ML20148E499
| ML20148E499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148E497 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8010270192 | |
| Download: ML20148E499 (117) | |
Text
. __ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . - -
ci, , . ~ ,
- o UNITED STATES P o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'h h W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 e *s, cgl
- October 14, 1980 1 OFFICE OF THE i SECRETARY l
COMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT OF:
Transcript of Budget Markup j August'8, 1979 (a.m.)
l The Commission previously determined tha'.: the subject transcript should be withheld from public disclosure until the Commission's FY-81 Appropriation l
.became law. l Following enactment into law of the Commission's FY-81 Appropriation, the Secretary of the Commission, upon the advice of the General Counsel, determined that the subject transcript should be released in its entirety.
1 J C. Hoyle Acting Secre ary of the Commission g g 3 g r),701
.,r. m. . .. \
1 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b ~
1
. 6 IN THE MATTER OF:
. CLOSED MEETING c
^
BUDGET MAR 1GTP SESSION .
i
)
i i
(
i I Place - Washington, D. c.
Date . Wednesday, 8 August 1979 P a g e s 1 - 115 S
l
/
Telephone:
(202)347 3700 ACE-FEDER'ALREPORTERS,INC. ,
OfflicialReponers AAA North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20'001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE . DAILY 4
w -,,
' , ' t V~
!_ 1-
. {g i
.1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CR6346 I q
2 ,
NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
( 4 CLOSED MEETING BUDGET MARKUP' SESSION !
5 l
6 I Room 1130 7 1717 H Street, N.W. )
Washington, D. C. ]
8 Wednesday, 8 August 1979 )
9 .
The Commission aet, pursuant.to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
10 BEFORE: l 11
, 1 DR.-JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman
.12 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner l
.[ 13 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 14 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner l 15 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 16 l
,ALSO PRESENT: l 17 i Messrs. Barry, Cooper, Monaco, Gossick, Smith, Donoghue, l 18 Engelhardt, Haller, Levine, Stello, Thompson, Mosely, and 19 Donnelly.
21 22 i
-23 24
<ee.. . awe seconen, ine.
25 f.
- , - , - - w e-
~~
b46 01 01 2
'l P R 0 C E E'D 1 N G S l 1
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's kick off and go f or the 7 3 budget discussions. fie have Research to do. We have I&E 4 to. sort out. We have the recommendations of the office 5- directors for- saf eguards .transf er from NRR to NMSS. And 6 there was a question of the uranium recovery decision unit j 7 .in NMSS. They wanted to do a plus 12 on people.
8 While we are generaly disposed toward waste 9 disposal matters and the ilk, it wasn't clear to all, at 10 least, that that number was fully supportable. What we have 11 19ot - ,
12 V7. CODPER: 7:00 o' clock, by 7:00, most of the 13 marks had been given out. NMSS, I think we couldn't find
(' 14 anyone.
"15 MR. BARRY: The 12 people on the uranium 16 recovery?
17 MR. MONACO: In other words, we have got the word 18 to them, but we haven't gotten feedback yet.
19 MR. BARRY: Identify the problem.
20 MR. MONACO Right.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think the chiefs or suitable 22 officers in the offices concerned better head down here in a
.23 hurry. Set it up-across the table. I don't think we have 24 90t t i me to _have letters written and delivered, and so on.
25 This Commission is going to be in difficult
.- m
^
46 01 02 3 7' 1 ' shape :to meet.- Probably won't be able to meet on Friday.
2 Tomorrow we have got _the day ' chewed up by people away in the 7 3 af ternoon and committed meetings in the morning on other 4 subjects. So, we are running out of time to settle this 5 budget.
6 (Pause.)
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEJ I think if they'd start 8 heading down now, it would be a good idea. We are going to 9 have to move fast and take votes and move it along.- At 3:00 10 p.m. this af ternoon, why, that's it. q
.11 MR. BARRY: Shall we suggest they come on down 12 this morning, or this af ternoon?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Well, it will be an hour
'( 14 before they get here, and half an hour before they start.
15 That's fine. We won't be off Research for an hour, hour and I 16 a half at the very best. I would like. to take up some of 17 these other things.
IS COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 11:45 I have to 19 disappear. l 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE You disappear at .1 1 : .00 a nd 21 Ke nnedy at 2 00. We have got a session this afternoon from )
22 2 : 00 t o 3: 00, 23 Okay, Research. Let's see. One of the displays 24 I recommend to you, in addition to this decision unit thing, 25 summary that got passed out is the Office of Researcn
W 2
146?01.03' - 4 I handout, if you have got it -in your pack.
1 2 page 16'. This is the one pack that came through 3 -with good page numbers in the lower right. On page 16, you i
4 get.a layout on -- of sorts at any rate, on program l 5 support.
6 Then on page 23 is the corresponding people 7 layout. In round numbers, f or 'S1, the office is about 257 ,
1 S million in program support. E DO m ar k -i s --
9- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Whe re are we now?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That was the original office 1
.11 request, Vick, and is greater than any of the -- the things l l
12 . that you have got hare a.11 postdate the original office l l
13 request which the BRG --
1 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 244 is a.11 a ccepting the 15 $2 million of ED0's mark.
16 COMMI SSIONER GILINSKY: So, 257 is initial?
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, and he also makes the 18 argument for that by a memorandum. That is a pretty good I 19 memorandum. The EDO mark runs about 192 million in program 20 support in '81, with setasides somewhore a ro und $26, $27 21 million.
22 So, as John says, Research is, next o ff er, so to 1
23 speak, is at 2 44. 6, the column on your chart from the 24- Research handout. I nave vnictled on 1: some myself. And i
'25 come down a bit celow tnat, and nave c program support total g gw D D W k ash s R Xlch
N .
h' 46-01 04~
- 5 1 mark'that I would aim for of 232.5.
'2 May I ask around the table what the general -- l l
3 some sor.t of an overall view is? Then, I. think, we will l 4 shoot through the categories.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess my overall -view is 6- a combination of two points. The first is that Research is l 7 asking.almost a 50 percent increase. That is what they 8 originally requested. Roughly between '80 and '81. That.
- 9. ls, >80 coming out of the Congress and >81 with the request, ,
I 10 roughly.50 percent increase. )
1
.11 That also tracks with thelr original request of 12 people, which they were asking somewhe re around a 40 to 45 13 percent increase in people.
( 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD That is f rom the present 15 s u ppleme ntal ?
16 COMMI.SSIONER AHEARNE: That is right. But that 17 is the size growth they are looking for in one year, which IS is an enormous growth.
19 COM41 SSIONER BRADFORD: Ambitious.
20 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE8 The second point is that, 21- and.I recognize it is much more due undoubtedly to any lack 22 of f amiliarity with the Research program, but I have asked 23 several times, both in brief.ing and in phone conversations 24 with saul to get some description of what programs have been 25 reoriented, cancelled, def erred as a result of TMI.
L
i l--
146LO1105 6
- 1. He makes'the' point in his memo-to me that TMI has
.2 really;shown that much of what we were doing-in the past was 3 wrong.. .That is, emphas is -was --- 'should be reflected. I
{} ..
4' have'no problem with'that.
5 I do have a problem with the. conclusion being the 6 . way 'you reflect the emphas is is you. add 50 percent to the-
- 7. -program.
