ML20138Q226
| ML20138Q226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/07/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8511180037 | |
| Download: ML20138Q226 (91) | |
Text
>
ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Fiscal Year 1985 End-of-Year Report (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Thursday, November 7, 1985 Pages: 1 - 87 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 G511180037 851107 (202) 293-3950 PDR 10CFR j PT9.7 PDR
, d,.
N 1 D I SC LA I M ER 2
3 4
5 6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear ReOulatory Commission held on 3 11/7/85 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.
4 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 1
16 matters discussed. Expressions of cpinion in this transc$ipt 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with t he C omm i s s; i on in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any sit a t ement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Cemmissic'h m ay 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25
I a &
1 ,
i l 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN 3 ***
4 FISCAL YEAR 1985 END-OF-YEAR REPORT 5 mwm e [PUBLIC MEETING 3 7 ***
j 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 9 Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N.W.
+
11 Washington, D.C.
12 13 Thursday, November 7th. 1995 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 1
to notice, at 10:07 a.m., the Honorable NUNZIO J, PALLADINO, 17 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
4 18 COMMISSIONERS FRESENT:
19 NUNZ10 PALLADINO, Chairman oi the Commission 1
20 THOMAS M. RGBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission l
22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member oi the Commission 4
23 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Member of the Commission 24 25
}
l 1
,,,w,-,.v.n,, 7,. ,~,w -g- .--- - - - -,,-,,,y,r,w.--ve,--,g,, ,,>m-,,---p-n-,,--_.,,..+y-- ,,.-.~-,,----,-we >,wm,m,,,-,,,-~rm,m . , _ - . . . , -,,y,- -, ~>
. Mb 2
1 STAFF AND PhESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE-2 H. MINOGUE 3 D. EISENHUT 4 J HOE 3 J ,. TAYLOR .
6 D. MAUSSHARDT 7 J. EVANS 9 R. SCHOGGINS 9 P. NONRY 13 S. CHILA 11 12 13 14 13 10 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 23
. . i 3
1 P R O C E ED I NO S 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good morning ladies and 3 gentlemen.
4 Commissioner Asselstine is apparently tied up in 5 traffic due to the flooding. But his ottice suggests that we
~
6 proceed without him. I hope he can get here soon.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: He may learn to love the 8 subway yet.
9 LLaughter.]
f 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. Unless it gets flooded.
11 The Commission is meeting today to receive the 12 tiscal year 1985 year end report on agency expenditures and I '3 major program accomplishments.
14 The Statt will also indicate those activities that 15 have had to be delayed due to unanticipated higher priority 16 requirements.
17 I understand the briefing will highlight items from j 18 tne EL'O ' s report provided to the Commission October 22, 1985, 19 Copies of this report are available on the table at the back 20 of the room.
21 According to this report the tour major categories 22 of progress to be covered by the Statt will be: reactor 23 safety, materials safety, waste management and sateguards, 24 investigation enforcement and program direction and support 25 From this review, I hope the Commission can provide any
4 1 guidance where needed for programs in the tascal year 1980 1 2 timeirame.
3 Unless there are any other Commissioner remarks at 4 this time, I would propose turning the meeting over to Mr. Noe.
5 COMMISSIONEW ZECH: No.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Jim?
l t
7 MR. ROE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are giving 8 you an end of year report, which will give you a historical 9 look at our accomplishments, but will also balance it with 10 some comments concerning areas that we didn't acecmplish all 11 that we had set out to do, or that we did not have resources l 10 to carry out that we had wished to do.
I i
t 13 I think this balance will give you a view to the 14 tuture that will show that we are carrying out similar, or in 15 certain circumstances expanding programs and we do have
(
16 either level resources or less resources to take care of them j 17 in this coming tiscal year at '86, 18 The approach for the brieting today will be in two 19 major parts or sections. First of all, I would like to have a
)
20 section on our financial and personnel situation and then I 21 would like to have a part of the briefing that focuses on what 22 we have now developed as twelve mission areas,
! 23 Previously we had given you a briefing that looked
- '44 at an organizational situation. We feel that we would like to 25 take a look at a mission approach towards this brieting to
e 4%
o i show how, trem a logical integrated standpoint, all of our 2 various organizational units support these particular 3 missions. It shows how we sort of worked for our comment 4 goals, and segments into the particular organizational units.
5 I think it especially will show how our research 6 program supports our regulatory mission as an essential part 7 of tt.
8 These particular mission areas we are looking at are 9 still being refined. We take a look at this particular 10 mission area approach to help us in several of the documents 11 that we have been working on lately.
12 For example, we are looking at this approach for a 13 tive-yiar plan for an approach to responding to the Senate 14 authorizations request in Section 107 -- authorization bills 1 13 requested in Section 107 tor a report trom the Ccamission i
16 about the relevance of our research program to our regulatory
^
17 mission. Looking at it in the context of our PPG ettorts and 18 also with somewhat of a view toward future budget development 19 activities.
20 -
We will, today, go throMgh the particular report 21 that Mr. Dtrcks sont you earlier, and highlight those 22 accomplishments and some of the areas that we were not able to 23 accompitsh because of higher priority needs, or unantictpated 24 events that we had to cover.
25 I would like to tocus first on the r,e p o r t pages one
, 46 o
I through tour, wnich talks about our financial and human 2 resources.
3 First, on page one it shows in 1985 we essentially 4 had a total funds availability of $458.4 million. We have an 5 obligation estimate -- and I think that this number, as we e come in with the actuals at the end of the year will come 7 very, very close -- of 5445 million, which gave us a carry 8 over of 513.4 million.
9 513.4 million is more of a carry over that is shown 10 in our unabligated balance on page 2 than we would have 11 expected. There is one principal reason for this. It we look 12 at the past history we will see that generally we have three 13 parts of unabligated carry over.
14 One of them was unique this year. The other two are 15 unused prior year, prior to '85, deobligations of moneys that 16 we had obligated and not used all of them for the contracted i 17 ettort. We went back and regained that money. And that is 18 about 53.6 million and we have had that program underway ter 19 some time.
20 And then there is simply unused tunds from '85, 21 which we did not use all that we had budgeted tor, 5.3.
22 The unique one this year was as a result of 23 Congressional --
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You are mentioning numbers 1 25 don't find on my --
. Ab 7
1 MR. ROE: They will all come up to sum to 13.4, 2 Mr. Chairman. They are just broken down by categories, and 3 not specifically in there.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: 'Okay.
5 MR. ROE: The one unique area we have, or one e unique source of funding was as a result of the congressional 7 action there was an FY'85 Deficit Reduction Act that removed 8 from our appropriated funds. 54.3 million.
9 Then as a result of congressional inaction to make 10 that particular Act ccme to truition, we were returned the 11 54.3 million basically towards the end at the fiscal year.
12 And subsequently carried it over.
13 We do not expect to have that occur again unless 14 there are additional congressional actions and inactions. So, -
15 that is a unique 54.3 million. Basically, it was taken away 10 and then it was given back to us and we did not have the 17 opportunity to spend it.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you still explaining the 19 13.4?
20 MR. ROE: Yes, sir.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH: What is the 4.3 again?
22 MR. ROE: The 4.3 is as a result of that Deficit 23 Reduction Act, where it was removed from us and then Congress 24 didn't finally enact it. I think the time period for their s
25 action expired and it had to be returned to the agencies. And
l 8
l 1 we just carried it over.
2 COMMISSIONER 2ECH: So that is money that we have.
3 It is part of the 13.4?
4 MR. ROE: Yes, sir, it is part of the 13.4.
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH: All right. So that is a 6 windtall?
7 MR. ROE: Well, it is a windtall We sort of had 8 it in the savings account.
9 COMMISSIONER ZECH: All right.
10 MR. ROE: It hurt us last year and it helps us 11 this year.
12 COMMISSIONER 2ECH: Okay.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This year being which year?
14 MR. ROE: *80.
14 With respect to our unobligated carry over, the 16 second line on page 2 will show you that we have certain 17 contracts that we are committed to that we did not fund in 18 *85 and we will fund o~tt of that carry over which are about s2 19 million. There is no major contracts, big pieces, that are 20 say a million or halt million dollars each. They are an 21 accumulation of smaller contracts.
22 As a result, we estimate that about 511-11.5 million 23 will be available for carry over to help us meet the problems 24 that we see in '86 with respect to the budget of -- Linaudible 25 due to coughing] -- reduced from either the level of 5437,
. _ _ . - _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ , . - . , = . _ _ . - - _ . . . - _ - _ - , - _ . - -
o db 9
1 which accounts for our budget request of $429 plus the 58 2 million associated with the salary and benetit shortfall that 3 was the result of the proposal by the Administration to fund 4 salaries at only 93 percent level, which we knew did not get
$ enacted.
o The potential uses for --
? CHAIEMAN PALLADINO: Explain that again. We were 8 supposed to assume that the salaries were lower, but the 9 salaries are not going to be lower, and so your budget 10 preparation has to count on the basis -- has to be based on i
11 tne assumption or the fact that we are going to have to pay 12 the tull salaries.
13 MR. HOE: That is correct.
14 The 5429 million budget tnat was proposed by the 13 President and sent to Congress, had included in it a salary Ic level of only 93 percent, and that was not enacted by the i
17 Congress. So, we have to pay the tull salaries.
18 We have two potential uses for the carry over. A 19 salary and benetit shortfall which range trem about 7.5 20 million to 59 million based on what assumptions you use. And 21 then that 511 million that is a result of the 1418 million 22 appropriations law that we have with respect to the 5429 4
23 million that the Commission -- that the President proposed.
24 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: On this page 2 I presume you 25 are showing that the sum of these two is greater than the l
i o db 10 1 available carryover.
2 MR. ROE: The sum of the two is greater than the
~3 available carryover. The carryover will help us somewhat, but 4 it still leaves a shortfall And we recently sent you trom 5 Mr. Dircks, his recommendations of how to allocate the e appropriation we have et 1418 million.
7 Page 3 gives you a comparison of where we stood in 8 '85 with respect to total funds available for use and where we 9 stand in '80. I think this points out the tact that we have 10 tairly stable, or in some circumstances, expanding programs.
11 And we have a receding budget.
12 The summary shows that in '80 we will essentially 13 have 520 million less to spend on our programs than we did in 14 '83.
i 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. Are you on page 3?
16 MR. ROE: On page 3, yes, sir.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Why is that number 13.4 instead 18 of 11.4 that you just showed on the previous page?
19 MR. ROE: The 13.4 is our carry over trem '83 to 20 '86. On the previous page the number that we had of 11.4 21 already shows you that we have to utilize the 12 million that 22 we will use in the next tiscal year.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I still am not sure why 24 it is not 11.4. The ettective carry over sounds like it 25 is 11.4 not 13.4 million.
f l . db l
11 1 MM. SCHOGGINS: Mr. Cnairman, the actual total 2 unobligated tunds is over 513 million. There was approximately 3 an over 52 million of ettorts that were committed tnat were in 4 the process of being obligated, but were not actually obligated 5 as et September 30.
6 So that the full amount of unob11 gated is the 13
? million. But'the ettective availability is essentially 2 8 million less than that. Because as those contracts now are 9 obligated -- they really were '85 contracts, but they just did 10 not get actually otticially obligated prior to the end of the 11 tiscal year.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I understand that. On slide 2 13 you showed the ettective carry over at 11.4.
14 MR. SCHOGGINS: Available carry over.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This one shows 13.4 and I was a 16 little confused as to why one was 11.4 and the other was 17 13.4. And I guess I still am.
le COMMISSIONEN ZECH: It is a bookkeeping way the 19 budgeteers do it.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Maybe it is beyond the 21 scope of a Commissioner.
22 LLaughter.J 23 [ Commissioner Bernthal left the room.]
24 MR. ROS: Page number 4 --
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Don *t leave page 3.
o db 12
- 1 This 2.0 million --
i 2 MR. ROE: Let me explain that i
1 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is that ditterent$
t 4 MR. ROE: That*s ditterent. As we continue our i 5 program of looking at our contractual ettert of the past 1 6 years, we will continue to take and remove funds that were not j 7 used, or we continue to deobligate.
8 It is just an estimate that we will gain about 52 i
j 9 million during this year to use from deobligation of prior 4
10 year tunds.
I 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If you look at the bottom line lI
! 12 -- I know we are supposed to be looking at '85, and I will get i
1 13 ott of '80 in just a moment -- but the bottom line for 'So 14 looks like, golly, we were expecting 429, here we got 433, so a
] 15 I wonder why the cuts in *86, i
16 MR. SCHOGGINS: Salary and benefits shortfall 17 The 429 actually equates to about a 437 requirement 4
l 18 because of the fact of the ditterence in the salary and
! 19 benefits which was in the President's budget and the actual 20 pay rate. So the requirement was really a 437 million
- 21 requirement in '80.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Were it presented that way I 1
I 23 guess it would not raise my question. But it looks Itke
- 24 anybody walking away from this meeting with this handout would i
1
! 25 say, "By golly, tney only needed 429, they got 433, we didn't i
s
o ~>
13
, 1 cut them enough.*
2 MR. ROE: I hope they don't have that view.
1 3 [ Laughter.J 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The presentation is very 5 import 4nt, because that is the impression one gets from 6 looking at this. And my question ts, well, then we don't have 7 to cut anything in '80.
9 So are you saying it is 429 plus 8 that we really 9 needed to budget for, and this 433 should be compared with 4
10 437.
t ,
] 11 MR. ROE: Another way to look at it is we should be i 12 really looking at, to carry out the programs that were l 13 presented in your budget to Congress, you need 5437 million.
i 14 We were tortunate to carry over funds to fund the '80 programs it of 511 million. So that reduces somewhat the impact.
