMPLETED FINAL TECHNICAL RESOLUTION'FOR 4 GENERIC SAFETY. ISSUES.
TWELVE ADDITIONAL
~
- ISSUES ARE PLANNED-FOR COMPLETION IN FY 1985.
MEDIUM PRIORITY GENERIC ISSUES IDENTIFIED AFTER MARCH 1985 ARE NOT BEING SCHEDULED FOR RESOLUTION.
l MANAGING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS:
CRGR HAS REVIEWED 14 PROPOSED POLICY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING.
REACTORS.
MANAGING PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATING REACTORS AND 4
OPERATING LICENSE APPLICANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMISSION GUIDANCE.
INITIAL EVALUATION-IS SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION IN EARLY 1985.
FINAL REVISION TO APRIL 198ll MANUAL CHAPTER ISSUED IN APRIL 1985 TO IMPROVE THE POLICY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION.
CONDUCTING EIGHT OFFICE LEVEL SEMINARS TO ASSURE STAFF
[
UllDERSTANDING OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT POLICY.
PROCEDURES TO CONTROL THE INITIATION OF RULEMAKING HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED.
SYSTEMATIC PROCEDURES FOR PERFORMING VALUE-IMPACT ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN I
DEVELOPED AND INCORPORATED lTO THE REGULATORY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES.
NRR EXAMINING TECH SPECS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE FOCUSED ON MATTERS OF HIGH i
SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE.
f A REPORT ON TECH SPECS WILL BE ISSUED IN LATE FY 1985 TO PRESENT NEXT STEPS.
_ 15 _
9 NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION FY'1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW SAFETY ISSUES (CONTINUED)
COST ANALYSIS. SUPPORT:
PROVIDED COST ANALYSIS SUPPORT FOR 28 ISSUES'AND INITIATED'FOUR NEW GENERIC COST STUI,lES,
ISSUED GUIDANCE ON COST ESTIMATING METHODS AND DEVELOPMENT OF GENERIC COST ESTIMATES.
DEVELOPED PROCEDURES TO TRACK ALL HEGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES, TMI-2 CLEANUP ISSUED 8 SAFETY EVALUATIONS AND APPROVED 344 DETAILED PROCEDURES THAT FACILITATED COMPLETION OF SIGNIFICANT CLEANUP ACTIVITIES.
CONTINUED REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT OF LICENSEE'S DECONTAMINATION PROGRAM.
ISSUED SEVERAL LICENSE. AMENDMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS TO PROMOTE EXPEDITIOUS REMOVAL OF FUEL FROM SITE.
TIMELY APPROVAL ALLOWED JACKING REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL PLENUM UPWARDS ABOUT SEVEN INCHES.
GENERAL AREA RADIATION LEVELS REDUCED BY A FACTOR OF THREE INSIDE CONTAINMENT; RESULT, LOWER LEVELS OF WORKER RADIATION EXPOSURE, MEETINGS WITH DOE ON THE DESIGN OF THE FUEL StilPPING CASK, ONGOING INSPECTION OF OFFSITE SHIPMENTS OF HIGil SPECIFIC ACTIVITY SDS LINERS.
APPROXIMATELY 95% OF THE RADIOACTIVITY RELEASED FROM PRIMARY SYSTEM DURING ACCIDENT SHIPPED OFFSITE.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
FY-1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE.AND PROGRAM REVIEW QUALITY ASSURANCE DEVELOPED QA. PROGRAM' IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
CiOMMISSION REVIEWING PLAN AND DISPOSITION OF NUREG-1055-(MAY 1984) RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF.
STAFF IMPLEMENTING SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN NUREG-1055, SUCH AS:
PILOT READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM AT V0GTLE (INTEGRATES LICENSING COMMITMENTS, DESIGN REVIEW, AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION).
QA FOR HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY AND MONITORED RETRIEVABLE' STORAGE FACILITY.
STARTED TO DEVELOP INSPECTION PROGRAM WHICH INTEGRATES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS OF PLANT OUTAGES AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS.
PREPARING FOR POSSIBLE READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM FOR RESTART'AT WNP-3.
VENDOR INSPECTION PROGRAM'HAS EMPHASIZED LICENSEE RESPONSIBILITY FOR VENDOR SUPPLIERS THROUGH PLANT INSPECTIONS, ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND INFORMATION N0'TICES.
PLANT SITE INSPECTIONS HAVE IDENTIFIED INSTANCES IN WHICH SIGNIFICANT VENDOR INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED / IMPLEMENTED BY LTCENSEES.