8 COMMI SSIONER BRADFORD2 Guns and bu.tter gain.
9 COMMI SSIONER AHEARdE2. I would go for the 15-10 percent reduction, and :I would at least- initially --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 From what, 2 447 12 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE2 Well, 270, which is the 13- request, I.would go for the 230 total which is not-230
( 14 program support, it is 230 total. Even that seems to me to 15 be a large and ambitious request, but I have no grounds to 16 go much below that.
17 Failing, lacking a detailed understanding of the 1
IS program, that is why I would ask Saul if he had to go down 19 thatL much, where would he take it. He proposed several 20 places to take it and I'd take it.
21 .COMMI SSIONER GILINSKY2 I wouldn't go any higher
'22 t han that. In fact, I must say this very frankly. I just 23 do .not have confLidence Lin the management in the office to 24 .s ee .the . solution as simply more mone y. I.think I would hold 25 at something -like S200 million.
i l46 01 06-- -
7 1 COMMI SSIDNER AHEARNE: Total or program support?
2 00MMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, program support.
- y 3 What is . the diff erenc.e there ? -
4 MR. DARRY : The other is equipment. The 230 5- mark, Cornissioner' Ahearne, -includes about 510 million, a 6 l'ittle more.than that.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So,.it would be 220 in 8 program support ?
'9 MR.' BARRY:' It would be, yes, about S10 million 10 in equipmer.t and, theref ore , about 220 in program support.
11 At _that. level, you would be increasing your total Research 12 program, including equipment over 1980, base program over 13 the supplemental by s60 million. So that is, as
- i. 14- Commissioner Ahearne points out, a substantial increase.
15 Everything goes up.
16 COMMI SSIONER GILINSKY: At his 230 level.
17 MR. 3ARRY: At the 230 level, including 18 equipment.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So, the 168 is a total 20 number, is that what you are saying, for fiscal >80?
21 MR. SARRY: For the FY '80, out total will 22 b e --
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Program support is 162?
24 MR. BARRY : Y e r. , it will be about 170.
25 Co.v.MI SSIONER GILI NSKY: It says program support
46 01 07 8-1: .168.
2' MR. COOPER: That is just program support.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It was cut. The res. ult of
(-
4 - the appropriations -- l 1
5 MR. BARRY They are going to lose a little. more ]
6 in '80. Commissioner Ahearne says their program support ]
7 would be about 162 and about another S8 million in equipment
- 8. taking it up to 170.
9' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 Let's stic k to program
'10 support , . oka y?
.11 The equipment will come with it. The program l 12 supports sets'the level of the program and we are not in a 13 posi.tlon to kibitz whether they 'need two hex-head bolts or 1
'( 14 one. l 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The 230 would correspond 16 to around 220.
17 MR. BARRY: They were mixed up on some totals. i 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We will have a Researen budget l 19 .in '80 in program support which will come out in the 20 neighborhood for -- total for the year, I suspect, around 21 1 00 --
22 MR. BARRY: 62.
- 23. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, around 189.
24 MR. BARRY: Suppl em en tal .
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You have an amendment in the
'46 D1 36 .
?
1- auther',ts' ion bill that is at what level for Research?
2- MR. 3ARRY: 25. .
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 25, the request is 27.2. 25 4 would nske it 187,.just about 187. No w ---
5~ COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is EDo request?
6 COMMISSIONER- AHEARNE: No, in the authorization 7 bill, they have added approval for a supplemental.
8 COMMI SSIONER BRADFORD: of 27?
9 MR. C00PER: 25.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 25. The EDO mark was 27.2. ;
Jl COMMI SSIONER BRADFORD: - Saul's was 29?
12 MR. CIX)PER : Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The EDO mark, there_was an
( 14 a dditional 3.4 set aside.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE The point I was ge tting to is 16 th at I think at levels with a likely '80 level around 187, 17 tne simple inflation on that level of work will,take you, 18 in '81, to about --
19 MR. SARRY: 184 million.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 200 and change. So, a little 21 over.200, 200 or just a shade over, 15 probably a way to 22 think of the '81 program support number at a no-increase 23 level, provided people are willing to go with the supplement 24 in '80.
25 If not, it comes down to aoout s25 million. Let
1 46'01.09 10 j l
.I -me see if I can argue you up a little. ]
2 COMMI.SSIONE R ' BRADFORD: John, you would take the j 3 cuts as Saul recommends them?
i '
4 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: I would take the cuts as 5 Smil recommends them, primarily'oecause at least when.I co-
~
61 into this, the Research program has got so many smal'. pieces 7 do w n'the-line, that I have got to at least, I.think, give 8 some relianc.e to the office director's overa 'l judgment as 9 to where the e ffort .ought to. go.
10 And. I have no difficulties in trying to work on ;
J1 the margin, saying that here is a program that ought to be i
12 reduced $500,000, or here's a program that is not there. '
13 Put in $5D0. 000. But when it starts taking, saying take ouc
-( 14 S30 million, that is such a massive redirection that I 15 really -- (Inaudible). l 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I am just remembering in 1
17 these deliberations a year ago -- the gold watch. I am not IS sure if this is c situation where one has to be wary of 19 that. ,
20 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: Well, you also do nave to I 21 oe wary of gold watches.
22' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Discourage the practice.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Right.
24 e'R. GOSSI CK: You will find justice made later.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARdE That is right.
. - .~.
~
l Me 01 10 . Ji
- " - !. . COMMISSIONER BRADFORD * . Sorry.
8 l 2 C . AIRMAN HENDRIE Yes, I was going to embark
.down the line, but I think the exchange ls' useful.
3; There
(
4' 'are a number of major water reactor safety programs 'that are 5 goington.
- 6. The discussion.golng back and forth between the 7 Research sta ff druthers on these programs and BRG-EDO '
8 has gone on .and shaped down on .a good many of them to an 9 . a'g r ee m ent . It is going to take $48 million to keep LOFT 10 running, even at a reasonable rate. 27-9 in the fuel !
11 program, 15-1 in primary system integrity.
12 There are some differences until you get down to 13 fuel cycle and the saf ety division at 5. Safeguards is agreed 14 agreed upon to the extent that EDD's 5.3 and .4 set aside 4
15 simply marks out or.eeder spf eguards work. If you don't have 16 a breeder program, you don't have to worry about br.eeder 17 . safeguards, presumably.
13 So, the re are actually not very large 19 differences in some of the others.
20 I think up at the head of the list where there 21 are some of these differences, s ystems engineering, I think 22 the Re search sort of final azabadt at 38 compared to earlier 23 41, above 40, and so on, is the right level.
1 24 I'd take the research number 52 at code )
l 25 development. I would set seismic engineering saf ety at 17, l
4
't
)46 01-Jl ..
12' l- which was the ACRS recommendation.. Skip'the next two.
2 I'd go action above EDO to 8 on the reactor f
3 environment number. Take the EDO number.on waste .
- i 4 management, 12.9. Take re search's 12-6 f or risk 5 a ss e.ssment . Because I.think it is important work..
, 6 And 6-6 on approved reactor- saf ety. 5.0. The y 7 are agreed at 5.0 on the' final cut.
18 With those major programs in s ystems engin.eer,
.9 LOFT, some of the elements of code development, certain fuel 10 behavior experiments that involve PBF, so on, primary y l
11 Esystems integrity, major work-there, ;
1 12 You have.substential programs underway, and any 13 . substantial cutbacks just means that after agonizing a
( 14' year's preparation in getting into them, trim them for penny -
15 wise pound-f oolish reasons just when they are about to -- ;
16 are bearing fruit or are abe'..t to best fruit, I think that ,
t 17 is just not good management er in the interests of.anybody. ,
13 So that mainline water reactor safety research .j
- 19 e ff ort, whil e it always is useful and scrubbed by the BRG and EDO and looked et hard up here, it seems to me to
_. constitute a basic core of work which is up around 165 22 million mark on program support.