16 We expect a potential of 52 million additional
- 17 sometime during the fiscal year as far as deobligations. That 18 is an estimate, 19 So, we did mitigate somewhat the action, but it i
1 20 still means that we had to cut out the programs or cater the i
] 21 programs in our recommendation to you, j
i' 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But you see my problem, what a
j 2 ') has been handed out gives the impression that we have no 4
24 problem in '80. And I think it is worth making sure that when Zt we presented the story that we don *t draw the conclusion that l
l
~ . . -. -_ -. -. - . . - - . _ . _
I e .',
14 1
1 I was about to draw, that "Ocod Lord, we don't need to cut in i
I 2 86 at all 3 MM. HOE: From that perspective, it you take a look !
4 at the program that we conducted for the Commission in '80 and i $ what is expected for us to be. conducting in '80, we have 125 j 6 million less 11 you consider all the sources of the funding.
l 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I appreciate that. But I was 8 drawing the conclusion Just on *80.
l 9 MM. HOE: Just simple numbers is that you had 429 10 in your President's budget. Now you have 433 potentially to 4
11 use. So wnat's your problem?
j 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That's right 13 So it is worth in future tabulation to try to make 14 inat clear. 1 l
I 15 MM. HOE: Yes, sir.
- le CHAIRMAN PALLADINO- Okay. Go ahead.
i
{ 17 MM. HOE: On page 4 you see the Statt uttitzation.
18 I think here that the numbers speak for themselves There is l
19 nothing that concerns us as far as -- the deviations are from I
5 20 around 100 percent that de saw in the various programs or 21 support otitees.
i 22 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO: I had a question on !&E since f
23 I&E is an area that has a lot of activity. Was there some l 24 particular problem wny there we didn't make our tuli authorized
, 25 --
1
i e 1 10 i
1 MR. TAYLOR: During this year we have been hiring to 2 statt up the vendor, the shift in the vendor program. That i
3 continued into this fiscal year. Plus, we have the problem et
,i 4 a hold on hiring at the 14 level, which we imposed because ot 5 the grade problem. And that restricted several potential e entries.
7 We expect to catch up. We are close now, i
8 It was really impacted -- remember the vendor 9 program transferred a year ago during this year, and a lot of 10 people did not come. So, we carried a large number et
, 11 vacancies into this year as we began to hire. People did not 12 transfer. They retired. Some of them were reassigned within 13 regica.
14 That was a big load of hiring that we carried into 15 this past tiscal year.
10 LCommissioner Asselstine arrived.]
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. I wonder it I could bring J
10 Commissioner Asselstine up te date.
19 We are on slide 4. But on slide 3 it raised tne 20 question, 11 you look for 1980 -- although I know we are not 21 looking at 1980, I couldn*t help but draw an observation that 22 this slide implies, in slide 3, that for 1980 we have 433.4 23 million. Our budget was at 429, so why do we have to do any 24 cutting.
a l 25 And they point out that the comparison number is not 4
a
l '
10 1 433, as far as what we need, it is -- I'm sorry, it is not 429 2 it is 429 plus 8 for the salary situation So, 4 'J 3 should be I
3 compared with 437 which is 429 plus 8.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I apologize for being
$ late. I think it would have been taster to swim to work this 6 morning.
7 LLaughter.J l
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We speculated on where you
- 9 were, that you were tied up in trattic.
10 MR. ROE: I would like to now go to the discussion l 11 highlighting the Commission areas.
i i
i 12 Pages o through 9 of our report address overseeing J 13 operator reactor performance. I think we should highlight 14 that we do have currently 95 power reactors Itcensed to i 15 operatei 93 which have tull power license and 2 with low power
, le licenses, l
- 17 With respect to the plant specific operating reacting 16 licensing actions, we were able to carry out and complete 19 approximately 1900 versus an 1000 that we planned. So a little i
20 bit ahead of it, i
21 However, we are att11 concerned, and I think the
, 22 Commission is, that we have a large inventory and we have not 1
l 23 been able to make any sizeable dont in reducing --
1 24 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: which bullet are you talking 2$ about on that page.
1
i e )
l 17 l 1
1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE It is really on page 7 i
i 2 MR. ROE. It is really on page 7.
! 3 COMMISSIONER AddELSTINE Thiro bullet from the i i
I i 4 bottom.
l 4 MR. ROE: Okay. Before you get to page 7, I was not I
e
! 6 sure I understcod what the outage program came as, !! we are f
i
$ I 7 going to go page by page --
i !
8 MW. TAYLOR: I'll tell you about that. f i !
l MR. ROE: Jim, would you like to address the outage 9 {
10 program) 1 4 11 MM. TAYLOR: This is a program which the Commission
- l. 12 approved by which -- we were concerned basically about changes i
) 13 in the plants that have taken place over the years of operation !
l 14 in operating reactor plants. And the concept here was to take l 1
j 14 some design trained engineers with people who were skilled in l 10 viewing the installation of changes and repairs at the plants.
i i
17 We started that program at Ft Calhoun. You approved
}
! 16 tunding for this program. I can't remember the funding numbers t
j 19 right ott the top of my head. Tnat program is started, and i !
l 20 what we are doing is looking at safety system modifications 4 I 21 And we will be giving you a briet on that program, I think, t
42 within the next several months. I J3 The second phase of the program is beginning at
- 24 Dresden. Notice, these are two older stations and we are i
25 looking very hard at what is being changed in those safety i
. _ . . . ~ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ ___ m . - _ . _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . - . .
- N i 18 l
{ 1 systems, wnat was changed, what is .ho impact, reduction in i I j 'J safety margins, that type of thing. How is the work being
- ~3 controlled. !
- s 4 So, we will be -- we are on schedule, or will be P
5 scheduled to briet you when we have some more results on tnat f o program.
r r
i 7 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you. -
l 4
i 8 I'm sorry, Joe. Now do you want to lesa us to wnere i
r 9 you were focusing.
10 MM. HOE: Yes. Wasically what I want to do is t
11 highlight some of the activities we teel most important on 12 pages o and 9. I won *t go ano aadress every particular 13 bullet, but just those that I think are important, and make l
14 some comments about them, t
15 We continue to desire to bring down the inventory of j l
j 16 toth plant-specific and multi-plant !! censing actions ! l i
l 1
17 think you are aware of that in our discussions about the 3
18 budget. But, as you are aware when we have in the higher
! I j 19 priority or unanticipated activities in this area, normally J0 that technical expettise is drawn to the unanttelpated events 4 21 and we don't get to accomplish as much in reducing that ;
l l J2 inventory as we can.
I J3 It is simply one of innancial and human resources.
f f J4 Next, is that we highlight the tact that we used l
i 25 about the same level of inspection resources as we had last i
.1 i
I ;
l' j o 1 f 19 l
i 1 year. We feel that it is adequate what we are doing now i
1 i j 2 But, it is aware that the special cases that are coming to our !
! I i
i *d attention are heavily occupying our management and our senior l 1
! f I 4 level statt. As a result, some of the mid- or lower-level ,
i
< l 5 priority with respect to our mission sometimes does not get j i 6 the ettort that we wish to because the ottort is drawn to the I
a I
i 7 higher priority. L i [
i 6 Some of the examples of the things that we are not 1
i 9 to accomplish at tne same rate as we would wish to, because ot ;
10 resources, is review and update of our inspection manual, l
11 policy and procedures, to have counterpart training and
)
12 meetings on policy and technical issues between our local 13 headquarters people and our regional counterparts, to be able i 1
14 to carry out somewhat routine management visits to sites and l
15 overview tne quality of our work by the resident inspectors, !
] to to be able to have a joint program, carry it fortn at a little ,
i i 17 bit more rapid speed between 16E headquarters ottice and our f l 19 regional component, and to improve our inspection program, to 19 check up on the ettectiveness of the generic coramunications
'40 that we send out to the industry on the various problems that i
i J1 are occurring, and to be able to have greater initial and i
' retrosher training of all of our people, especially our l f 2 'J Inspection Entorcement individuals. f f
l 1
) 'J 4 As you are aware, we do want to expand the coverage (
l l
t l l 45 of resident inspectors at our single-unit sites. And we are .
i :
) l
. . . - . - - _ _ - _ . . _ _ =
. - _ - - . - - _ . - _ - - - . - . _ _ - - - - = - _ - . - . . _ - - .
l
! = 1 l
l 1
20 !
i 1 taking the first big step at that in '80. And we are planning }
!, 2 it we receive sutticient resources in *S7 to complete that, to ;
I I
'J have essenttally, with the exception of a couple et [
- 4 smaller-power sites, have a second resident inspector at each l 1
i 4 one of the single-unit sites. l 1 1
- j. !
! 6 With respect to the vendor program, I think you I i
7 are aware that we have continued to emphasise hardware and t
1 9 quality of the product of the vender shop versus the paper ;
1 i
{ 9 work aspect, i
i 10 Though it seems long ago, 1 would like to highlight l 1
11 the tact that we put a new operations center into ettect in ;
i
, 12 February, and we have used it on multiple occastons now. ;
j 13 In addition, we are all aware that we have initiated i
14 the NRK reorganisation which we believe will bring us more !
15 consistency in approach towards the workload shifts and l 4
I 16 license reviews to the overstght of operating reactors.
t/ Basically that is the highlights I had on that l l 19 particular mission area.
I i
} 19 1 would like to now go on to the Analyse Reactor .
4 i i
i 20 Operational Experience, which is -- !
, 21 COMMISSIONEW ASSELSTINE: Notore you do that, let i l
l 22 me ask a couple et questions. l I
j j 23 Vou talk about responding -- page 7, responding 24 ettectively to unanticipated operating events such as those at j 3
25 Fermi, Farley, Susquehanna, Sequoyah, McQutre and Davns-Wesse. l I
i
. . . . _ _ - . _ _ . -- __ _ _ _ _ ._ _ ._ _ - _ . _ .-. _ _ __ - _ . . _ __~
I
. s 4
4 at l
1 1 I gather we don't budget spectiscally for those i
2 kinds of ettorts at the outset.
i 3 MM. TAYLOR: That's right. We are never quite sure i Obviously, let's take 4 how big that is going to be.
I
$ Davis-Besse, that has been an enormous -- and will continue. ,
i I
6 And it you want to mention special cases that are dominating 3
i 7 the field, there is a perfect example. Not only what appites 1 e to Davis-Besse, but what it means across the board in operating
. 9 plants.
I i
i 10 And the senior statt is trying to read that story, l
- 11 and I just was in Region !!! the other day at the Residents 12 Meeting. It has had a protound impact as people worry about l
i 13 t h ', fact, you know, wnat are the things that with our one or i l
l 14 two guys at a plant, what are the things that we should be it looking at 1
10 We will be changing things in this next year, I f
I
- 17 The TVA problem is another unanticipated. And we ,
l' 19 really didn't realise that was going to burgeon. The amount ;
19 of statt time in He2 ton 11 and neadquarters going into TVA is i t t 20 going up at a phenomenal rate.
i
'J 1 1 don't have an answer.
1 I
J2 Those are the kinds of things that are very ditticult I
I 21 to budget tor. But they are problems that cannot be ignored.
1 24 COMMISd!ONEW AWWELSTINE: I guess what I was l 25 wondering was both for the regions and for 16E and NHN, how I
,1 i !
l 4
4 j 22 i 1 that attected the rest et your programs. What did that do in 2 terms of disrupting the things that you wanted to accompitsh 3 during this past year?
4 MR. TAYLOR: Jack etted some of the things that we
$ haven't done quite as much as we would have liked to.
I j o We would have liked to have gone laster in updating i
I 4 7 our inspection manual Our idea is to put together an
- e operating reactor inspection -- cur manual is quite ponderous i !
i
- 9 11 you have seen it. All of it necessary. But, we are trying l
! 1 10 to streamitne it and improve the operating reactor, and that 1
11 is where we are going. We have ottort underway on that. We !
12 would have liked to nave gone taster.
t 'J We would have liked to have spent more time, as Jack
- 14 mentioned, going out to individual residents, you know, out of i
1 14 headquarters. More time out at the sites l
to We ran quite a low mant-pats this year, which have i i
k h j 1/ proved an ettective way to look at a small part of the !
I l 1 i te program. We have some escalated enforcement coming out of j l
i i 19 that at some of the sites. j l !
e i
j JQ The interface with INPO and our ability to accompany (
1 1
I I l 21 INFO We haven't done as much of that as we would have i .
l 1 24 liked. Atthough we use a lot -- !
- ta just talking shout the
! J 'J routine evaluations, We did get out to one corporate visit to 1
j 24 observe the corporate -- 1 think it was at Kewaunee this year l
j 25 uenerally, it is conttrming that that part of the 3 i
i i
. t 23 1 INFO evolution, you knew, they are carrying out their basic 2 mission. Those are the kinds of things that we have not done 3 as much as we would like to.
4 We would like to spend more time assessing the 5 ettectiveness of some of the regional programs. We have to e struggle to do that each year for EDO 7 MR. EISENHUT: It I could just second what Jim 6 said. If you look at just these events listed here, you are 9 probably talking ten to twenty FTEs right ot! the top.
10 Then, 11 you look as we get to one of the next 11 slides, you will see there are the OL cases, the Comanche 12 Peaks, the Diablo Canyons, the Waterfords I think in th.
1J last year we have put in something out of NMR, scmething over 14 twenty FTEs above what was budgeted just on those cases, 14 in addition, it has a tremendous impact on our le technical assistance budget I think Comanche Peak alone has 17 now cost us close to 110 million tecnnical assistance. When to you are talking et budget, a yearly budget of s30 million 19 under contract, that is a sizable impact, especially when none 20 of that was budgeted in the first place.