COMPLETED 4 SITE INSPECTIONS TO DETERMINE ADEQUACY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 50.49
- EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION RULE.
CONDUCTED INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTIONS AT PERRY AND SHEARON HARRIS.
CONDUCTING INTEGRATED DESIGN REVIEW AT COMANCHE PEAK IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT DIRECTOR.
=
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW QUALITY ASSURANCE (CONTINUED)-
ISSUED INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM (IDVP) REPORTS FOR LIMERICK AND CLINTON.
IDVP AT HOPE CREEK IS UNDERWAY.
REVIEWING ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAMS AT MILLSTONE 3, NINE MILE POINT 2 AND SOUTH TEXAS.
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-FY 1985 NID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW ENFORCEMENT PROCESSED 84 ENFORCEMENT CASES.
ISSUED 43 (22 REACTOR, 21 NON-REACTOR) CIVIL PENALTIES TOTALING $1.3 MILLION.
CIVIL PENALTY ACTIONS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, ON THE AVERAGE, WITHIN ABOUT 13 WEEKS VS GOAL OF EIGHT WEEKS.
DEVELOPING PROPOSED POLICY ON VENDOR ENFORCEMENT.
ISSUED FINAL IE MC 0400, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM - GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ENFORCEMENT POLICY.
DEVELOPING ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE FOR ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS, WHICH IS NOT COVERED IN IE MC 0400.
TO BE COMPLETED JULY 1985.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENFORCEMENT POLICY:
FORMED NOVEMBER 1984 CONDUCTED 3 MEETINGS AND SCHEDULED 3 ADDITIONAL MEETINGS REPORT SCliEDULED TO BE ISSUED AUGUST 1985.
- l
T NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY. COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW
' RISK ASSESSMENT TEN GENERIC ISSUES PRIORITIZED.
REVIEWED LICENSEE PRA SUBMITTALS (E.G., SHOREHAM, MILLSTONE 3).
DEVELOPING RISK IMPORTANCE OF BWR GENERIC ISSUES WITH UTILITY FOR LASALLE PRA.
PROGRAMS (RES/IE/ REGION 1) UNDERWAY TO APPLY PRA RESULTS TO PRIORITIZE INSPECTION I
PROGRAMS.
4 l
NUREG-1115, CATEGORIZATION OF REACTOR SAFETY ISSUES FROM A RISK PERSPECTIVE (M'RCH A
1985), PRESENTS METHODS FOR USING PRA INSIGHTS TO AID IN DECis10NMAKING.
l
-ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OPERATING DATA AND COHERENT DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT.
g CONTINUED TO SCREEN EACH LER AND OTHER PERTINENT EVENT REPORTS TO' IDENTIFY THOSE EVENTS OR SITUATIONS THAT WARRANT ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION.
INITIATED STUDIES ON SCRAM FREQUENCY AND ESF ACTUATIONS.
DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED A PROGRAM TO TREND AND DISPLAY SELECTED OPERATIONAL DATA.
1 l.
1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW RISK ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)
BASED UPON EVALUATION OF 1984 LERS, A DESCRIPTION OF THE OBSERVED DEFICIENCIES AND GUIDANCE ON 110W TO IMPROVE THE CONTENTS OF LERS ARE UNDER PREPARATION.
THESE COMMENTS WILL BE ISSUED TO THE INDUSTRY DURING 1985 AS-SUPPLEMENT 2 TO NUREG-1022.
ISSUED A HANDBOOK ON APPLICATION OF THE ABNORMAL OCCURRENCE CRITERIA AND-EXAMPLES IN JANUARY 1985.
CONTINUED TO IMPLEMENT AN NPRDS EVALUATION PROGRAM AS REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION, 9
9 9
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- * 'e FY 1985 MID. YEAR: RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW SAFETY G0ALS SAFETY GOALS:
SENSITIVITY STUDIES COMPLETED FOR SAFETY GOAL PARAMETERS.
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH DEVELOPED.
EVALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED TO EDO AND ACRS.
INCLUDES SUPPORTING TECHNICAL EVALUATION AND DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT TO BE SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION FOLLOWING EDO REVIEW.
PRA REFERENCE DOCUMENT:
NSF PEER REVIEW COMPLETED MARCH 1985 REPORT ON NSF PEER REVIEW ANTICIPATED TO EDO IN MAY, 1985.
SOURCE TERMS CONTRACTOR CALCULATIONS UNDERGOING TECHNICAL REVIEW.
REASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL BASES:
APS PEER REVIEW COMPLETED FEBRUARY 1985.