23 As you go on past that and look for places to 24 -trim, if trimming is the game, the SAFR division is a much 25 smaller operation. One can trj M a little _in there, and it
346 01' 12 . 13 1 is very hard to te111what the overall results are.
- 2 The items- that then remain .and that I haven't l 3 .talkedL about are the research work underlying the breeder,
- 4. ' and the advanced convert er stuff.
5 Now, if you want to cut beyond the 13, as Walt
- 6. said, he would say, well, if we decide there is ever going
- 7. to be a breeder,o and if not,- take that stuff out.
8 . COMMI SSIONER AHE ARNE He didn't quite go that 9 far. What'he sald was that you coul'd take it all out in 10 which you. would get 15 percent.- But that's not how he got ll the 15 percent reduction.
12 He did go further into cuts, but, for example, he 13 took it to !2.5 instead of 17.5.
l 14 MR. BARRY: 17, first cut. The second cut to 1
- 15 make the.50 percent was 12.5.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Right.
l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think there is a proolem in l
13 limping along out there that way. It seems to me that it 19 takes about -- it ought to go to about 18 in the breeder. l 20 Now, as I was arguing yesterday, it is my own
' 21 view that-it just would oe irresponsible to cut this work 22 out while we have a major national program underway in 23 development of the concept.
24 And in vie! of the very long time scale tnat I 25 deal with, one would like to have to work on the safety D**D *D TMf
.a na ,
4 .
s 346 G1 13 14
-1 matters before you come to_ plant projects. We haven't 2 norma.lly-done that in the reactor busine ss. In fact, this
( 3 would be the first case.1 4 Inat doesn't seem to be an argument to say, good, 5 knock' off the research .around and if we ever get around to
.6 ' ha ving. a oroject applf cation, we can -- considering the 7 scale of this expenditure against the scale of the 8 ' Department' of Energy's expenditure in the . national program,
]
9 .why, I find it in order to keep the work going and to build 10 a background of . knowledge to f orm the basis for our l
11 technical judgments in licensing. l l
12 Well, . I guess I would say if you want to go much )
13 below the 230 mark, then I run out of places to go in this l 14 budget, other than to delete one of these major categor.ies. l 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY 2 What is Saul's numoer with l l
16 the 15 percent renoved? I 1
17 COMMI SSIO!!ER AHEARNE: For what? I asked him to l 15 take 15 percent out which gave him a total of 230.
19 Co.VMISSIONER GILINSKY: The 230.3?
20 MR. BARRY 8 The numoer would oe 216 program 2i support.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: How does that track with 23 EDo's number?
24 COMMI SSIONER AHEARH32 Ine corresponding EDO 25 nu-t:r. I guess, instead of 218 would be 217.
'D ' *D m m M9~ f
946 dl 14L 15
(' ) COMMISSIONER GILINSKY So, it is very close to 2' the EDO number?
3 .MR. GOSSICK: -I have had, I think, 15 in for 4 breeder, recommending, you know, that is in the setaside, 5 25, so that on top --
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYJ This 1s. including the 7' setaside?
8 MR. GOSSICK4 On breeder, right.
9 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: The EDO mark was 192, then 10 ther e was 25, 26.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Setaside. That was 12 program support?
13 COMMI.SSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
( 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 In any case, they come 15 out pre. tty close.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. Which ls where I got-17 the percentage f rom. What I really was saying was EDO and IS BRT had gone through and done a lot of fine tuning if you 19 decided you had to take that size cut, how would you take 20 it.
21 MR. GOSSICK: There are a f ew minor changes, but 22 it isn't all that different.
23 COMMI SSIONER GILINSKY: I gue ss I wouldn't want
'24
~
to go over that number.
25 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: Pardon me?
t
- 1
- 46.51 15 -
16' l' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would not want to go 2- over that number. !
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARdE Nor would I.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Dick?
5 COMMI SSIONER- KENNEDY: I'd go with Saul's number.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Which set of Saul's. I 1
7 numbers? j 1
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The original ones.
1 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY 244,67 l
10 MR. B ARRY: Yes.
1.1 COMMI SSIONER BR AD.:0RD: That is with or without l 12 equipment?
13 MR. B ARR i Without. 1 s
- 14 COMMI SSIONiR AHEARNE: About 257 with. !
w 15 1
16 l 1
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4
? -
17 46.02.1 '
LT. I Co htMISSIONER' BRADFDRD: I basically come out more
'2- or less where John has. . I would notch it upwards by a 3' token amount simply because, pending receipt of the staff
( 4 paper on the subject of environmental qualification testing, 5 I am inclined to.want to do some of that.
6 I have no other number to add for startup 7 program in that area. I would say maybe a million dollars 8' . would be appropriate. But that is the on2 y change I'd 9 make.
10 CohtMISSIONER AHEARNE: The one difference I guess J1 I would make is that I would take Saul's Au;:ust 6th numbers 12 and accept them, but take out the fast breeder advanced 13 converter money, go with Joe's. recommended numoers for those
- 14 and put that in that separate file that I was talking about T
15 yesterday.
16 COMMI.SSIONER BRADFORD: That is a pile that would 17 be flagged separately?
18 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE: Part of the budget out 19 flagged out separately because it essentially says here 20 is what our judgment is for a viable program for I 1
21 preparing for licensing of those systems. J 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I: you wanted to do it.
23 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Yes. Well, it's more l
l 24 than -- I think that if in our judgment we sse downstrean 25 the potential of the se kinds of s yctems, and to be prepared D"*AD D
T $}
R
j 18 i l
46.02.2
. LT . 1 .to license them,.this is what it takes.
2 Th en if the Congre ss ---
/ 3 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY: You are going with what, 4 $17 million? What was the number?
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE2 It would, I gue.ss -
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would go for 18 in the 7 breeder, and I would put, because people will continue to 8 tell us to. do some gas work and keep the concept alive 9 from the licensability standpoint and also because Fort St.
10- Vrain ls running.
J1 The gas reactors do have the feature that it is 12 a live animal. The breeders have it in a sense. I was 13 going to chuck 2.E in there rather than three-nine wha.ch ,
' 14 would make it a 20.5 and I don't care, if you want to 15 round it. 20.5 as the -- actually it's 20.9, because 16 down in safeguards, there is a -- that 0.4.
17 Th ere was -- the re is a breeder safeguards 18 piece in the saf eguards, one could a.dd that in. And say 19 there is 20.9 of this research budget f a.11s into the 20 advanced reactors categories and we think this As what it 21 takes to make a viable program in those areas at this 22 time in view of the long-time scale before likely 23 c o mme rc ializ ation .
24 Now --
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 What is DOE talking about
^
-19 l
- 46. 2.3 -
LT' l' commercialization?
2 CO MMISSIONER AMEARNEJ John's latest number that he 3 testified to, I.think, was 2020.
4 COV#ISSIONER GILINSKY 20207 5 COMMISSIJNER AHEARNE: -Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 That sounds like my vision wnen 7 I was young and vigorous.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 4 That's how they got it.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY2 What is happening ---
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 2 Eirst thing that occurred J1 to them.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY. -- the budget .in this 13 program? Is the level going down? I 14 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE4 The DOE budget has been 15 staying approximately level depending upon what parts ycu l
16 put in and what parts you take you. ;
17 About 500 million.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 500 million.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's a pretty husky piece of 20 work. Where it will all settle out, I don't know.