31 COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE. I take it that the 10 JJ million doesn't get recovered by lleense tems, does i t '8 2 fA MM. LISENdVT. Some of it might J4 COMMISSIONED ASSELSTINE: Even though it is pretty JS well directly attributable to that case.
. i 24 1 MK. EISENHUT The kind that is directly attributable 2 --
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The country doesn*t get it 4 Even it they paid it, we wouldn't get it.
t MR. EISENHUT- Hight.
O COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, that may be. The 7 government --
0 MN. EISENHUT: That's right So we could recover 9 it 10 Let me comment on the impact, on two things One 11 ts, certainly the special programs that Jim mentioned, where 12 we are going out and participating with 1&E or participating 13 with a major ettort et design, design implementation. That ts 14 an t ra p a c t , because we are et doing as much as we would like 11 to -- to!!cwups on Turkey Points, followups on various places to But, there are other things that we have just barely 17 touched. One area that we are quite sonsttive to is overall te performance indicators 19 we really don t nave a way today to monitor -- at 20 least in my opinton -- to monitor real performance at the 21 plant until the plant has gotten to the point where it is 22 pretty bad. And you start seeing the SALP program which gives 23 /ou uALP Ja for repeated years, and tnen it is also monitoring J4 what i always call the secondary p s t ame t e r . It is monitoring 2t things alter the tact in terms of, it looks at escalated
q .
2 25 1
! 1 enforcements, it icoks at how the HP record is. It doesn't go i
e O back -- we are not specttically tracking the ortgtnal i 3 performance. -
4 So, it is an area that we really need to look at to 5 give you an earlier indicator of the problem. And then more f
6 importantly, so you can take the early steps to resolve the i
7 problem.
! O COMMISSIONEN ZECH: But that information is available a
l 9 now.
I i
) 10 MM. EISENMUT: That information, a lot of it is 4I 11 available. Some of at is at the NMC's disposal, other isn't.
{
12 It really doesn't come to the NRC in any way.
1 j 13 COMMISSIONEW ZECH. We can get it, though. ,
l !
! 14 Md. EISENHUT; That's right One et the things we j i
l' l 13 would like to do is sit down, develop the program, tigure out i
to what we want to get, how to put it together. !
l i.
) 1/ Eut, when you turn to the Statt we have the 16 ditticulty because the Statt we would want to turn to is ott i
! 19 working some of the projects And that is how it hits us from !
l j 20 a resource standpoint i
j 21 It certainly is something -.
t 4
1 22 CCMMISSIONEM Z . ". H : It is doable, is what I mean
) 2 'J .'M. LISLNHUT: It is doable. We believe it is
)
! 24 something we have to come to grips with. l 1
j 25 Wut there is even another step down in the thing we i
l
(
1
4 20 1
3 1 are not doing that bothers us. For example, Jim Taylor just i 2 mentioned he and I were both in Chicago this week, met with 3 all the Region III statt, met with all the Restcents i 4 The thing we are not doing is developing and training
! 5 our statt I, personally, believe the statt we have is c
o probably the most valuable asset we have. We are not training I 7 them.
8 We train them technically in terms of going to a i
l 9 program, going to a course, Hut, we don't really train them 10 in the lessons learned. If you go to a Region !!!. you get a 11 lot 01 questions from the residents about Davis-besse. You
- 12 get the kind of questions ot
a 1 *J Wny don't we have the time any more to get all the i,
14 Residents together on d&W plants, get all the PMs together on
, 15 W4W plants, get them to sit down with M&W and ingure out, here i
10 are the Rancho Seco issues, here are the Davis-Wesse issues, l
17 these are the issues we all ought to be more sensitive to, we !
16 all ought to work on, we ought to just be more aware ot.
19 COMMISS!QNEN ZECH: That is doable, too.
i
- 20 MM. EISENHUT They are all doable. ;
t i
- 21 MM. HUE
- They are doable, j l
22 MR. U1SENHUTt They are doable, they are clearly
! 23 workable, and they are probably very valuable things to do.
I
! J4 It is just that we don't get there trom a resource standpoint '
i.
] JS COMMISSIONEM AWSELSTINE: I gather they are not i
t 1
i
l
}
- 2 '/
I
} 1 doable it what we have to do is spend our time reacting to i
4 2 brush tires everywhere.
4 >
3 MR. HOE: That is part of the problem.
t
] 4 MR. EISENHUT; One of the real problems is just
- l I
l 5 that. We respond to the Davis-Wesse*s. At some point we a.e l l I e going to be actually put a lot more resources on Davis-Wesse i i
- 7 than we need to, because I personally think that Davts-Wesse ,
4 l
0 is not my biggest concern.
)
I j 9 COMMISSIONEW ASSELSTINE: It is the other one out i
I 10 there. ,
b i
! 11 MM. EISENHUT- I don *t think the new management at I
j 12 Davis-Besse is going to 11x the problem. But, it is a matter j l \
l 'J of, when you go through the thorough process, we really have l
l }
I 14 to look now at what we are learning from it, and go forth and I
f j 15 bring tha'. plant back to where it should be. [
4 10 So, they are all doable, but it comes up under the f I I l 17 resource connotation because to do some of those things you I
i 16 have to extract them from somewhere else. We are already i
r 19 extracting them from some key programs to the point wnere we 20 toen those are pretty crittoal.
]
21 We are keeping up with licensing actions, we are ,
I i
- J2 keeping up with most of the crittsal tasues we need to do.
t I
j 2 'J Wut, you look at plants today that have SALP 111 ratings year (
l 24 alter year alter year, should we be doing more? The answer is 25 probably yes. [
] I
26 1 COMMISSIONER ZECH: My view is those things you have 2 told us are doable within current resovrees J MM. ELSENHUT: With some }udiotous reallocation 4 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Sure.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think it is worth examining e our budget in Inght et your comments, it we can't bring about 7 some improvement and provide you some funds to do those 9 things.
9 MR. EISENHUT: An observation either Harold or I 10 made last year is, it is hard for us to argue, to go out and 11 resolve new generic tasues it you are not implementing the old 12 resolutions of generic tasues. It is the same kind of thing.
1 "J I think that is an area in the long-time scheme of things wo 14 have to come to grips with as an agency 15 COMMISSION 2W ZECH: I agree.
16 COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE Let me ask Lando's question 17 a little ditterently to both Darreil and Jim.
19 If year after year after year we have a TVA problem.
19 a Davls-Wesse problem, a Mancho Seco problem, a Turkey Potnt 20 problem, it that continues each year, are you ever going to be 21 in a position where you can devote the time and attention to 22 setting up a system Itke performance indicators so that you 23 can spot the weaker problem areas early on, before they 24 mantiest themselves in more serious problems?
25 ft we don't itx that problem talrly soon, aren't we
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ -- _ __m. . . - . __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ ._ _ . . _ _ _
i l .
29 i
1 always going to be in a reactive mode wnere we are spending l
f 2 our resources attacking things that have gotten pretty bad i
i 3 atter the tact, rather than getting them early on?
l I
4 MR. TAYLOW. You had the people here yesterday with 1 5 NUMARC, that are the key to that problem, because they 6 essentially presented to you a program and they talked about 1 r I
7 maintenance and what they are doing in maintenance.
8 I want to tell you that our revtew of maintenance, 9 part of the problems and part of the limits to SALP are the 10 limits et our own i nputs to it. It is an NMC view of the i
i l 11 performance.
J I IJ Darrell's suggestion is, you take a lot of what they i
13 may have, itke the number of outstanding work orders at 4 ,
b ,
l l 14 site Now, that can be one of those double-edged indicators, f 13 because it is in the bookkeeping. Wut, to try to expand the i c to SALP to encompass a lot et this data --
f
- 17 Wut the situotton, the real situation in our program ,
- 19 is that we do about once a month, maintenance observation by i
I i 19 kestdents or regional people wno are out there, which is a 1 i
JO very short capstte at a rump that is down, and is the procedure i l i 21 there, and to ti e hearing going back in properly, type of look, t i !
i 2J The problems that we are faced with out at a place (
- l
, Ja rike uavts-Wess. is a .ortes at .ngineering probi.ms, a ik l 1 i l
4 of tests -- et gooa beyond what the usual term " maintenance" l
J4 means.
I i i :
a b 4
- . - - - . - - _ ~ _ - . . - . - - - _ . ~ . - . - . . _--. - - . -. . . _ . _ .
t * '
SU ;
1 That ta one of the lessons out of that Ano that is i
2 one of the reasons we have gone ott on thia unbudgeted ettert, l f
J which we did at Turkey Point, which, 11 you have lookeo at the f 4 report, surprised me. People responsible for that were here l
[
5 yesterday, o COMMISSIONEM AndELSTINE: That's right.
7 MM. TAYLOM. And we are ott to look at otner plants 8 Mut, that taxes -- that is a resource-intensive 9 inspection which really takes engineering and NMR and ,
10 contracting. And it takes people expertenced with operations l i
t 11 and maintenance. And it is a tough o!! ort to do. Very l 12 expensive for us.
11 CHAtMMAN PALLADINO. Sitti, 1 think it deserves 14 attention, and looking and looking at the revision in the 1980 11 budget, we will look to see it we can't identity some funds to h to help this ettort 17 MM. TAYLOM. He mentioned training. We are getting !
f tW 4 tot of people into this program. We are hiring entry-level !
k 19 people to become Mealdent inspectors, !
l
[
JU We are hiring entry-level people at the US-II, 12 == !
21 you know, at the entry leven to ultimately get out there to be i
22 Westdents. That is a rest challenge in treintag. These are l J1 people who have the basic academic credenttals, but don't know 1
I 24 the dLiterence between a globe valve, a gate valve and so on, !
i 24 And, to make them understand the hardware types of things --
i 4
1 31 :
i j t you know, they have the baste education -- ts a tremendous j 2 challenge.
I 3 We have normally taken people kato that type ot ,
I t 4 program who are, what I would call, seasoned. They have been i
i $ out and ktched haraware, the have been in plants. they know 1
1 t I 6 how the pumps run, they know what the ditterent bearings are, l
,I Ir l 7 and all the 1ther kinds of stutt. that you only get through !
, I i
4 expertence..
I 9 So, there are these kinds of challenges to our i r l
10 programs. Wut, in terms et -- I mentioned yesterday the !
11 people sort of said they are delng many, many things. There j
. f l IJ are many problems out there that 1 don't intnk the industry j i !
j 11 has unearthed yet, 1
i 14 COMMISSIONEM ASSELWTINE. What is behind the -- wnst i
1 j 15 is the driving torce behind moving to more entry-level people to for Mesidents, rather than the more seasoned ones that, as you (
I 4 !? say, we have used in the past? L
} !
i (
- le MM. TAYLOW; it is both the combination of the grade !
i 19 problem in the agency and avalnoblitty of people. It is a 1 !
4 i 20 combined thing.
21 We can't get some of the people that we want That i
I 22 le one of the reasons wny 14E didn't make its FTE 1 had some f l
1 21 people, but the only way I could get them was a mld. or ,
! t
! t
! J4 high-grade 14 at entry, to even compete --
[
35 MN. E!WENHUT: We had the same problem, l 8
e l t
I o a 3 '4 i
1 Particularly, our biggest turncver is in the project management i
2 area, where you try to have your most qualitted people. And, i i
3 the reason we have perpetually been at 99 percent is because i
4 trom the time the person announces that he is leaving, to the l '
l 4 time you recruit and can find one and bring him in, there is
)
6 always a dead bend, and with the high turnover rate, you always
{
7 miss out on some -- even it you are planning ahead, and try to e stay ahead of the curve, you don't want to end up beyond it I
j 9 It is remarkable that we stayed as close as we did 10 Mut. we are having the same problem. We are recrutting l
l 1t certainly the backup project manager, we are bringing in l l
12 entry-level people, running them through a multi-year training !
l !
It is a major challenge. I
- tJ program, bringing them up to speed.
i 14 Wut, the availabt!!ty of people that you can get, J
1 I j 15 who are qualitted, that you can enttee into the job, is I ;
j to getting lower and lower. So, the combination of that is, you 17 can get the person with the good academic credentials, bring l l
i le them in and put them through a training program, but you have l I l '
) 19 to work on these physical parameters, You have to phystoally 4 ,
1 20 get them out to places ,
1 I j 21 Wo. we are working a major ettert along those lines !
i r j J2 to do it, too ,
- 23 GHA!MMAN PALLADINO Do you have an adequate training J4 program underway for these peoplet j 25 MW. ElWENHUT
- We are developing an adequate training i 4
I
)
i
33 1 program. Again, in that ease you run into budget constraints.
O tor example, even from travel 3 One of the first obvious things you want to do, you 4 want to physically get them out somewnere.
e i
l
$ I otten tell uttitties and negotiate package deals i
6 where I want the project manager to be able to spend weeks in ;
i 7 a plant. Spend weeks with the Mesident, not a couple et days
)
1 8 here and a couple et days there.
I ,
i 9 That, clearly, has a major resource implication, and i
10 it is something the industry is strongly behind, because 3
i 11 clearly. I think, in the overall end product, you end up with l l t
! 12 a more ettective statt than you would have in either -- not j 13 Just more ettective in terms of productivity, but more j i i 1 i i 14 ottective in understanding what is going on trom both ;
l 15 standpoints, the NHC's and the industry, i
f i
to So, it is something we are reatly working. j i
I 17 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO I think you brought up a number !