DRAFT NUREG-0956 ANTICIPATED TO COMMISSION DURING SUMMER 1985.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW SEVERE ACCIDENTS
- REVISED SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY PAPER TO BE SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION MAY 1985.
A SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE SEVERE ACCIDENT RESEARCH IS BEING PREPARED BY NRR.
IDCOR AND RES ARE MEETING TO RESOLVE 18 SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUES.
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE SIX SOURCE TERM PLANTS AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSES OF POSSIBLE HARDWARE CHANGES DELAYED DUE TO APS REVIEW.
SEVERE ACCIDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM:
COMPLETED PBF (SFD l fl) TEST WITH IRRADIATED FUEL (FEBRUARY 1985).
BEGAN LARGE-SCALE CORE-CONCRETE INTERACTION EXPERIMENTS.
t.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ' -i A E
~
~FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW MAJOR RESEARCH PROGRAMS THERMAL HYDRAULICS:
STEAM GENERATOR TEST PROGRAM PRODUCED DATA SIMULATING ACCIDENT CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM STEAM.LINE BREAK (WESTINGHOUSE, EPRI AND NRC).
. COMPLETED STEAM LINE-FEED LIhL REAK TEST SERIES ON SEMISCALE.
APPENDIX K COMMISSION PAPER AND PROPOSED RULE IN NEAR FINAL FORM.
WORK ON REGULATORY GUIDE AND REPORT SUMMARIZING SUPPORTING RESEARCH IN PROGRESS.
TARGET RECOMMENDATION TO COMMISSION IN AUGUST 1985.
APPENDIX J PROPOSED REVISION AND NEW REGULATORY GUIDE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING FINAL REVIEW BY NRC OFFICES.
REGULATORY PACKAGE COMPLETE AND SCHEDULED FOR CRGR AND ACRS REVIEW JUNE 1985.
i
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
'n " A FY 1985 MID YEAR RESOURCE' AND : PROGRAM. REVIEW MAJOR RESEARCH PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)
SEISMIC COMPLETED RESEARCil SHOWING PIPE RUPTURE IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY FOR PWR PRIMARY COOLANT LOOP
~ DEFINES' IMPROVED-APPROACH TO PIPE-RESTRAINTS.
COMPUTER CODES DEVELOPED FOR CALCULATING PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC-HAZARD.
CURVES FOR EASTERN.U.S. SITES.
LARGE SCALE SEISMIC ~ TEST WITH GERMANY AT.HDR TO VALIDATE SEISMIC PREDICTIVE METHODS AND OBTAIN SEISMIC QUALIFICATION ON EQUIPMENT.
TO BE COMPLETED BY FY 1988.
POSSIBLE COOPERATION WITH JAPAN AT TADOTSU TO EXTEND EXISTING TEST OF PWR LOOP INTO THE INELASTIC RANGE TO VALIDATE SIMPLIFIED, NON-LINEAR PIPING COMPUTER CODES.
METHODS TO ESTIMATE SEISMIC MARGINS OF OPERATING PLANTS WHOSE DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE MAY BE INCREASED BY RESOLUTION OF CHARLESTON EARTHQUAKE ISSUE.
!0A32kDMAAWADWABWWWa#4AkWAWeggaat4AwA&W;4pg E
~
12/82 i
TRANSMITTAL 70:
Document Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips j
i
!:p '
ADVANCED COPY T0: /
/
The Public Doctanent Itxan
/
\\
3 T/.2/,/fd l
DME:
cc: OPS File i
C&R (Natalie)
- I Attached are copies of a n=mi== ion meeting transcript (s) and related meeting i
h==nt(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List j'
and placa;ent in the Public Doctanent Rocza. No other distribution is requested
[
or required. Dcisting DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual h==nts wherever known.
Meeting
Title:
Mid bien b <3 dl hrw j
G#
o Meeting Date:
J-// c, / f f Open Closed 3
DCS Copies 3
(1 of each checked)
Item
Description:
Copies i
Advanced original May Duplicate j
To PDR W =*nt be Dup
- Copy
- 1.
TRANSCRIPT 1
1
, i:
M mn checked, DCS should send a
!j oopy of this transcript to the LPDR for:
6)
AAA txanw DAN 1:
y' l
[
2.
j t
L Y
p 2
j 3-I i
lf lC
!!l
!!]l 4*
,U lh id m
i:l l Tl (PDR is advanced one copy of each doctznent,
- Verify if in DCS, and
,1 two of each SECY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
. :l r :ll 1l 1
g l
id e
NMNN hhhlN khMMMMh NMMMMMhl