21 It's very hard to say at this time. I am thinking, 22 commercialization is sort of really an imponderaole to me 23 at-this time. But I can see a much stronger, more sort of 24 pressing situation of a demonstration project that you would 25 be asked for a licensing review on in a much closer time
_ _ __ _ _ _. . . _ . . . . . ~ ~
.. j
,_ 20 j
'46.02.4
. LT 1 frame than a utility machine.
2 The utility machine is well down the line.
3~ COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would have to point 4 out that it bears -- at least tnejr dollars and.their time 5 is very similar to the anount of money they have in f usion.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Haven't got anything in 7 here for lic.ensing that.
-8 COMMISSIONER GILIMSKY: Is that a comment about the 9 fact breeder, or about DOE?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. I am not sure I-am going )
11 to ask him which.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I was reading about solar.
1 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We would also be respons.ible 14 for licensing, demonstration of a fusion plant, wouldn't 15 we?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's a good question. I don't 17 know. )
l IS Co hW.ISSIONER GILINSKY: Do we have a lawyer 19 here?
20 MR. ENGELHARDT We haven't reached any conclusion 21 Ch that.
'22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought there was a 23 determination.
24 MR. ENGELHARDT: There may iave ocen. If there 25 was, I 3m not familiar wit', it.
'. 21 !
146.02.5 .
LT- 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 Go back into AEC days.
2- MR. ENGELHARDT2 I believe we would license a
, 3 fusion plant.
t
- 4. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE2 Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Demonstration plant as 1
6 :well. ,
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: They concluded it falls under i 1
8 the Atomic Energy Act? I am surpris ed. l 1
9 What do you-do about -- ,
l 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: $20 million f usion saf ety 11 program.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD8 What is the covering 13 paragraph on this separate section? It doesn't say we are ,
1
( 14 proposing that this money be spent. l l
15 COMNISSIONER AHEARNE My view .is that it's in our 16 budget but it's a separately indentified section which says 17 that we foresee, given the national energy development 13 programs that are being funded, that we will be called upon 19 at same future time to license, whether there i s -- t n e 20 funding for the Energy Department courses with us being i !
21 called uoon at some future time to lleense these kinds of 22 facilities.
23 And that in order to maintain, to build a base to 24 provide that kind of licensing capability consistent with the 25 program the Federal Government is supporting, this is what
46.02'.6 a O o Ju a .I JJ .\\ lru .a LLT 1- we' believe would be requirce'. Then that leaves it up. I 2 . think , to the Congre ss, if the y are going to go in one --
3 I agree with Joe.
4 It's inconsistent to be spending a half a million 5 dollars a year in developing things and not developing 6 capability to license.
7 MR. GOSSICK2 A couple years - ago, we were in the 8 mlddle of trying to see about the licensability of Clinch 9 River and ran into some problems. Perhaps this . kind of work 10 if ws ~ come to that stage again --
11- CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE: There were other problems, 12 though.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, bu't just from the standpoint
, 14 of our . review of Clinch River, why, it was clear that yo u 15 wished that the f ast reactor research had gotten off.
16 And the development side does a lot of work.
17 C0KMISSIONER 3 RAD. 0RD: Not that anyone was saying i IS that out loud.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That they wished we'd had more 20 research in hand?
21 CohWISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, that -- that there 22 were hellish problems.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE I beg your pardon. I was down 24- here, by God,when they brought the schedule in from the 25 general manager's- side and told the Director of Regulation
D46 02.7 -
LT' I that, you know,. It just wouldn't fly. >
\
'2 ' And Giambuso kept pipi'nq uh'to g =3 say it. wouldn't go .on that ~ schedule. We can't do it.that 4- ' fast.
5 There is on awful lot of stuff that from a 6 Elicensing standpoint i sn't . known. And the people in the 7 branch all had their difficulties. ,
l 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: ~I didn't mean it wasn't 9 being 1said w.ithin the agenc y. I just don't recall 1
10 congre ssional testimony or anything of that . sort. I l
J1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I can't help the 12 congre ssional testimony. There were JJst an awful lot of ;
l 13 . places where you had to take -- where the prelininary work
'[ 14 or something , . demonstration made f rom the de veloper's side 15 would.say, now, look, here's this mechanism for, I don't know,
- 16. f uel, coolant interaction or what have you.
1 17 And there is a wide range of possibilities fron j 1
IS sort of a no-nothing to wow!, and the developer would sey l 19 well, now, we have got some preliminary tests that snow it's 20 sort of down toward the no-nothing and maybe your i 21 . instincts would be that way.
22 But when you are on the regulated side, you keep !
12 3 saying, yes, but what if it's wow? Then what do I do? Is ;
24 that such a' diminishingly small chance?
'25 COMMI'SSIONER BRADF0D Sut lease proposal had gmm D *D'3'Y $
f d wJu w h S NlrL=
. - . . . , . _ . , . , , ~ , -,,., , .-. -'
24 1 1
A6.02.5 !
LT- 115' mill. ion in this area.
1 2 The-extra three is what?
~
3 3: CHAIRMAN.HENDRIEi The extra thr.ee is.because we ;
4 Lhave, between the Commi.ssion the last couple of years on'this ,
5 category, and then the appropriations or authorizations-61 tonmittees, we really got to work at a level where it's just i
7 teetering on Lthe edge of being a viable program.
S I am afraid that -- I agree with Saul that we really 9 have to pamdde a little bit more eDawr room in it. Otherwise, 10 we are just trying to -- lose some very good people in our 11 shop. We are already losing people out of contractors > j 12 snops.
13 If it's worth doing, I.think a few -- at-the
( 14 levels of 1.2 , 13, 15, whe re we have b een, I think we are l l
15 just below - get it done, j 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't hsve the expertise I 17 ito make a judgment like that. I will gladly take my vote on 18 the 3 million, qualification test. 1 19L CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's talk in a minute ebout 20 where that ought to be covered.
21 Now, there is a proposi. tion that obviously we leen i
22 toward. I wlll see if I can round up a majority of some i 23 kind. It would put the~ breeder line, I would recommend 18.
24 Advanced converter reactors, I would recommend 25 2.5 or 3.4 out of safeguards, which would be in the cudget
P, 25 146.02.9 ]
l LT- 1 but would be a category in the .research thing that says, look.. l 1
2- here are - the se advanced s ystems. Then the kind of words John 1 3 said and so on.
4 If you want us to have a base in these, why, this ;
l 5- ls what it will take. j 1
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There 1.s a similar lock in 7 the NRR.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And similar lock in the NRR l
9 for that advanced reactors group. Those . items could also, 10 w e ll, would need to be signaled in a letter to OMS: I believe jl then the proposal would be to go with numbers about the ones !
12 I have read.
13 COMMISIONER AHEARNE: Mell, I am not sure. I would 1
14 go with the ones Saul proposed in his letter. If they don't '
15 quite track, I would have to leave it with the comptroller.
16 MR. GOSSI CK: Your total, Mr. Chairman, is 232.57 17 MR. C.00PER: Right.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That includes the extra 19 money f or the br eeder?
20 MR . GOSSICK: Yes, sir.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, sir. It does if I have 22 added right, always a question oefore the House.
23 MR. COOPER: It does check.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Son of a gun.
25 C0hWISSIONER AHEARNE: That's more than I would
- I I
l t 26 46.d2.10- -
1 LT- 1 go.
2 MR. COOPER: I guess I would- mention, on your. option, 3- at least the way I-calculate it, he's got apples and oranges 4 In here. He has equipment also.