! le of very important points, and I think we need to follow up on. ,
! i i
! 19 Okay, 1
1 r
j 20 MW. HUE: Let me continue on to discuss tnis area ot J
21 Analysing Heactor Operational E*pertence.
43 We have prepared and issued a multitude of reports, 23 I would like to highlight some of the numbers to indicate the J4 smount of technical ettert that we have had involved. s
- JS We have prepared and issued inve AEOD case study 1 t i r
.-. .- - =.-.-.- -. . . _ _ _ _
34 1 reports, 32 engineering evaluation reports, anc 24 technical 2 review reports of operational events.
3 We have issued three reports of trend and pattern 4 analysts at various classes of operational events.
1 A trend and pattern analysis report of LEM data trom 6 '81 through '83.
7 We have also provided the Commission two semiannual
- reports, tairly extensive reports on AEOD activities.
I j 9 Also, we have issued approximately 100 information I
10 notices, including 14 vendor-related, compared to about the i 11 same number that we did in 1984.
)
4 12 Also, we have issued a comparative assessment at 1
11 U.S. and toreign dose expertence at nuclear power plants, i
t 14 We are continuing to evaluate INFO's progress in [
11 improving the nuclear plant reltability data system.
i l 10 With respect to some of the contributtons we have
! 17 nad from our research ottice to meet our regulatory mission, 4
1 18 we have conttrmed Itcensing decisions based on INFO, l
19 information from our safety research program, to allow i 40 short-term operation of HWMs with weld-clad overlay repairs 21 in their stainless steel piping.
22 These wend-clad repairs have been demonstrated by 1
23 tests to require about tour times the normal operating pressure f
24 plus excessive bending before they have a potential tallure.
i 21 In addition, we have, based on information through 1
1
. . - _ - _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ - . , . - _ , _ . . _ _ _ - , , . _ . . _ _ . _ _ , _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . . _ _ _ . - . ,
35 1 the safety research program, completed advanced ultrasonic 2 inspections of the Dresden 3 and Vermont Yankee primary piping 3 to provide a basis for NRR decisions on restart, and also to 4 resolve some conflicting results from previous inspections.
5 The next section I would like to highlight, is that o --
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Before you leave that one, 6 you mentioned we issued about 100 information notices. How 9 many bulletins did we issue?
10 MR. TAYLOR: We didn't issue any bulletins. You 11 will be happy to know that we issued an emergency bulletin 12 Tuesday night.
13 We also had two other bulletins wnsen just came 14 out. One of them is a tollow up to an INPO SOER, where the 15 follow up was not adequate, where we -- this is on the 10 temperature auxiliary feed pump discharge. Monitoring their 17 -- I won *t get into that, it is a flash loss of pump capability 18 -- were we reviewed the followup in the industry. And we told 19 INFO. We told them what we were doing. Follow up what the 20 industry had done. .
21 We found it pretty good. Eut we found seme plants 22 -- at least two plants that hadn't done anything. And a bunch 23 of plants that had not incorporated into their procedures, and 24 so torth. So we issued a bulletin.
\
25 .And, we are also preparing a bulletin on the valve s
.f 4
30 1 problem at Davis-Besse. So, we are -- the trattic was awfully 2 low this past year.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The emergency bulletin was 4 the one on the breaker problem, right?
5 MR. TAYLOR: Breaker problem. DB60s at D. C. Cook.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Also you say you evaluated 7 INFO *s progress in improving NPRDS.
8 How are they doing on NPRDS?
9 MR. ROE: It has been approved, but we don't think 10 they have gotten to the point where they should be.
11 MR. TAYLOR: That is really Jack Heltemus's area.
12 But that is our perception, too. That has been a tough 13 struggle for them to get everybody to work in that system. It 14 is much better than at was.
15 MR. ROE: We are still communicating with them about 16 what we consider is the full performance level, full 17 participation. I think Bill recently sent'a letter to Zack 18 Pate about that particular issue. But, it has definitely 19 improved. But, it has still got a little ways to go.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
21 MR. ROE: If I can proceed with licensing current 22 future reactor designs --
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Slide 11?
24 MR. ROE: it is on pages 11 and 12 yes, sir.
25 One of the things I think that we should realize is
37 1 the basis for our current licensing of current and future 2 designs is the extensive research program that we have carried 3 out.
4 I think those who have been involved in the past t years of our program to license some of these plants, realize 6 that the program that is carried'out by research has given us 7 a lot of information that has been used as a basis ti proceed 8 with licensing these plants And I think we should realize 9 that.
10 With respect to recent accomplishments, we have 11 issued initial licenses for ten reactors, eight of which were 12 granted full-power authorizations. And also three reactors l '3 licensed for low-power operation in prior years have now 14 received in this year, full-power authorizations.
15 With respect to our inspection activities at plants 16 under construction, we have maintained basically a level 17 program. And as you are aware, we now have at least two 18 construction residents at all active sites.
19 With respect to standardization, we have continued 20 support for that program. We have amended the GESSAH II FDA 21 to address severe accident policy statement issues.
22 And we are continuing to work with EPHI on standard 23 plant requirements, I 24 In licensing of the new reactors, we have taken on 25 approach to support a readiness review concept as a method of
38 1 structuring a program, and that is being carried out with 2 respect to the Vogtle plant, and I believe the WPPS 3 --
4 MR. ROE: -- as the first plant of a possible 5 two-plant WPPS program.
6 This year we conducted five CAT inspections.
7 however, there are some things that we did not do in this 8 particular area that I think that we wished to do but we just 9 did not have the resources and had to fall at the lower level 10 of priority. And one of those is that we have done no work, 11 essentially, for QA for future plants.
12 Darrell brought up one of the areas, about unbudgeted 13 requirements. In '85 we had budgeted to work on the licensing 14 of plants, Diablo Canyon, Wateriorc, Cemanche Peak, Wolf Creek, 15 TMI-1 restart Approximately 27 FTEs and 51.3 million.
16 We have expended on those projects, far more than 42 17 FTEs, or basically double, and at least 57 million, which is 18 56 million more than we expected or had budgeted for. And it 19 is obvious that comes out of part of the other program. And 20 that will be seen in scme of the other mission areas as we 21 highlight things that we did not --
l 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You talked about GA for 23 tuture plants, which future plants) Way out, new plants
- 24 MR. ROE: New plants.
25 MR. TAYLOR: Way out.
39 1 MR. EISENHUT I was going to point out also, wnen 2 you look at those numbers, remember that those numbers are --
3 the numbers expended on these projects are not quite tive.
4 Our total program -- it stretches over five years of an OL
$ review -- equates to something like 20 FTEs for the entire O review over those tive years.
? So you can see, it you look at some of these 6 expenditures ~over a tive-year period over some of these 9 projects, it is far, far -- we are probably up to 60, 70 FTEs 10 on Diablo Canyon alone, And we are up to 530-some million, 11 and millions and millions on Comanche Peak.
l 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I just want to make a comment.
i 13 With all the budgetary needs, OA ter future plants, that has 14 to be a low priority.
15 MR. ROE: It goes to the bottom, Dut it is something 16 that we had expressed an interest in doing.
17 MR. EISENHUT- It is the kind of thing that got 18 deterred, obviously. 'th a t is how it is on there.
19 But, I will give you another data point though of 20 the kind that is deterred. For the last year or some, we 21 have been trying to look at a program of what should we be 22 doing to maintain mothball plants? That is, those plants with 23 cps today, the Marble Hills, the Midlands, the WNP units.
24 There are 20 of these around the countryside.
25 Should we be looking at them? What should we be ;
40 1 doing just to maintain, make sure we are staying on top of 2 inspections? And, should we clean up the loose ends?
3 And, those kinds plants, we brought to a screeching 4 halt with putting a hold on the plant. And, if you look at a 5 Midland or a Marble Hill, 11 they should walk in the door, 11 6 that should happen at some subsequent time, we are no tarther 7 along, and probably further back on the technical issues we 8 were in the throes of resolving at that time because we 9 dropped the ball And we would have to start all over where 10 we are.
11 So, while on the one hand we could clearly say that 12 is a very low priority, and we did drop at least 20 plants, it 13 is an issue that ultimately could get us.
i 14 Another one I know research is Just starting to 13 look at, or starting to look at and the industry is looking at le is, many of these plants have 40-year licenses, the 40 years 17 stretching from the date of the construction permit to start 18 with, not trom operation. And, it it is a long window between 19 CP and OL , there is an ettert that they can automatically 20 under the regulations already get some more years of plant, 21 that is the kind of ettert we are not doing.
22 But even then, the lite extensions of 40 years and 23 beyond, that is an area research, for example, is starting to 24 look at, the EPR/AIF industry is looking at. They have been 25 working on it for the last year or so. That is an area that
41 1 is going to get us ultimately, in my opinion, cecause the --
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is something that requires 3 research now.
4 MR. MINOGUE: That's right.
5 MR. EISENHUT- It is just getting started.
6 MR. MINOGUE: We are working. As Darrell says, there 7 is a lot of industry activity going on in this area. So, 8 actually the stage we are in right now is, we are scoping out 9 the nature of the problem, working with these various groups i 10 which he named, to really define what the problems and issues 11 are.
12 Some parts of this are going to be straightforward, 4
13 some will be ottitoult. We are trying to identity which is 14 which. So, we are really in the very first stages. This is a 15 very serious --
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It also contributes to whether 17 or not those plants that are operating, whether they will make le their 40 years.
19 MR. MINOGUE: In a sense you could see this as piggy 20 backing on the current aging program. But, it carries a lot 21 of new elements, too.
22 This is a very serious proposal. The indications we 23 are getting is, that this is a very significant industry 24 intent. And given that there may be things that one has to 25 do in the last years of the normal operating lite in the way
42 1 of extra surveillance programs and so on, that we need to 2 identity fairly promptly i
3 So this, for us, is a high priority, but long-term 4 program.
5 MR. EISENHUT: So, it you look at the plants that
] .
I e started operating in the early '60s, they are well i nto the 7 years and may, Bob, as you said, there may we bw things that 8 the utilities should be doing today.
9 Of course, the classic example is the problem witn 10 the radiation of the pressure vessels. So, there may well be 11 things that utilities should be doing now to preserve the 12 plants it they want to go further. So, we look at this as an 13 area tnat is going to be a major ettert that has to get 14 undertaken in a short timeirame.
. 15 MR. MINOGUE: I think a lot of the work in terms of 16 the researen to support will be done by the industry, because 1? there is a very serious interest. EPRI is involved, AIF is 18 involved, and the ASME as a professional society, is heavily 19 involved in this area.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE. Are we putting any 21 inspection now on the mothballed plants?
22 MR. TAYLOR: It is essenttally maintenance type 23 inspection going on in Marble Hill, with their cancellation, 24 as a'n example.
25 MR. EISENHUT: I think they go in periodically to
.n -e, , ,,. , , - , ,r., -,,--,..---.,.,--ne-,,-,-cv ---,-w--
43 1 see that it is being preserved.
2 But, I ask the questions, if you go one step further, 3 what about QA records and preservation of QA records When you 4 mothball plants, quite otten they lay ott hundreds ana 3 thousands of people, and they walk out the doors. How are you e going to know just where all the paper is when you come back to 7 make sure things were sorted through? And many of these plants 8 were not preserved in that manner.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You mothball the records, too.
10 MR. EISENHUT: We have asked it from even an NRC 11 standpoint, where were we at the time? Quite otten, the 12 people get up and two or three years later, they have lett the 13 agency. So, it is very ditticult to resurrect all the old 1
14 records.
It COMMISSIONER ZECH: Don't we nave any provision for Ib wnen they stop work on a plant to require a certain amount of 17 documentation and records? Don *t we have anything that we 18 do? Do we Just let them walk away?
19 It seems to me that perhaps it we don *t have them, 20 we ought to have some kind of a documentation of the status of 21 the plant.
22 MR. TAYLOR: T think where a utility has continued 23 in business and has not tolded up its nuclear mission, that 24 you would find that they have kept them.
2$ The biggest worry has been in places like Marble
44 1 Hill, where Public Service -- there have been discussions 2 between the regional administrator and the company out there 3 to try to do the best they can.
4 COMMISSIONER ZECH: It seems to me at is a very 5 serious requirement, when we are thinking about perhaps going o back in and resuming construction and so torth, that we have
? to have a basis to go on. And it we don't have some kind of a 8 program --
, 9 MR. TAYLOR: I don *t believe there is a requirement.
10 MR. EISENHUT: No, there is not. As a matter of 11 tact, it is totally in the hands of a utility whether or not l 12 he wants to terminate the license.
13 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Doesn*t the license provice any 14 kind of a provision for this event, in case he doesn't complete 15 the plant that he has to do certain things to tell us, at least 16 record it for history, the status and documentation?
] 17 MRT EISENHUT: He has to do things under NEPA for 18 site redress.
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH: We don't require any of that?
20 MR. EISENHUT: We do from the site redress 21 standpoint, but we don't from safety records.
22 Let me give you an example. We are not picking on 23 PSI I just happen to mention this one.
24 There was a big debate for a while whether FSI could 25 attord the security to even maintain the site secure. And
45 1 they had quite a bit of debate in Indiana --
1 2 MR. ROBERTS: You mean there was a question about 3 their --
4 MR. EISENHUT: Because 11 their Intent was that they i
5 were never going to use the plant, they were going to terminate e their CP, they were in fact anticipating making a legal filing, 7 because they were in a hearing, to -- and maybe they are still 8 in hearing. But anyway, they were considering making a tiling 9 to terminate their CP, because they had pretty well concluded 10 they were not going to use -- Public Service of Indiana pretty 11 well stated that they were not going to use that site for a 12 nuclear plant, period, because of financial considerations.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But it is their responsibility 1
j 14 also it they wanted to come back.
15 MM. EISENHUT: So, it they wanted to do something to else they would have to maintain it And ultimately they 17 ended up maintaining the security of the site, and maintaining
- IS some provisions down the line. ,
19 It is just that kind of question, and it varies 20 around the country. Some sites did not.
, 21 COMMISSIONER ZECH: 1*d suggest it we don *t have 22 such a program, that the Statt look into it.
23 MM. EISENHUT: Yes, sir.
24 COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE: I would think whether we 25 need a requtrement or not is somewhat of an open question.
i
~
4e 1 But at the least, we cught to put people on nottee that 11 2 they want to resurrect some of these projects, this is what 3 they better be able to show us. Otherwise, they are not going 4 to be able to get an operating license.
5 MR. ROE; We are working on that.
O CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And that is where I think we
? can make ettective use of resources, because again on 8 priorities it nobody is asking for these plants to be brought 9 back on the line, it is ditticult to }ustify extensive
- 10 expenditures when other things that are very urgent and more 11 current are going undertunded.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right, 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But I do think this point of 14 making sure that the utilities understand that 12 they are i'
15 going to come back asking for these plants to be reinstated, le that they better have the records.
17 MR. EISENHUT: I do too. In fact, that is why I 18 highlighted it, because it is that kind of an ettort that 19 everyone retlly has got to appreciate. Five years from now it 20 may be a wnole new situation and cast of characters.
I 21 MR. ROE: I think it is one of the principal focuses 22 on our project for WNP 3; what was the status et construction, t
23 what is the documentation status, what do we need to do to 24 proceed again with construction of that factlity.
25 MR, TAYLOR: They have done a pretty good job out
4 47 1 there, because that plant was fairly complete. And they 2 always had in the back of their mind that there was a potential
- 3 -- you know it is still not a given at all, but they have come 4 to the Agency and asked us to be ready to participate.
5 That is what we have been doing. We are setting 6 programs in place out there. But, the financing hasn't
- 7 permitted them to actually rework.
B But they have done a job of really doing that 9 COMMISSICNER ASSELSTINE: I imagine it gets more 10 ditticult and complex if you have a site where there was i
11 significant open safety issues at the time that things stopped, 12 like in Midland.
13 MR. ROE: Oh, huh.
l 14 CF. AIRMAN PALLADINO: Shall we try to go on?
15 MR. ROE: Yes, sir.
l 16 Next mission area I would like to address is,
~
17 Predict Satety Impact of Abnormal Operating Conditions, which 18 is addressed in our report at pages 13-through 15.
19 To highlight this area, I think we can say that 20 research results were used to provide technical information 21 for resolution of regulatory issues such as pressurized 22 thermal shock, decay heat removal, performance et emergency 23 core cooling systems and pump operation after small break 24 LOCA.
i 25 In addition, results of pressure vessel research
49 1 provided the basis for the Commission's decision that enabled 2 the continued operation of 11 PWHs that had been thought of to 3 be at near-term risk trom brittle vessel tracture 4 Next, the completion of pressure testing of our I
! 5 1/Stn scale steel containment models to show that the model 6 was able to sustain a pressure of over tour times the design l
? pressure, and that upon tatlure, the results demonstrated the 8 adequacy of the ASMB code for steel containment designs.
, 9 And this particular area is one that we normally 10 have impacted by our resource constraints. Some of the things 1
11 that we did not conduct, and I would like to highlight those, 12 but these are among a much longer list. And I am sure that 1
13 Bob Minogue could probaoly take the rest of our time here in j 14 the attornoon to discuss those things that we have dropped i
15 over the years that we could be pursuing, and possibly should l'
10 be pursutag.
17 First of all, in tests needed to resolve boiling i
, 18 water reactor severe fuel damage issues have been delayed.
19 These include some in-pile tests of the ettect of boron I
i 20 carbide control rods on the aerosol and stainless steel --
21 aerosol generation and stainless steel oxidation.
l t
22 We have delayed tull length in-pile tests of H2 1
23 generation. And this raises an issue with respect to our 24 relationship and technical discussions with IDCOR because they 1
25 argue that the fuel debris from an accident will block steam 4
e
_ ... - - - - - . . . - - - . . - _ - - _ . - . . - _. . . - - - - _ . - - - - ~ .-
t
! 49 i 1 tiow and therefore. cut ott or reduce hydrogen production. And ,
l 2 they theori:e that therefore, hydrogen production will not be
'3 a significant problem in BWH severe acetdents.
t 4 Well, we believe that regulatory actton may be i
5 needed since we cannot sustain through testing, IDCOR's 6 position. But we are deterring that work.
? Modifications to severe accidents codes to analyze J
3 8 ettects of boiling water reactors have been delayed with 4
9 results that some BWMs, notably Peach Bottom, may be identified
. 10 as having a worse source term case because we have not been
)
1 11 able to complete the modeling as we desired because simply of l
l 12 resource constraints. !
13 With respect to the operation of our semi-scale 1
I j 14 tacility in Idaho the steam line feedwater break series have I
15 been curtailed trom that requested of 14 by NMR to 5, that
{
I l 16 results in a number of accident sequences not being verified i
{ 17 by our TRACK and RELAP codes, simply because we have not had j te sutticient resources to carry them out.
t i 19 Next, I would like to highlight tne --
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Setore we leave that i
"I point, Jack, you know Bob and I chatted about this briefly 22 after the American Physical Society Source Term Report.
- 23 I think it would be helpful it we could, to get i
24 maybe a paper with an expanded discussion of the kinds ot 25 research ettorts that we had originally had underway, or that 4
- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .
_ _ _ - _ . _ _ . . . , ~ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ , -
30 1 we would have liked to have done, that have been deterred, and 2 what the impact of that is. Because you know, I think Hob, as 3 we discussed, the American Physical Society said there were a 4 number of things you haven *t done that you really need to do
$ to get to the bottom of this source term question.
O And the reaction of the Commission. I think, was
? well, gee, why aren't we doing these t h i n g s '.*
8 And I think that many of those, things, it not most 9 or all, were actually in our research program, but were 10 deterred or cancelled out because of budget considerations.
11 And I think in many respects, the Statt assumes that the 12 Commission tully understood that those things were being 13 cancelled or deterred, and wnat the significance of that was, 14 and that the Commission had made an informed judgment that is well, we can do without that information and still reach the 10 conclusions that we need to reach to carry out the job.
1/ I am not sure that is true, certainly, at least in 18 my case.
19 I think unfortunately for many reasons, research 20 becomes an inviting target for when we have to allocate the 21 budget reductions. And at least we ought to understand quite 22 clearly what the ettects of those decisions are on some 'ot 2 *J these major outstanding questions, 24 Maybe others telt more comtortable about these kinds 25 of things. But I think after the American Physical Society
.- __ . - _ - _=- - -- .-_ -- - . . . . _ . ~ . _ - .. -. . - . - -
51 I
1 experience, my own feeling was, wet 1, I had not given enough
! O attention to those kinds of questions and really understanding J
i '3 what the impacts et deterring or cancelling some et those 1
4 research etterts really were. And I would like to have a i >
$ better teel for that.
1 o CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: As a matter of tact, I think i
7 one of the benetits et using groups Itke the American Physical l
l B Society is to call attention to these needs so it helps the 9 agency develop a better program.
10 But we do have a question always of priorities, and 11 we are not always going to be perfect i n picking the right i
J 12 one. But we sure have to work at it.
I 13 Also, somenow, as I sit here I keep tntoking, boy, I l
14 wish some et our Appropriations Committee people were listening it to the discussion, and it says to us we have got to think a ,
i io little bit better how to get some of these tacts to the 17 Appropriations Committee shead of time.
le CCommissioner Roberts left the room.J
< 19 So, the concept that everything has to be cut is
, 20 moderated before it gets started.
21 COMMISSIONk.R A SiiE L ST I NE : I agree very much with .
s
! i
that And I agree, sooner or later -- and actually whether 23 it is for *B6 or '87, we have to make some very tougn 1
24 decisions. All I am saying, I think at least for myself, I an I
25 not sure that our past decisions, or at least mine have been
)
t 1
i
- - . , . - - . - . ,, - - . - - - ... -_. ,,.-. .n ,.,n.,. .-_,,,.----.._..---,,-,--e ,,~ew--r-.---,me .n-.y.------n- -
.m..n-.-_4 ,-nw.,
. _ - _ _ - . . _ .---_ _ _ . -.._ ~ -. _. .- -. . . . _ - _ - . . ~ . - . _ .- . . .
32 1 as informed as I would Itke. I really want to understand j 2 better up front what the impacts of tnose things are I l 3 It is good to have a review like APS that comes in 1
4 But they came in after the tact. And quite trankly, it I had
]
1 i
5 known the significance of some of those items before and had t 6 known those were the things t%at were being deterred or i
7 reduced, I might have looked at other places to find some at 6 the money.
9 None of them are easy choices, that is for sure.
10 Whether it comes from Research, 16E, Inspecticn Program or the I
i 11 Reactor Safety Program, they are not easy choices.
l 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But I should caution, that had i
13 we had them earlier they probably would have pointed to the t
I 14 needs for some of the programs that we already had done, and i
15 they would have had these as new items later. So there is 16 always a balance.
]
17 But, I agree with you, research tends to be the i is place where we tend to cut when the going gets tough, i
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And often I think without 20 understanding perhaps as much as we need to, wnat the a
l 21 implications are.
22 MW, MINOUVE: I would like to comment. I will try
{
' 23 to be briet I think you have to realise a lot of these 24 decisions are irrevocable, because it you look back over a 25 span of five years -- in fact, a rather extensive program, nad
. . - - _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . . -
33 1 a large element of parametric assessments in doing tests under 2 somewhat ditterent conditions to get a lot of data points. It 3 was cut back to a program that fundamentally ran through and 4 got one set of data.
! 5 I think this gives you reasonable confidence that i
e you have identified all of the important processes and the 7 important parameters. What you pay for this is some very l
i i j 6 substantial amount of uncertainty that has a lot et l 9 significance, either in terms of the way you characterise the
, 10 phenomenology or uncertainty in some of the Code applications.
I i
- 11 This is the kind of stutt that APS tended to i
j 12 highlight. A lot et that is irrevocable. It the tacilities l 13 are gone and out of service you can't say, gee, I wish we had i 14 run tour more tests. That is water under the bridge.
I The paper that Commissioner Asselstine talked about.
15 le or the subject will be addressed. We are looking very had now 17 at the wnole question of uncertainties, an: what the l 18 significance of that is. We are looking at sensitivity 19 assessments of the importance et various parameters. So that 20 this whole area of severe accidents is really moving into the 21 licensing arena right now.
22 And I think as that goes forward, we are doing wnat 23 we can to help people understand how much assurance they can 1
d
) 24 place on some of this stutt It is a tact of lite that the 25 price we paid for the way it was done, there is a substantial 4
1
_ . _ _ . . - . . _ , ~ . _ _ _ _ . , _ - , . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _, .._..,,.____..__m. m,,..,.~.,..m..-
_ - - . _~ ~ - - - . .. -_ _ .. . . . - . - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _. .
30 1 restdue of uncertainty that is going to be there, it cannot 2 be removed.
3 And turther, that what you look at in terms at 4 the physical description is a bit of a mix, because in some l 3 cases we terminated programs because we knew we could define a 6 limiting case. It might be too conservative, but we knew what 7 was conservative. We were not unsure of what was conservative. '
i 8 So what you really look at, you look at the 9 phenomenology as a mix. In some cases, it is best estimate.
10 In some cases it is known conservative-11miting cases. And, 11 to a scientist looking at that, it makes him teel kind of 12 uncomtortable because they are saying, gee, ints model, that 13 is rtgnt on, we understand that Mut, over here you have 14 treated this process this way and that is not really quite the 13 way it happens.
^
16 So, I think to some extent this is all water under 17 the bridge. We are trying to deal with that in the documented 1 18 assessment of the whole -- of the sensitivity studies and the j 19 wnole assessment of uncertainties, and in these baseline 20 plants that we are looking at 21 We are going to try to lay all that out, so wher you
]
22 make a decision eventually, when my triends in licensing make J '3 4 decision, they will at least know what they have got and 24 what they haven't got. We dc not have a complete understanding i 23 of all the phenomenology. In fact, that was never our goal,
_ - . , . - _ . - - - _ , - - - - _ _ . _ . - - - _ - -. -__ - . .=. - _ - - - . - -
i i s s 1 Even in the original program that was never any thought that we i 2 would understand all the phenomenology, f
'3 The question really was to understand it well enough
\
j 4 to make the licensing judgments.
1 3 What we gave up on, I think, was not a question of i e identifying the important phenomenon. I am confident we did j
l 7 that well. I feel good about that. What we did gtve up on F
8 was narrowing some of these uncertainty bands.
9 You gentleman are just going to have to deal with l
10 that. You are going to take the consequences of decisions et 11 past years.
l 12 CHAIRMAN FALLADINO: We are all going to have to 13 deal with that, both sides of the table.
i 14 MM. MINOGUE: My "ycu gentlemen," I am including my 15 colleagues in Licensing. They are my customers.
I 10 (Laughter.1 17 MR. ROE: Let me address the next mission area that i 18 Wesolve Reactor Satety Concerns. That is contanned on pages ,
19 1e through 19 of our report.