5~ CO NNISSIONER AHEARNEJ I know.
6 MR . C00PER2 ' Taking . out the' eq u1pment,' I think your 7 option in his 'le.tter would be 218.3 for program support.
8 Adding the Chairman's increments in fast.and gas, l 9 and I think It's safeguards, advance package, it would c~ome 10 to 220.7, the way I calculate it.
Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Your first number was what?
12 MR. COOPERJ 218.3.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Add 21. ]
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It's more than that.
15 MR. COOPER: No. Well, the reason I didn't= add 21 16 is he has in his budget 17. 5 for fast, the way I r ead it.
17 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE: I see.
18 MR. C00PERJ So I add -- he has in his budget 19 1 million so I added 1. --
20 CohWISSIONER AHEARNE: He's got 12 and a half for 21 fast.
.22 MR. COOPERJ I may be wrong. I thought I saw 23- 17.5.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You have to look at page 25 five.
W' -
3 e
27
!46;'02.11 LT 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 2 Those are the ones which he 2 underlin es and says -I do not recommend.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE2 He doesn't recommend any of
-4 this. He didn't want want any cuts. If he had to take cuts, 5 Lthese'are where he's going to take it.
6 With the exception of the gas and breeder, ' to accept 7 this ' package of his, then to go back to Joe's numbers on the 8 brseder and the advanced, . which I think adds in about eight, 9 nine.million on top of this.
10 So it would probably end up being around 227 program J1 support.
12 MR . C00PER2 Following that line he has 12.5, we 13 would add 5-5. I.e., the best I can follow his le tter, he 14 still has I million in gas.
15- It doesn't seem to be on page 5. We would add 16 1.5. I woul d, I gue ss the Chairman would also, add the 17 400,000 in saf eguards advance.
18 So let me just do -- 2253 is my --
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
20 MR. COOPER: Plu: f o ur , I gue.ss. 2257.
21 MR. BARRY: To get up to 18 million in breeder and 22 take gas down a million and a half, add saf eguards, program 23 suoport is about 220 miljion. pretty close.
24 CO MMI SSi ci!Eri AliE ARHE 2 Your guy said 225. Somewhere 25 in that -- that is wha' '. woul d go, Joe.
5 *D D""]D o o Ju o . .
l@
S \ lrO _,
28 46.02.12 -
LT 1 MR. BARRY: 225 would be ---
2 C0 h04ISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, it's this package 3' plus Joe's a dditional . I would put in a million dollars for --
(?
4' CO MMISIONER BRADFORD: Yes, just f or --- Joe wanted 5 to-talk again about -- -
6 CO NNISSIONER AHEARNE: It may not be the right [
7 place.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE At --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we in the right office?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE At 220, you are awfully low.
! JI COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But Bruce has 225.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It got lost -- 218, you 14 added three, fast' reactors.
15 COMMISSIONER AHDGBE: 5.5 to gas - to breeder.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It wound up at 20.5.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's scan down the top and see 18 what the program support numbers are, because I haven't been 19 working on Saul's package.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But Saul's package 21- unf ortunately doesn't track -- I asked Saul to do it.
22 He didn't give it to me the way it coi d be used but 23 I have got to use it. So my vote is for his package.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let's not refer to it as a 25 package.
- 29-45702.13 -
LT 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 It is. It/s . signed by him.
2 CONNISSIONER KENNEDY All of which is ' pref aced
.3- by, I do not recommend, I strongly do not recommend. You '
l 4 can't' call that his package. The package which-is outlined )
5 in the letter and. which he says he does not recommend, I trill l
\
6 go along with that characterization, okay? l 7 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE 2 Fine. It's very similar to l
8 ' dozens.and dozens of similar-type documents that I am sure 9 fyou have also seen in a number of budgets of organizations in l l
10 this government.
J1 Whenever they are asked to reduce below what they 12 want. They will tell you where they would take it . But they 13 always say strongly that they don't recommend it.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 I would 1.1ke to know what the 15 proposition is, however.
16 MR. GOSSICK: I can run down the numbers by program 17 support.
18 As reflected in the package.
19 CO MMISSIONER AHE ARNE : You can translate this.
20 MR. GOSSICK: I think so.
I 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Against this shert we are 22 working from?
23 MR. GOSSICK Yes. Systems, 81, systems engineer, 24 he says 37. Okay? LOFT is 43. Already on your sheet. On 25 code development, 14.2. On primary systems, fuel benavior, f
30
- 46202.14 l'
~LT 'l '27.9. As'en the sheet.
2 an' primary system' integrity, 14.3. On se ismic ,
3 let's see, 16.9;
(
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 2 Cons.istent with the ACRS, 5 17.
6 14R . GOSSI CK2 Yes. Fast' breeder, he goes down to 7 12.5 to get to the 15 percent reduction. There was an 8 . intermediate step where he would have preferred to ha ve lef t 9 it at'17.5. j 10' Advanced converters, he has a million. Reactor ;
d I J1 'e nv i ro nme nt, 7.8. Fuel ' cycle, 4.4. Waste manegement, 13.6. .
I
[ 12 Safeguards, 4.5. . Risk asse ssment, 3. -- excuse me. 12.6 is 13 his number. ,And improved reactor safety, 4.5.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That totals?
15 MR. GOSSICK: I haven't totaIed that up. I think 16 it comes out right, 230.
17 MR. SMITH: 2.2 equipment.
16 Coh?dISSI0 DER AHEARNE: If it comes out at 230, then 19 it doesn't track.
20 MR. GOSSICK: No, it doesn't, that's right.
21 22 23 24 25
~ __ _ ..
j l
46.03.1. '
31 l l
LT 1 MR. COOPER 2 We did.a first: pass at 219.2. We' 2 are 'on another one now. . But that is pre tty. close to the 7
- '3 218.
4 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: Yes, that's abo ut right . 1 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 219.2. I f I a dd se ven f or f as't i
1 6 reactors.
7 CohWISSIONER KENNEDY: <Two for advanced converters. J 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, not -- se ven for the --- it's j l
9 seven for the combination. j i
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That do es n't add, unless !
.11 you have changed the numbers. You had 18 and 3 before. He's l
J 12 got 12.5 and 1. 13.5 as contrasted with 21 so it's 8.5.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Six and a half and two.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 8.5.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. 8.5 and .4, 8.9. I 16 am now at 228.1. Let's see.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Where did we get 232.57 l
18 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, this is on the other
-19 cut.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Those numbers total 219.2, 21 .Then did diey come to the 15 percent that you were after?
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: They tcok 15 percent of 23 total, including equipment. Lee , where did you get your
, 24 program support?
25 MR. 00SSICK': Right here, you mean that I just
___a. _.
4 3@
LT t gave you?
E COMMISSIONER AHEARNE s Yes.
3 MR. GOSSICK: The se we re out with the memorandum.
4 MR. SMITH: With an addition of Scroggins who gave 5 me a more detailed breakdown in the SAFR area. There is 6 2.2. equipment taken out, too, but it's unspecified as to 7 where.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it's. pinging it a li_ttle 9 too much.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What number we re you af ter 11 15 percent of, do you know?
12 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: It was a very simple 13 a pproa ch .
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I understand.
15 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE: I was looking f or roughly 16 15 percent down from their initial request, which was 270 17 total. Total budget request. .