20 First of all, to highlight the multi-plant reactor 6 21 licensing actions, we accomplished more than we had planned, 22 950 versus 800. However, in the balance that total multi-plant 23 licensing actions inventory still is about 2000, and we should I
24 take etterts to reduce it it we have the resources. ,
]
i I 25 [ Commissioner Roberts returned to the meeting.J l
... - - _ ~ _
_ _ _ - _ . .- - .- -. . -. . .- ~ = - _ - -
N 0 ' i l
40 1 We maintained a higner inventory than we preferred, i
2 2 just simply as a result of the budget that we had avattacle, E
i 3 and also unbudgeted requirements that draw our technical ,
4 experts away from these matters to ones that are unanticipated.
I i 5 We have initiated the integrated safety assessment I
o program with the two plants. As you know, that is reduced 1
1 ? trom what we had desired to do before planning, but it is what d we can attord with respect to the various priorities 9 With respect to the issues et unresolved safety 10 issues and generte safety issues, we have completed technical 11 resolution of 23 generic safety issues. We have issued {
, 12 proposed resolution for two U.S. sites for public comment and f 13 submitted proposed resolutton, one to the Commtssion-14 We have in tact issued a final rule on pressurised 15 tnermal shock. However, some of the unbudgeted activities '
10 that Darrell has discussed and some inat we have not discussed, t
I 17 have caused delay in the resolution of some of our high and 19 medium-priority safety issues, because the technical experts 19 and the Statt have been drawn to other issues that we need to i
20 address.
j 21 As you are aware, we have developed and submitted to '
i ;
1 22 the Commission a revision to 10 CFM 20, the Radiation i i
! 23 Protection Standards We have prepared 4 innal rule and !
i t I
i 24 submitted it on hydrcgen control for Mark III WWHs and Ice I
25 Condenser PWWs.
I 1 i .
l 1
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ .... _ _. _.- _ _ _ ~ _ _ . - . _ , . _ .
i 37 1 One of the aspects of our research program to 2 address reactor safety concerns has come out with some very
! That is the one that we looked at pape 3 interesting results. .
4 rupture of the guillotine breaks, and tound that it was highly 5 unlikely for pressurized water reactor primary coolant loops.
1 6 We have been able to define improved approaches with n
7 respect to pipe restraints which will improve the safety of 1 8 those plants. In addition, we have been able to eliminate the I 9 requirement for these very costly devices, which will save the t
10 industry literally, hundreds of billions of dollars. And I
, 11 also, untold amounts of avoided radiation exposure.
12 Next, we have completed the development of the 13 sittacult task which is simplified analytical metnods to 14 estimate seismic margins and seismic risks for all the 15 operating plants in the United States.
i
} 16 One thing that I would like to highlight with 4
17 respect to our probabilistic risk assessment program is that '
te we have completed the review and analysis --
I 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADING: Is that on page 18'8 l
20 [ Commissioner Bernthal returned to the meeting 3 ;
i 21 MR. ROE: Yes, sir, it is on page 18. It is the !
- 23 tirst bullet under plant operations and risk analysis research.
23 Here we have taden the Arkansas PHA and our J
24 inspections modules for that plant and used it in a package 25 that is on a personal computer for priorittsing our inspection 1
e s l
$9 i 1 activities. It is a really interesting and nevet application, i ,
j 2 one that can be used on a day to cay basis by the resident i
I
- 3 inspector.
4 I know that I have, and several other senior managers
]
j l 4 have taken a look at this project, and it shows where we have 6 used a research and development probabilistic risk assessment
? categorf and actually put it to fruition where we nave i
1 l B implemented it in the field. We are looking at it on a I t
, 9 pilot basis with the hope of expanding it to facitaties.
10 The next mission area that I would like to highlight J
a 11 is the one on License and Monitor Materials Licensees / Fuel i
12 Cycle Fact 11 ties, wnten is on pages 20 to 22.
13 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: We are moving now to Materials 14 Satety?
13 MR. kOE; Yes We are bastcally going to materials
,i I
10 safety --
4 1
j 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me ask the Commission how 18 long it wants to go. And how much time you think we are going -
19 to need.
i l 20 MM. ROE; I think that we can complete within halt i
J f 21 an hour.
I !
4 22 LOMMISSIGNEM HCWERTS. I have to leave at -- l l
- 1 ,
j 27 CHA!HMAN PALLADINU- All rtgnt '
j l 1
1 J, On page 19, you list some tinal rules, and I didn*t ,
I I r l 25 see backtit rule in tnere. lr i
1
, i j 39 i 1 1 MM. HOE: I believe the reason wny we haven't I i- ,
4 brought that to that we tried to tocus on the inscal year t 2 3 without expanding it past there. And I don't recall exactly r
4 the date that that was passed, but I think it was the first [
I
$ week or so of October. [
. 6 We could include it. i
[
? CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You have answered my question. [
J 6 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE: Put that in next year *s ;
i :
i I 9 achievements. l i
t I
) 10 LLaughter.3 !
CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: Go ahead. You have answered my !
11 i
! l J
12 questten. l l
i l 'J MR. MOL. Focus on Materials and Fuel Cycle -- !
' l
- 14 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO
- Incidentally, as you go through t 4
13 it there are particular pages or points that we can tollow I i
to on, call them to our attention, it makes it easier. j l
17 MM. MOE: Okay. The first thing I will address is I
l 19 the licensing case work, which w!!! look at the various ,
i (
j 19 aspects, and we will sort of go through the package here. We :
i i 20 will talk about materials, tuel cycle and urantum.
l i
I
'1 COMMISSIONED ZECH: What page are you on now?
22 MM. ROE: I'm going from 20 to 22, depicting the J
21 various categories. And we will try to give you an approacn l d,
j 24 towards, here is the casework.
i
! 25 With respect to casework in this area, we were on 1
I 4
I
_ _ _ . .. . __--- - - . . - _ _ - . - - - - . _ . - _ _- -.____ -- = - . . _.
4 00 1 target _ In matertals we did 3000 cases that were completed.
P 2 It sounds very positive. I think to balance I have got to 1
< 3 tell you we still nave a significant amount of backtog with i
4 respect to material licensing. We are keeping up with the f 5 tast-flowing stream, but there is still a lot still coming. ,
I j 0 Fuel cycle tacilities --
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What is the backlog
- 8 MW. ROE: Don, do you know what we have as a backlog?
9 MM. MAUSSHARDT: I don't have an exact number. I i
l l'J belteve it is in the range of about 4000 amendments of that 11 type, i
i 12 Mx. h0E: So, as you see, many times wnen we express j #
13 a backlog, you c a .1 see that the backlog is about a year or so ,
14 worth of our ettort l
! 15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: What are we projecting for next i
16 year?
1 4
q 17 MR. MAUSSHARDT: About the same amount No j
te progress. We just don *t have the resources for that, str.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You always have a certain ;
4 20 number of backlog.
l 21 MR. ROE: I think it is wnat I call a wetting l
22 inventory.
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH: What do you consider as a good i
l J4 number for a working inventory?
- 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO
- That is a good question.
.1 I
. .. , _ _ - _ ~ _ - - . -
_ _ _ - . . ._ - .. . -- ~
a t 01 l 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Zero?
1 i
2 MM. MAUSSHARDT We do have a bit of an interesting
! 3 situation. The regions are very vigorously pursuing. trying 4 to eliminate the backlog, and on what ! call small licenses 3 such as medical and those type, they have eliminated them 6 pretty ettectively.
7 The problem is coming in on the big tactlities like 8 Erwin, where there are many amendments. It is now under a l
{ 9 time renewal, and statt is working to " reissue a new license" l 10 i n this area.
11 New we have a wnole deck of what I call amendments I
12 i n backlog with Erwin, for example, that we are trying to i
13 straighten out.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So how old are these -- I don't 11 mean you have to answer right at the moment. The question i
1, 10 that has to be faced is, how old are they compared to how long 17 it takes to process them.
18 If you are talking about backlogs that are going 19 into three years, I think that is unacceptable. If you are I
20 talking about backlogs of six months --
l 21 MR. HOE: I think there is a range of them. It is 22 clearly more than should be, and more than time to bring them l
23 through the process.
24 I think back to some detailed information we gave 25 you on the reactor amendments, some of them have ages ct two, .
t i
_ . _ - - _ _ _ , , _ _ _ , _ , _ . . , _ . _ , . _._,,_r_,, , , , , ,
.-,-,wv- , - , - - - - , , , - - _ , .m, , . , ,y
O2 1 three years, which is fairly 'cng. Here I think the ages are 1
2 slightly shor'er. However, the complexity is not as great as 3 some of them. And there is the issue et timely renewal 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTIME: It sounos like the easy 5 ones are getting processed. The tougher ones are the ones 6 that languish.
4
? MR. MAUSSHARDT: That's right. That has been a 4
8 problem.
r 9 COMMISSIONER ROWERTS: Explain to me what is the 10 impact of this multi-year delay? Wnat is the impact to the 11 Licensee?
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE; Demoralizing, and probably
! 13 attects safety negatively.
e 1 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On materials licenses they 1
15 didn't say they were multi-year.
l 10 MR. ROE: Not as muen. No, no. Many of them were 17 much shorter.
18 MR. EVANS: The materials licensing backlog, you are 19 talking in terms of months rather than years 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. That is right. That was my 21 impression.
22 MR. EVANS: The thing from a priority standpoint 23 that winds up being delayed are renewals. We take care of the 24 new actions, we take care of the ara a ndme n t s , and the renewals 23 get delayed.
. s 03 1 The Licensee is under timely renewal as long as he 2 gets the application in on time. So the impact on the Licensee 3 is nil.
4 The question that you have is a delay on our 5 examination on wnat the Licensee is now doing. These things 6 come up for renewal every five years, basically. You are 7 delaying your examination of that renewal for a period of some 8 time. And that is the real impact. The impact of us not 9 being able to review this as quickly as we would like to 10 review the programs on the licensing facilities.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I would like you to send me a 12 paper on that. Maybe my colleagues would like that also.
i 13 COMMESSIONER ROBERTS. You don't shut somebody down 14 and say "sorry, we haven't gotten to you."
15 MR. EVANS. That's correct, we do not.
16 COMMISSIONER.EERNTHAL: The problem is, and the 17 reason I am still battled by this apparent reversal of position 18 on the significance of the Sholly procedure, the problem, for 19 example, fs the kind of thing that I ran into when I visited 20 San Onotre 1, and I am sure that there are others like it, 21 where they are telling me they have 70 pending licensing 22 ettorts, many of which are rather small tech spec changes.
23 But, given a capable utility that feels, and we feel 24 they know what they are doing, nevertheless, here they sit 25 with 70 Itcensing ettorts, Now that isn't right. And in my
. i
, c4 1 judgment, we have to figure out a way to do something about I
2 it.
3 It is demoralizing, and I think it has a negative 4 impact on safety.
3 I still don't understand why Sholly is such a 4
6 non-problem it that is the situation i
? MR. ROE: we will provide you with a paper.
8 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE: It would also be useful 9 on the renewals to list how long those have been pending, 10 because while I think you are technically correct that they 11 can continue to operate as long as they have the timely 12 renewal, I seem to remember not too many years ago us coming 13 under -- or the agency coming under substantial criticism on a 14 low-level waste facility that had been operating under a 15 timely renewal literally for years.
i le It is not such a good situation to let that go on 17 for long periods of time.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Again I agree. I think you 19 should provide us with additional intermation as Commissioner f
20 Zech indicated.
21 MR. HOB: The next aspect is, we have transterred 22 the majority of this Itcensing casework, about 95 percent, to OJ the regions and they are doing well 24 The level of our inspection at materials and fuel 25 cycle facilities is about the same as we did last year. We 3
1 o
ot I have increased the empnasis on criticality, safety and health 2 physics at tuel cycle tacilities.
3 We are looking at the issue of general licenses.
4 And we have completed the gauge portion of that particular 5 study, which showed a need for rule change.
6 We are looking at other generally licensed areas and 7 continuing our study there.
8 We have completed our response plan for materials 9 contamination incidents. We have ettectively handled several 10 materials contamination events, including steel weld casings 11 from Brazil, instrument packages from Belgium, and the 12 J. C. Maines facilities.
13 Witn respect to the J. C. Maines and some of these 14 others, it is apparent we have diverted resources from other 15 areas. We have put substantial statt and management ettort 16 into that particular cleanup program, and it has had an impact 17 on our overall inspection program and some of the licensing 18 program that we probably had not done all that we wished to 19 do.
20 We have published the innal rule on Non-Nesource 21 Conservation and Recovery Act, the RCHA regulatory changes to 22 conform to the EPA mill tailings standards 23 We have concluded an agreement with the Department 24 of Energy and ourselves to interface on DOE's uranium mill 25 tailings and remedial action program We have provided
66 1 comments to DOE on 17 major publications for six mill sites 2 under that program.
3 The scope and the schedule for tnat particular 4 program continues to strain NMSS. I think they are using our 5 Uranium Field Recovery Ottice for help. But, we are continuing 6 to divert resources from lower-priority licensing case work, 7 and not removing this backlog.
8 With respect to our Agreement State Program, we 9 have reviewed 27 radiation safety programs and provided safety 10 courses to numerous state personnel 11 I would like to next highlight the area of regulating 12 high-level waste, which is contained on pages 23 and 25.
13 CHA1HMAN PALLADINO. 22 -- are you going to get to 14 22?
15 COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE; I think they have covered 10 it.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Can I ask you a question about 19 it?
19 On the top of page 22, you say completed 43 20 transportation certification cases. Could you explain just 21 what you mean? You are not talking about certification of 22 casks, I presume? Or, are you?
23 MM. MAUSSHARDT I think that is in part, sir, 24 accurate, yes. That is casks.
25 CHAIHMAN PALLADINO: That is casks. Ukay, thank
c7 1 you.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE; Another one, Don, before 3 you go on to high-level waste.
4 On the Radiography Steering Committee, what were 5 they interested to accomplish this year in terms of making e some changes, both in the way radiography people or operators 4
7 are trained and regulated, and also in terms of the safety of 8 the devices, themselves.
9 MR. MAUSSHARDT: I believe -- didn't we forward a 10 report?
11 MR. ROE: Yes, we provided a report to you. We are 12 working on it. And I think we also see a need for some 13 regulatory activity in the hardware area.
14 MR. MINOGUE: There is also a rule being developed 15 in post-performance requirements used by the designers to make !
le the equipment more toolproot 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Oh, good. Good.
19 MR. ROE: In respect to the high-level waste area, 19 the Commission has been very involved in this particular 20 aspect et our activities.
21 One of the things I should give you is our view of 22 what is happening with respect to resources. Simply, in the 23 past we have been able to keep up with the program because of 24 the department slippages. We now see that slack is coming to 25 an end.
OB 1 (Commissioner Bernthal lett the meeting.J 2 We also see that we are carrying out more activities 3 than we planned. For example, the nine Draft Environmental
, 4 Assessments we got, we only planned to have tive. And the 5 scope, depth and the volume of the EA material was much 6 greater than we planned.
7 So, this is one program that I think is now starting B to get strained considerably.
9 MR. MAUSSHARDT: I might want to add one thing 10 here. This was a very interesting ettort, because we 11 originally only programmed to use about six to seven people on 12 this ettort for the tive that we were going to get.
13 In reality, it required close to 19 FTEs to do that, 14 and this involved not only just NMSS, but also involved statt 1$ trom Research and from NMR. Just to give you a snapshot, NRR 10 has provided three people -- eight people last year for a I
17 short period of time, which averaged out to about three people 18 for the year to support this ettort. So, it has been an 19 ageacywide eitort, 20 We have been able to draw on other ottices in peaks I
i 21 and valleys, but we are losing that elasticity right now. We 22 are at sort of a null point 23 MR. ROE: I think you know with respect to the spent 24 tuel storage area, we are expecting a formal proposal trom DOE
! 25 to us to review on their MRS. It is coming in December and
- 09 1 they are required to make a submittal to Congress in January i
2 of '80. It is going to require an intensive short-term ettort 3 on our case.
! 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE; How far away are we from 5 -- I see what you said here about the dry storage casks. How 6 far away are we from approval of the dry storage casks?
7 MR. MAUSSHARDT: We issued an approval for a topical 8 report for the GNS casks. It was a German cask. It was 9 undergoing some additional testing out at ICOR. It was 10 discovered there were cracks in the basket. They were thermal 11 related. Apparently not structural, though, in nature.
12 The problem is this work is in a holding pattern 13 until we unload the casks. We have issued, actually issued 3
14 the approval But unfortunately we want the thermal cracking 15 question resolved before we are going to allow them to go a
le ahead.
, 17 So; we have done our work, Now we want the Licensee
! 19 to respond to what the explanation is for that problem.
19 We have got tour other topical reports that we are 20 working on right now. And I can give you a complete rundown I
21 on those, which the Statt is reviewing rtgnt now.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is the ONS cask the eask 23 that Virginia Power proposes to use?
24 MR. MAUSSHAROT- That's correct.
25 MR. ROE: Yes, it is.
4
._ - - _ - .- _ ._ . ~ _ - _ - _ _ . . . - .
70 1 11 I could, to go to Regulate Low-Level waste. I i 2 think this is an area here that we nave had a 2reat deal ot
'3 Commission interest. I woulo just like to make a couple of i
4 comments with respect to resources here.
5 We have accomplished a great deal in the past witn 4
6 the limited amount of resources in low-level waste. One et I
7 the assumptions we could propose is that because there will be 8 an extension to the time, that this gives relief to the 9 Commission.
10 I think that is absolutely wrong. I think that 11 it we take a look at what is proposed, it means additional I
12 work ter us. We have to carry out the work we would have had 13 to in '86, and also we are going to have additional 14 responsibilities to meet whatever will pass the Congress to f 15 expand that.
I i
1o So, I think we are going to find in low-level waste a
17 that because of congressional action, and also the issue et
{
'l l Id alternative methods for disposal of low-level waste, that we i
19 will be strained much further than we can, and there will i
- 20 have to be reorientation ci priorities in the NMSS program, 21 possibly, and the Commission may meet these needs.
22 CHAIMMAN PALLADIMO: Jack, this business ei 4
, 23 alternative ways of treating low-level waste ! think is an I
24 important item to consider on the generic basis -- because I 1
l 25 think -- insofar as possible -- because I think you are going I
11 1 to get a request for that kind of evaluation from many states.
2 And, it is something you ought to address torthrightly and be 3 prepared to answer their questions.
4 MR. MAUSSHARDT: We have a technical study underway 5 right now using the Corps of Engineers, sir.
o Maybe to summarise something Jack said, 11 Congress
? does not act,,we are going to have a situation where we will '
8 have to have hundreds of licensing actions to have our various 9 tacilities store the waste.
10 It Congress does act with the new potential House 11 bill, we are going to be in a very massive ettert there on 1
12 basically licensing disposal sites. 1 l 13 So, we are sort of in a -- you might say caught 14 between two points here. Whatever happens in January, we are 15 going to have a tremendous workload build in this area. We 16 really can't quantity it right now. I can't come to you and 17 say, well, we need more resources for relicensing for storage, 18 because I can't really estimate that is going to be. We could 19 be several hundred licenses. Whereas, it we do a cut on what 20 we need ter the new bill -- you know, we traditionally have 21 never gone in for additional resources until we know how i
r 22 Congress is going to react 23 MR. ROE: I would like to now go and tocus on the 24 sateguards --
25 CHAIHMAN PALLADINO: That's a very important point
72 i
! 1 we have got to remember in our budget planning process.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That*s right.
3 One thing is for sure. We can't be in the posture, 4 I think, of being responsible for derailing this schedule in 5 the kinds of ettorts that the states are going to be 6 undertaking, particularly in the alternate technology areas. l 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Especially when they are Just 8 trying to lay the tracks.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That*s right. And they 10 all seem to be going in ditterent directions.
11 MR. RCE: The next is our Sateguards Regulatory 12 Activities, which are addressed on page 2 't .
13 The highlights there is that we have completed 18 i
l 14 regulatory ettectiveness reviews, and submitted an annual 15 report to the Commission on that program.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You skipped the one you say 17 completed 200 tuel cycle facility sate' guards licensing cases le versus 100 planned.
i 19 Why such a big ditterence, I guess is my question't 20 MR, MAUSSHARDT: We have had a tremendous amount of 21 activity with Erwin and other type facilities like that,
, 22 We had last year, of course, the incident with the 23 scrubber accumulating significant amount of material on that 24 It required us, for example, in this area tc change our 3
25 inspection requirements because this was outside the protected
/3 1 area. And you know, right away it required bringing that 2 material into a protected environment 3 So, there has been a much higher level of attention 4 paid to the field facilities on a generic basis.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It was because of the demand.
o Not that we had excess people doing things.
7 MR. MAUSSHARDT: No, not at all It was the demand.
I 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you.
l 9 MR. ROE; As you are aware, we discussed with you f
10 the comparison of the DOE threat protection and NRC threat 11 protection.
12 It we do make any change, I think it is readily 13 apparent that we do not have the resources currently in the 14 budget to make any changes, and we see that any changes, 13 because of the number of power reactors we have and I think 10 the complexity of the issues with respect to change, would 17 have a real significant impact on the resources.
18 We also have organized a safeguards interottice 19 review group to review all the safeguards rules and guidance 20 for consistency. But we have again not defined any resources 21 to implement the findings that come out of that review group.
I 22 The level of our inspections of sateguards activities 23 are not the same as last year.
i 24 With respect to reactor safeguards licensing cases, 25 I think I should address why we had 300 completions versus 340
- -. _ _ .__ - __. - _. _ . - . - - -- _ _ ~_ - .- .
74 1 planned.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Which item is t h i s '*
I 3 MR. ROE: It really is on page 2/, your first 4 bullet.
$ It looks like we had a shortfall We actually 6 completed what we expected to, after we realized that the 7 insider rule did not get published in the time period we 8 expected. Therefore, we would not have submitted. So, we 9 didn't have a shortfall in cases where we would have put the 10 sateguards at risk.
11 I think the overall summary with respect to these
! 12 programs in sateguards is that any change that is expected, is
! 13 untudgeted at the current time. It there is significant i
I
- 14 change, it will have significant resource considerations. ,
1$ Next, I would like to highlight the area et 4
to Investigations and Entorcement, very quickly.
17 First of all, Allegations, and Review Allegations 18 Conduct Investigations on page 28.
4 19 We have received about 900 allegations and completed I
20 review of about 750 of those.
21 As you are aware, we have issued policy statements 22 for reviewing and handling late-tiled allegations. In 01 they 23 have performed about 180 cases of investigations and inquiries i 24 of allegations.
i 25 Entorcement Actions, highlight what is on page 29.
i 7%
1 I think that the sort at numerical tactor here is that we 1
2 processed 149 enforcement cases. We proposed 70 civ11 4
3 penalties. And we have a value of those civil penalties of i
4 approximately 12.7 million.
- 5 We are still working diligently to try to process
! 6 them as quickly as possible. We are not quite meeting our
? goal, but I think it is more one of the complexity of some of 8 these enforcement cases, and the need to really resolve issues I
9 versus overriding resource constraints.
i l
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How did we do in comparison I
11 with '84 in comparison with the target?
Y 12 The target was eight weeks, wasn't it?
4 13 MR. TAYLOR'. Yes. That would allow six weeks in 1
14 region for preparation, and two weeks in headquarters. That l
- 13 ts a very tight target.
]
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE; Right, j
] 17 MR. TAYLOR: Outside of the complex cases, we have 18 improved our performance. We are hitting about ten weeks. It 19 I accept cases like Grand Oult, some of the great big cases, t
20 and those cases that have to come to the Commission, those t i
J 21 time and targets don't include your work. 7 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That*s a good thing.
i ;
2:J ILaughter.J 24 MR. TAYLOR: So, I decided that I had to account for i 25 your work, too, i
I i
_ ._.. -. _. _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .- - -_ .. . . _ . _ . _ _ ~ _ . - . . - - _ . _ .
lo i
l 1 Seriously though. we have turned up the gain on 2 Statt and Regions, and the performance is improving. And what 1 3 I call the regular cases, those are the ones without major 4 controversy, or big action that we may have to come to you.
I i 5 COMMISSIONEW ASSELSTINE; That's very good.
6 MR. EISENHUT: But. Jim, it is starting to develop a P
7 pretty significant number of them that are quite complex.
i 3-6 Where I&E and NMR is doing quite a bit ot discussion as to (
9 what is the design, how should it have worked, what was really
! 10 meant by the tech spec.
11 Some of these get quite complex. Please appreciate
't i 12 they go well beyond this --
[
I l
13 MR. TAYLOR: Some we are currently consicering, i
i 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do we have any report from the
! 15 Ad Hoc Committee on Entorcement P o l i c y '8 I L
f to MR. TAYLOR: No, you don't yet l 17 They are working -- they are in the stage, as I t
r
! to understand it, of tinishing their final drafts collectively.
i 1
1 19 I think their target is sometime later this month.
i i i
20 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO, Yes. Their contract, as I l
l 21 recall, ran out on November 13th, or their appointment I was 22 wondering, has that been extended? Or, will it be extended?
4 23 MR. TAYLOH. ELD will have to answer that I do i
- 24 know they are about to wrap up their report They are on the i
, 25 linal drafts, and they are working with ELD statt to finish, e
,- -_-.e.. , , ,, -- -
-,---,c---,n,--- - , , . _ , . - - . _ . . , , , _ , .,-_--._,---,-_,.~.___,._-_.,-,,,-e,--.,,--, , _ , . . . , . -
,Mm- - ,_a.--
-- .A4--,.-.-.4-,--1-+.a----_ .-.-m, .* _.- . . - - ---.J.--a__au.-a ~+.-s_m.
1 1
77 1 Now, they may finish such that they have a dratt --
j 2 you know, a report done by the lath, and then transmit it to 3 you. I don't know the answer. ;
I f
4 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO; I don't know who should check :
i
! 3 on this, but --
0 MM. CHILK: We are working on that and we will I 7 either extend it or 'g e t another way of getting the people back ,
I *
. 8 here for the report.
I 9 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Thank you. j i
l 10 MM. MOE: The last area in our mission that I would l
11 like to highlight is that which we manage and support our 12 technical programs.
i
- 13 we have a significant amount et ettert that supports 1 1 14 our technical programs on a day to day basis I think it is it essential that they are carrying out their role. c l
10 I would like to highlight some of the things that i
, 17 are done, and also to, in balance, tell you that in the past u
I I 18 1 think you are aware that because of the priorities we have 19 had for technical programs, we have on many occasions gone j 20 to the support administrative type of programs and removed l
i 21 resources. !
i j 22 I think now I have seen, and I think there is some i
j 23 agreement that we have gotten down to the point where they are i J
g 24 now at a very, very tight point, also. And that we need to l 23 keep that in mind as we Juggle our priorities, i
}
i l
.- . .-. . .. . _ _____._ - .- - . . . . - -. --._ - . - = . _ . . - - . ---
.i 78 1 As you are aware, we have continued to have a great 2 deal of ettert on our billings consolidation program, and hope I
3 to see some end to that tairly soon 4 With respect to license tees, this is a program that 1
J 4 has increased to put money into the U. S. Treasury.
!l t
! O Our billings in 1985 were 880.3 million, of which we l
7 have collected about $77.3 million, i 1 0 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE: Why the ditterence? Who l 9 has not paid you?
i l 10 [ Laughter.3 !