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Let me scan down and see if I can 19 talk you up or down on a couple of items, then maybe see if 20 there is a majority decision.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: For a budget that at this 22 year is running at 162 at the moment, 1979 was running at 23 something like 143, this is still an enormous increase.
24 CH AIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's scan it f rom the t op.
25 I'd recommend plus one on systems engineering and
l 4
l
.' 1
- 33 I l
I6.03.3. *
~
1 LLT . I- 'take the rest- of theEnumbers he read 'in that .first category. l l
l 2 take.16.9- for seismic. -I.think the other two we agree we would
~3 run .atJthe numbers I r.ecommend, but . identify them separately..
4 4 .In reactor environment. Is that where we get the 5 "qualif ication testing? Wh'o knows?
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY -- cross-cuts, qualification 7 of safety-related equipment, 28 persons, a little over 52 -
8 .million. Wnat work is that?
.9 MR . BARRY: Some work in standards qualification, l
10' isn't that correct? l
)J MR. SMITH: Quality testing wouldn't be in reactor
~
12 environment. I would think systems engineering. !
13 COMNISSIONER GILINSKY:. What is .in the budget now?
14 What is. this cro.ss-cut?
15 MR. SMITH: For what?
l 16 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY: W e.11, you have an item called 1.7 qualification of safety-related equipment.
13 MR. SMITH: If it's in the research bucget --
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't know where it comes 20 from.
21 MR. SMITH: This one in the cross-cut is SD stuff.
22 CO MMISSION GILINSKY: Standards?
23 MR. 00SSICK: There is a later page, SD. Half way 24 through the package. Lef t-hand corner, you will see title 25 of the various --
34 56lO3.4 LT 1 - CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY a - I s ee. it. Where do they 2 come :f rom?
3 MR. GOSSICK: It shows breakout, some in IRR, SD, 4 IRR, some in research.
5l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What is your thumbnail
'6 description of:the set-aslde, I think it's the set-aside
.7 -item..
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY No, because'it says 9 c u rre n t --
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Oh, sorry.
. J 1. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: These are what, standards 12 for qualification that they are developing?
13 MR. GOSSICK Just people that work in the area.
14 COW 4ISSIONER AHEARNS: Here are some people who may 15 be able to addre ss the question.
16 MR. 00SSICK: NRR is 12 people and 750 program 17 support. Research has one person and a mi]11on and a half.
IS It's in the program somewhere.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Saul, where would qualification 1 20 testing, environmental qualitication testing --
21 MR . LE v i . 5 2 In our reactor safety research budget 22 under operational safety. Systems engineering. Operational 23 safety is in systems engineering. 6.1, I believe.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am sorry?
25 MR. LEVINE: I think it's 6.1.
35-LT 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Presumably thet doesn't-2' -inc.lude NRC. testing of equipment going Anto. plant.
'3 MR . LE VINE .That 6.1 covers more.than operational 4 qualifications of equipment. It covers other things, too. .It 5 cnvers 'some human f actor studies.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How much would you guess is in 7 there for' environmental qualification?
8 (Pause.)
9 MR. BARRY: I could not find it here on the charts.
10 COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY: A. number of these things 11 suggest that it is. It says -- .immediately preceding two 12 pages de sc ribe s- it.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I s ee.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Saul, to buck up the program, 15 get started and carry on some more in a reasonable way on some 16 environmental checking of comoonents that are used in plants,
-17 what would be a reasonsole increment to put into systems )
l 18 engineering? '
19 MR. LEVINE 2 Do you want us -- Iet me ask what it 1
20 is you want to accomplish. Is the idea to take some sample- l 21 equipments, and see how they perform under various
.22 environmental conditions?
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would say so, Peter?
24 COMMISSIONER. BRADFORD: In general terms, yes, 25 .until we have a sta ff paper that goes into this in more
J
.. 36 i3 $
. ~
LT .1- ' de ta il , it's hard for me at least to lay _out what the object 2 might be for the program.
3 But lin general, yes.
i 4 MR. LEVINEJ Well, you know, I just have to say it 5 could be exc eedingly large. For instance, if you want to --
6 especially if you want to get into seismic testing. You need 7 to shake tables of large size, shake in two or three 1 8 dimensions'and that can test.large issue compenents.
9 On the other' hand, the Japanese are building very 1
l 10 large shake tables. We may be able to get in as part of their J1 program without building a facility. l 12' There are people who think yo.u should be checking I 13 components under operational, while they are operating and l
14 subject them to seismic forces because they behave differently 15 than static, when they are not operating.
16 So this can get really very large dollars.
17 CO AWISSIONER 2RADFORD: -Let's stipulate seismic 18 testing out of it.
19 MR. LEVINE: Well, that would be very much less 20 Just thinking on my feet, you would have to have, if you want 21 to get started, you get started slowly, maybe a million or 22 two.
23 Then you see where you go from there as the program 24 gets defined, something like that. If you jus t w a r.t to get 25 started the first year, say in '31, you can start ' tith a
- -9 e *4 ...s s - --- - .rm =
9
, 37
~ 1. . i 16.03.1 - >
- LT-- .1- modest' amount- of money and then s ee -- do the work to decide 2 where to go and get it started even.
3 But that would probably be a mortgage f or the ,
4 future.
5' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Those connector tests were wortn 6 about wnst?
7 MR. LEVINEJ The f ac'111ty we are building to test >
3 connectors and cab 1cs,' -we had a f acility this big, de are
~ '
9 bui1 ding a f acility this. blg now ( ind ica t ing ) , that is just 10 so you can put all f.our environments in it.
-11
. That is small potatoes compared to putting a pump 12 in it. You tou)d have to -- it's go.ing to cost millions 13 of dollars.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Over the long pull.
15 MR. LEVINE: Over the long pull. You probably can j 16 get started for a million or two the first year, I would say. I 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is that what is in Research's I
18 piece of the cross-cut on qualification of saf ety-related j l
19 equipment which is described in FY '80 as, " Initial l l
20 evaluation of TMI 2 Class 1-E, safety-related equipment, l 21 define performance under severe accident conditions"?
22 MR. LEVINE: This is really more analysis to find 23 out what requirements have to be met as opposed to doing c4 the testing.
15 Again --
l 10 m i J. ' ' 38
$46.b3.8 -
LT- I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: In '81., it notes that it would
- 2 be performing evaluation of the same equipment.
3 MR. LEVINE2 Yes.
4 CohWISSIONER KENNEDY: Saf ety-related equipment
'5 with regard to environmental effects on the equipment and 6 performance during an accident in order to define 7, .requalification criteria.
8 MR. LEVINE: Yes, that is going into starting some 9 of the actual testing. But if you have in mind golng into 10 something that is f airly comprehensive, again I would think J1 this is something that could well best be done by a mutual 12 agreement with, say, EPRI and ourselves and so f orth.
13 That would have the money perhaps. But, of course, 14 you have to decide whether you want us to continue tnat' kind 15 of thing.
16 COAWISSIONER GILINSKY What is, it says complete 17 the Commission's directed, collectible connector test series.
18 Where does that stand?
19 MR. LEVINE: We have just done testing again. You 20 had some dissatisfaction with the fact that we tested typical 21 as opposed to actual -- there was a question of the 22 typicality of the components.
23 We are now testing components that are more 24 typical. In fact, we are -- )
l 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Cualif ied components.
l l
i
J.' .- 39 h03(9.-
LT' 1 JCHAIRMAN HENDRIE That remains to be seen.
2 MR. LEVINE: That is a very complicated suoject, but 3 they are a lot closer to qualifying than the ones we tested.
7 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, but components which 5 have gotten the seal of approval f rom someone else.
6 MR. LEVJNE2 Yes, rihet we are doing is we bought 7 additional components just like the ones .in TVA which were G put together by the'same technicians who put them together 9 f or TV A.
'10 We are testing those. It's very hard to .put your ,
11 finger on the word " qualify,S as a matter of fact.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When is that ge.tting 13 completed?
( 14 MR. LEVINE: I think this year. Next six months 15 or so.
I 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It sounds like . ion, i 17 million and a half that would get it running, ,
l 18 MR . LEVINE : Bob may b3 able to clarify this. I i
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't have time to have it 1 20 clarified very much, Bob.
21 M?. . EINOGUE: Thirty seconds.
22 Half of what you say is TMI components themselves, 23 post-mortem. Then you have to ask what is it. The other half 24 is largely trying to work out from what is known and what we 25 need, ways to simulate eging rapidly in a short time in a
- _.-----.,__--...r.-., _
y . . _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . , , . . .._ . . . . _ _ _ -
t
$46 b3.10.1 40 LT. :1' ' hostile environment. .That ..is really what the guts of that 2 i s '.
- 3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is e different thing.
7
.4. MR. MINOGUI:: It is. But that's what is there.
l5; COMMISSIONER. AHEARNE2 On'that besls, 1-will.put the
'6 mill. ion back ths.t you wanted to.'put .into systems engineerin; 7' and point it in that direction.
S i
9:
)
c) .
10:
~ ~
.11 ..
12 13
[ 14 15 17 E
18 19 20
~21 22-t 23
- 24. ;
25 4
9
% y , , * , , ,e-, , ..p.... .c.- , + . . - - ,
. . _= , -
l 41 h46 [04 ' 01:
- n. I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Systems engineer at 38, 2~ with a million for environmental qualifications.
- 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: As further directed.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As f urther. directed. 48 in 5 LOFT, 14.2 in code development, 27.9-in f uel behavior, 14.3 6 in primary systems integrity, 16.9 in size particular, 18 in-7 breeders, two and a half in converters ---
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Two and a half ?
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't know. Do you want --
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'm just asking. It is 11 your number.' Last time was thre'e.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I wavered back and 13 forth. In 232.2, 232.5 which is where I came out, why, it
[ 14 is two and a half.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is your number.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: To provide a modest 17 continuation of the research program in there. 7.8 in i
18 reactor environment. On the f uel cycle, do you really want l 19 to drop off what seemed to be an agreed-upon number? I 20 would just recommend --
21 COMMISSIONER AnEARNE: I would go with Saul's 22 number.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 5-0.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 4-4. All right. I will go 25 with ' the number he has provided.
42
@46 04.02 n 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: His number is here.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I will go with his number,
( 3 4-4.- l 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. 13.6. 4-5 in 5 safeguards. l 6 MR. BARRY: 4-9.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. l 8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 4-9.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 12.6. Now on the improved i l
reactor saf ety, if you are trying to -- the number ought to l 10
. 1 11 be 6-6. However, if you are trying to cut dollars out of ]
12 here and really cutting back on some things that I think are 13 squeezed a little bit too hard, -I don't know that I~am happy 14 to put 6-6 or even 4-5 as a number into that total which we 15~ are trying to squeeze in order to present it to OMS so that 16 they can take three-quarters of it out and give it to DOE.
17 If I know in advance what they are going to do, I would be 18 inclined to say, I don' t know --
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What I am trying to do, you ,
l 20 see I can -- I would go with the 4-6 or 4-5. 4-5. Because 21 then I have the recent judgment of the director of research 22 t ha t , at this dollar level, that is the relative rankings in 23 priorities.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wha t -- about a million, 25 million and a half of it will stay in our budget. Three or t=0 4
3 (46'04C3 1 'l threef and. a half will go off in DOE.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: As long as the programs are
-3 spelled out - .
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: At least under the current OMB 5 philosophy,. this is what they did in the '80 budget.
6 MR. LEV.INE: I would just like to say a word. In 7 the meeting we hed with Deiltch, the chairman and I went with 8 Deutch and hi s troops, when Deutch finally came to the 9- . position that was the best he could give us considering the 10 circumstances, his troops were squirming in their seats.
Il They have no intention of f ullfilling our requirements. You 12 have to view this as a ma tter -- that may be too strong a l
13 s ta te men t. ,
i I
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I think that is too strong I 1
15 a statement.
16 MR. LEVINE: We are going to have difficulty l 17 trying to make them be responsive to what we think is !
l 18- necessary, is the way to put it. You have to ask yourselves l l
19 whe ther you want to accept that responsibility. ,
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Which responsibility?
21 MR. LEVINE: We are going to be responsible f or 22 the results of this.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Oh, yes. ,
24 MR. LEVINE: In the broadest sense of the word, 25 but they are going to be doing it.
44
@46;d4 04' n 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Saul, how will this work 2 in terms of the. actual way in. which this research gets used?
e 't DOE will do it. They will answer a particular question, 4 whatever it happens to be. J 5 MR. LEVINE: They will try to.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Right. They will then 7 send it over to you for evaluation, and you would provide it 8 to the staff f or use in licensing?
l 9 MR. LEVINE: No, it will be a research result that 10 .comes to the agency.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It will also at the same-12 time go out to the industry which will crank it into their 13 a pp1'i ca ti on s.
14 MR. LEVINE: That is their decision. My view has 15 b.een that the results of this improved research program 16 would go to NRR and Standards, and they would decide what 17 they wanted to implement as a saf ety requirement, whi c h 18 would then be stated as a requirement the industry would 19 have to fulfill.
' ;20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It is sort of odd DOE 21 would be doing that rather than having us -- but it is hard 22 to talk outside of specific examples.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The argument always has 24- been up until now, that improved reactor saf ety was in some 25 minds akin to promotion.
- 45'
$46-04'05 1
q l CO?;r.ISSIONER BRADFORD: Again, it 15 very hard i 2- without a specific example in f ront of you.
'S C: AISSIONER KENNEDY s That has been part of the 4 . purpose . of the di scu ssion , to try to - separate those things 5- and see where our role properly f e).1 at the beginning.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You would stay at the 4-57 l 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, 8- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And that is where Vic's going 9 to be.- All right. 4-5. I 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Haven't changed my views.
l 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I recognize thaw. ;
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: They remain at the original 12 13 n umbe r. I find the discu ssion, however, f ascinating.
l l
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Has somebody been adding with i l
15 me?
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All that does is add one 17 million to what Bruce has done before. 22 pl u s ---
18 MR. COOPER: 7.4.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't have a trustworthy 20 total jotted down here f rom previously, so if somebody will 21 help me.
22 MR. CDOPER: 226.7. But I am ge tting a diff erent 23 number here.
24 . COMMISSIONER KENNEDY That's f unny. If all we 25 did here is add one million dollars to the total we had a
4
. .. 46 i)46LO4 06 E
.1 - l before, I.would have come out 229.1.
2 MR. COOPER: I think I heard you say 8.4 or 3 some thing like that. It should have been 7.4 the way I 4 c alc ula ted. It would be an increment of 5.5 in f ast, an 5 increment.of 1.5 in gas, an increment of . 4 in saf eguards.
6 I ' think that earlier numb:r that was tossed around didn't 7 describe what action you took.
8 MR. BARRY: What did you get, Bruce?
9: MR. CDo?ER: 219.2 base , adding S.5 f or gas -- f or
- 10 fast, 1.5 f or gas and .4 for safeguards, now adding another 11 million for systen.s. is an increment of 8.4 to 219.2. I get 12 22'/.6.