}
i
- 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And how tar in arrears are
. 12 they? i 13 COMMISS!QNER ASSELSTINE. That s right.
14 MS. NOMRY: There have been some questions raised t
i 15 about some of the bills. And data have been requested as 1
1 10 backup. And that is being provided. That provides the lag I-17 time.
- 18 COMMISSIONEW ASSELSTINE. That is line.
l 19 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: They can pay us while they are i
. 20 arguing.
f
! 21 CLaughter.J l
, 22 One company did.
27 MM. HOE: The straighttorward is that interest l
24 continues to accrue while we are working with them in certain I 25 cases.
1 l
l
}
79 ,
i 1 Our legal area. We have provided legal counsel on 2 approximately 0$00 administrative matters, 140 enforcement 3 cases and approximately 1200 matters requiring rule development 4 or Itcensing support.
5 In the ADP area this year, we have estabitshed the .
t 9 Information Technology Services Training Laboratory in the i
l 7 Wooduont Building, which has been subscribed to very, very
[
And, we have established a support center in the 8 much.
I 9 Phillips Mutiding basically to support people on a very, very t 10 short-term basis to innd out answers to questions, or coming i 11 in to get help with their ADP activities. And it has been ,
12 very, very usetul and very sought after by the Statt ;
1J Administrative services and logistical support. I 14 For our 3500 employees or so in 24 butidings in 23 15 ditterent locations, we have processed 90,000 payroll
[
t to transactions. We have processed over 20,000 travel vouchers. l I
17 We have processed over 10,000 personnel actions. We have 16 processed 700 initial security clearances ter employees, f
19 contractors and Licensees, and 320 employing consultant 20 retnvestigations, 230 change of station moves, provided 21 training for a multitude of NMC employees and processed over I 22 1000 FOIA cases.
i 21 That basically brings to concluston this highlight 24 of the technical and management support of our programs. I 25 think that we could have list alter itet
) F i 80 I
1 I gave you those numbers to give you an idea of i
j 2 those things that are routinely processed I
r 'J One thing I would Itke to say in conclusion --
i 4 MR. TAYLOR: Jack, could I add that the FOIA requests I
5 are examples of things that do occupy some of the technical ,
1 i
6 statt, too, and the program line statt. They really --
I 7 MM. ROE That is becoming a very significant burden t
d en the statt, is FOIA and some of these other activities.
i a
9 In summary, I think that you can see that we have to accomplished a great deal of what we set out to do.
g 11 In balance, I think we must realise that first, we J
j 12 have a program next year that is not dissimilar to what we i
r l 'J have this year.
l I
14 1 will have to agree with some of the Commissioners l ,
15 about trying to do more with less. However, bring to your [
16 attention that we have 923 million less to carry out that t
l 11 program, and we have not used any comments about the tact of I
id inflation or such. 'W e have tried to cut back.
j 19 So, we have provided you with our recommendations i
20 for '80 at a funding and appropriations levet of 414. Wut I \
21 realise that through our programs which we have had in place '
1 22 now ter several, several months of ettiotencies, and trying to '
}
! 2 'J get the most out et it, and as you have heard hiring entry J
l 1 J4 level, concerna about bringing down the average grade to save I'
25 dollars here and there, we have had additional etterts with
_ -m _ - - _ .. _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
. e 81 1 respect to travel held at level, we still have 523 million j 2 tess to carry out a program that I consider is essentially the 1
1 j 3 same.
1 !
4 I think it is going to be very ditticult and it is ,
3 going to be a balancing of priorities that are no longer the
]
6 lower level ones. It is the mid-level priorities that are [
7 ditticult decisions to make, i
i 8 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: Thank you, Jack.
l 9 You did send to the Commission your proposal on how
} i j 10 the reduction in 'So funds should be handled. And I would 1 :
l 11 appreciate any comments from the Commissioners as they get 12 through it. Wut, I will come specifically to see each one at l 'J you within the timetrame I indicated at agence planning.
'i I think this has been a very worthwhile dis 14 's s i on .
i 15 ! know that we rushed through it a bit. And I know we have a 16 big challenge in living within our resources. Still, as wo 17 went through there were a few items that we are not doing, or j
l 18 tnat the Statt feels needs attention, that we should not l
) 19 lose.
i 4 20 We may decide not to do them again, but sometimes j 21 they need to be highlighted, so that we don't tall to do them f 22 by default.
}
23 So, I was going to request that carreki anc various i
l 24 ottices highlight those high-priorit/ items that they think 25 deserv,es further attention for the next budget cycle, or even o
i
s s
- 82 j t for 1990. I don *t mean go give us a long laundry that of all j 2 the things that would be nice. But to select them so that ,
l J when we go through them we can hope to address them. And we l
{ 4 may have to decide no again. But at least we would know that i
l l 3 we were deciding now, and not wishing later that we had 0 studied a little more.
l.
l r
i i j 7 MR. ROE: 1 think that we can easily provide you a 6 summary report at the funding level we have for 1960, those ;
r 9 areas which are high priorities, which we just do not have the
! 10 resources to accomplish, or we are accomplishing at a much 1
l '
j 11 lower rate than we wish to,
)
1
! 12 And even considering at that 410, we know we are 1
13 going to have unanticipated events that are going to deter 14 some of the things that we do wish to accomplish.
j 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I tried to write some of these l
l 16 things down, but I am not sure I captured it all For example,
! n l 17 need resources for developing performance indicators to avoid
.: i l
18 the problems that we face with problem plants.
, 19 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE. That is one I agree with l
20 Joe. I would give a high priority for that one.
! 21 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: Yes.
I 22 See, that is the kind of thing that we might i l
1 '
4 23 overlook, and it gets buried. I think it should be pulled up 24 and we Icok at it carefully and then see what --
i
! J5 Md. TAYLOH: One of the compitcations of that kind E
e s 8 'J l'
i l 1 of thing is going to be getting complete access to individual a
i 2 plant performance indicators that are kept and put them in the {
! 3 public domain. Many of the companies run their records. That ,
l i 4 is one of the issues on maintenance performance indicators, l 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, again we ought, so far as I
6 resources are concerned, make sure that we apply the resources t
i j 7 to try and achieve whatever it is we are going to try to f
i j 8 achieve.
i 1 9' Okay, any other comments?
1 1
j 10 COMMISSIONER 2ECH: Just a quick one, Mr. Chairman.
i i 11 I would like to emphasize maintenance again, because
- 12 Jim Taylor brought it up, and we did hear yesterday from k
1 *J NUMARC what they are dotng.
I 14 I think it is encouraging that they are emphasising i 15 maintenance. But, as I told those people yesterday, I think i to inere is much room for improvement and a long way to go.
l 17 So, I am encouraged by what you are doing. I think I
16 what you have got to do -- and also your outage work. But, I I
l 19 tnink we have to be a little bit caretul not to do it for I
I 20 them. Our job, it seems to me, is to give emphasis and I
l 21 priority and make sure they are doing something in a vigorous, I
l i 22 aggressive sort et way.
! 2 'J I think that is what you are up to, i !
l
- 24 MK. TAYLOR
- Hight we concentrated on one system at 1
25 Turkey Point. We looked at a few other things. But, now the i
l
._ --_ - . _ . . . - _ . - - _ . - . _ _ ~ _ _ - -
_ _ _ _ _ - .-. _- . __. _. ~ - -- . . . _ -
i '
. e 84 1 message to them which we have told them is, what about the s ,
l 2 rest of your safety s y s t e m 't l
'J COMMISSIONEk ZECH: I think that is a very good J
4 message.
I j 4 MM. TAYLOM. And we are hoping that some of this !
I
{ 0 integrated look is done by the utt11ttes themselves rather 7 than the bits and pieces. Wecause it is in integrating that e you get the safety ettect i :
9 COMMISSIONEW ZECH: I agree. And I think it is ;
1
} 10 important that we follow through on that ettert, which I i
11 commend you tor. I think it is a very important one.
12 Another, just a quick point on the plants that are 4
13 laid up. Yuu know, that is a pretty serious matter, in my l
l 14 view. You know, the Navy has had a system for many years et j j 15 mothballing ships. And there is rather a tormal procedtre of l
10 doing it. You don't just put cocoons around things. But you i
i 17 do have documentation and you do have records so when people [
t 10 walk in years later they really have a pretty good idea of '
l l
] 19 what happened, when it happened, where things are, and 411 4
I 20 that. [
t i
i 21 So, it may not relate directly to our areas of i
! 22 responsibility, but it could have some application.
I 1
23 Evt the idea ts, in my 'itew anyway, we should have j
'4 some system and some requirement it they do that, lay up a 25 plant or delay it or stop work, that we have some way of going j) l
i i 85 i
i i 1 in later, it it happens, to find out exactly what the status I
2 of equipment-is and what has happened, so we don t have to t
3 start all over again. '
j 4 CHA!WMAN PALLADINO: I'm surprised the utt11ttes i 5 don't see that for themselves, it they ever expect to get i
? 6 these plants restarted. 5
-l 7 I think what happens is, they say, oh, boy, never
! 8 again. I give up, And they don't think they are going to i
} 9 come back and want it And later on they come back and try to
(
1 1 j 10 dust it ott. And unless we have at least cautioned that they i
i j 11 leave good records, they may not have them. [
i j 12 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE: I get the sense that some !
i, 11 utilities really are interested. !
l i
l 14 MM. EISENHUT: Don't mistake, some utilities are '
i 15 doing it. You have got to remember there is at least 20 ;
i
)
16 plants out there with construction permits that are in some j i
17 stage of --
le COMMISSIONER ,ASSELSTINE Like everything else, 19 there is a big variation.
i j 20 Md. EISENHUT. Big vastat1on i
j 21 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE: Some are attentive and '
i l 22 some aren't.
I
- 2 'J MM. EISENHUT* Some are doing a lot as a matter of I
1 j 24 fact 1
25 COMMISSIONEM ZECH: I think we should look in to i
f
(
i
I i . .
l 80 [
t ,
4 i
! I see wnether we, indeed, should have some kind of provtsion in l l h 2 our Itcensing process, or some other mechanism of requtring a l i
{ 3 certain amount of responsibility with plants it is something [
I
! 4 I think we should look into i
d I 3 One last quick point You have mentioned that you i i I l 6 are going to try to do more with less, And I appreciate f i
7 that. I think each of you division leaders should indeed look j
1
! 8 at your wnole mission. i l r
< f j 9 We know we are not going to get all et the funds ,
I l 10 that we, perhaps, want. We probably are going to have to do i I
l 11 with less. I think you should be looking at your mission and !
, 12 see wnst is important and wnero you can focus your resources !
l 1 l 1 17 I know you do this, but I think we must be realistic l 14 and recognize it ia very Itkely that we are not getting att we l
j j to want. Wut it we do, we have got to be able to point out the t
) to priorittes, point out and articulate the additional risks ;
}
}
4 17 involved, the additional things. !
l i j 18 So, I think that is important for you to be realistle (
i l 19 about.
J I
20 CHA!WMAN PALLADINO: All right i '
l l
, 2t Well, we thank you very much. I thought that was a 0
! I j J2 very good presentation.
I.
i 23 Mk. HOE; Thank you, sir. "
j 24 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO: We stand adjourned, i l
- 25 tWhereupon, at 12
- 00 Noon, the hearing was i s
I
x - - - s - ++- --- - --e +
87 1 adjourned.)
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
t 4 10 11 12 e
l 1J -
i 14 l 13
- 1 to 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 23
___ _ - - . - _ . _ _ _ _ - . - = . .
<> o
,- 1 CERTIFICATE OF CFFICIHL REPORTER 3
3 4
5 Th6s is to certify that the attached proceedings 6 before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon in the 7 matter of COMMISSION MEETING e
9 Name of proceeding: Fiscal Year 1985 End-of-Year Report (Public
- Meeting) 10 1 11 Cocket No.
l 12 place' Washington, D. C.
b 13 Dater Thursday, November 7, 1985 l
14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original r
16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear J
17 Pegulatory Commission.
1:3 ,/
S
~
(Si'"*t #*}
tg . l ' i t L u' #f k '
(Typed Name of Reporter) Mimie Meldzer
.!o 21 22 23 Ann Riley 4 Associates. Ltd.
24 25
hbb0b,hkkQhhbhht00hhk0khhhghghg(kf)kfffiQgQgQgQ))f)gQy&y)&&))hQgfy g
X 3
9/35 -
2 TRANSMITIAL TO:
[ Doctnent Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips 2
$ ADVANCED COPY to: / / The Public Doctment Rxn g DATE: M!/1!!r$ cc: C&R FRDM: Da .
BRANCH g
papers)
Attached are copies of a Comnission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting document (s) . They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and p1mt in the Public Doctment Rom. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual 3 de-ets wherever known.
Meeting
Title:
Id.ed \ w lMii ( d -oh d ear h enct 5
Meeting Dater il 7 9% open X Closed cc GC DCS Copies cc Itan
Description:
Copies (1 of each checked) c Advanced Original May Duplicate
[
W To PDR , Document be Dup
- Copy
- __
c 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 , 1 ce
.. Een checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the y LPDR for: ,
cc
- 5 2. FM i a ts E 4 .S - h , b ,.< t _-
3 )
4 E _10 ,**-9%
b
- Et *
=
- 3.
- c=
- h
- q: *
- s. 4. .
E -
W CC (PDR is advanced one copy of each document, *
- Verify if in DCS, and i
( tw of each SEXN paper.)
- Change to "PDR Available."
5 i WmmynninymmvenNwmvmynmmmmymammmwmmE