13 MR. BARRY: I just added the numbers and I get ,
f 14 227.6. That is program support.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
16 MR. BARRY Program support. Yes. We are going j 17 to have to add a little to equipment.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think that is possible.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Fine.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I assume that is where Vic will 2' stand. I would if I we re --
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Just cast my vote for the 23 257.
24 CHAIRMAb HENDRIE: My vote would have been for 25 about another S5 million but I think there is a majority
]
47 46 64 07'
"'i I of. the Commission that stands at this place, and we can't t stand to haggle over . it f orever. Let's flip to page 23 and 3 see if I can' regale you with tales of people. Wait a 4 minute. Before we do tha t, we'd be tter go back and take a 5 look at the supplement, the '80 supplement. My 6 recommendation was to go with the EDO mark on the 7 supplement.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I will buy that.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Which was the 27.2. And puts 11 the office at I beljeve then 189 total for '80.
12 MR. BARRY: 27.2 did you say?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
14 MR. BARRY: We had a setaside.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am not going to go back in 16 af ter having shaken hands with OMB and John Deutch on the 17 goddam split on improved saf ety. I am willing to reargue it 18 for the '81 budget but for '80 it is a settled matter.
19 Okay.
20 On the people side there was .the EDO -- I went 21 down the line f or the EDO mark on the supplement. Another 22 $27 million, not too heavily staff ed to start with. I 23 thought there was justification for the nine slots there and 24 simply went with them. Okay?
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would add two more,
- 48 I46 d4 08 7 I making it 28 instead of 26, 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I was going to do that in '81, 3 b ut --
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I was going to go up 5 f urther in '81 to 32.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Sentiment. Peter? John?
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I have no problem if they 8 can staff that area, but that had b.een one of the questions, 9 how rapidly they are expanding, whether they are going to be 10 able to really bring in competent people at that rate. j 11- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is five against an office of 12 23. Dick? I am willing to.go with it but you suggested itt 13 I am asking f or your vote. I am sorry.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Did you want me to change?
15 I can go to four if you want.. Recognizing John's problem I 16 thought we certainly ought to be able to get five people.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I s t ha t all right?
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What is your number? l 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Eight.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That would be plus five to a 21 total of 28 on the supplement, total of 11 in the 22 supplement.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That would make a total of 24 1 70.
1 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, let/s do it. In '81 I
. 49 46'b4 09 4r i don't have much in the way of guidance f or the EDO mark, 2 because, at least as my decision unit sheets are made out, 3 the EDO mark would have taken the office f rom 150 in '80 4 pre su pple men t , added nine, to get 168 and then cut it back 5 to I65:in81.
6 MR..GOSSICK: But there is 19 set aside.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 15 of which are in the f ast 8 r eac tors.
9 MR. GOSSI CK: That is right.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:- Yes, but tha t doe sn' t --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That would get it to 180.
1 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 184. l l
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, yes, with four f or l 1
, 14 improved reac tor saf ety. I 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, ye s. Well, I thought it --
16 I have been looking at Saul's page 23, which is down in 17 there. In '81, let me tell you what I said. If I scan down 18 the '81 column, '81 EDO mark and the research request, 19 re search is asking f or additional people for EDO, I would go 20 with the EDO markdown; I was adding more people in risk 21 a sse ssment , taking one out of improved reactor safety, 22 because I just don't think OMB's going to leave us much 23 money in there. And adding two people over the EDO mark in 24 program direction. I think they are a little thin in the 25 headquarters.
t 1 4
-50 ;
$.46104'lC- ,
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: .You mean-26.
- 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRI E: Yes,
'A- 3- MR. BARRY: And three in improved reactor saf ety.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, except I:am.not sure. It 5 is a Lquestion. If u the OMB ce! this time, - say, lef t us the i
?
6 4-5, then you'would like to heve more than one person in 7 t here .
- 8. COMMISSIONER-AHEARNE: -You still might want more t
- 9. tha'n one person even if the moneys were cut at least in !
10 theory, -to try to direc t the DOE program.
11 : CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: To keep track, chasing their-
- 12 contractors rather than having your own. That would amount 1 13 then to a net of three people more than the- EDO mark and got
- "x 14 me to a total in the office of 187. ,
15 . COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What was your final number 4 l
16 on risk asse ssment? l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I came out at 28.
IS COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is where we are in 19 1960. l 20 C;..uRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. I was adding three in the l l
21 su ppl eme n t, two.
22 -COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would add two more so it 23 would come to 30 in '81. I wouldn't object. I would also
- 24 add three in waste management.
- 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you mean in addition --
D**)D v o Ju
- ]D'TlM o Ju 1 d iru 1
_=
l _< 51 146'04 11 -
, 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY I would go with the request 2 of 18.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In waste management? All 4 right. You wouldn't?
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I wouldn't.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY I would.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I would not. l 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. SAFR would be k
j 9 adding five people on that schedule. I guess on balance I 10 wouldn't~ ei the r.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We are restoring the 15 12 setaside on the f ast reactor? Advanced reactor?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I had 12. 12 and 3.
x 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Total, 15. Okay.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If we went to 30 as we have on 16 risk asse ssment, I would come out at 189. Anybody checked 17 that arithmetic? It is the ED0's mark all the way down to ;
I 15 risk a sse ssment on personnel.
19 MR. COOPER: My first cut was 188, but maybe the 20 difference is the improved reactor safety. Did we settle on 21 three or four?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Three.
23 MR. COOPER: Let me double check that.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I also may have added 25 incorrectly.
j (Pause.)
i u
i
-.I
-~
52 -- -'
Q46 b5.01:
n i . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE 'I think l get 189 again. l
'2; ' CO MMISSIONER - AHEARNE s- Yes. The only difference
/- 3 is from the EDO are~ plus four in risk' assessment, minus one 4 'i n reactor saf ety. and plus ~ two in program direction support. ,
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Plus the 15 setaside. !
- 6 MR. COOPER - Right. !
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.' j i
8 MR. CDOPER: Point of clarification. On improved 9 reactor ~saf ety in 1980, I have us allowing nothing for the
.10 l setaside.
11 . COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Joe said that was the I 1
12 . agreement he struck. At some time I would like to know 13 about the agreement.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We worked it through OMB, the I 15 President's budget set i t u p. He went to Congress, they ;
i 16 said they would only give us a million. We- grumped a little :
17 about t ha t. The Congre ss has not done anything I recall !
18 overwhelming about it. In the meantime, we have had to go !
19 ahead and put the program in place. Argued with Deutch.
20 He's agreed to be responsive to our 3.4 chunk that he got. ,
21 I am not about to go in now with a supplemental request to 22 snatch it away f rom him.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY That seems sensible to me.
24 MR. BARRY: 'Equipmen t. On your equipment, f rom 25 'your original base, you will have to come down a li ttle.
4 A___. _ . _ . _ _ _ - _ . . , - - - w , - _ _ - ..w..
6 , ,
23' f461b5 02 1
7 't. : Work itLo~ut~with us. Whatever the ratio is. Down to tra t i
level.
e 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 11want to be sure I t
5 understand what you were just talking about. Is equipment 6 L simply a ratio? I don't think so'. I would hope not.
7 MR. LEVINE: No. On.the margin, one can do' it
! -8 that way. .
9L COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Plus or minus.a couple of 10 million..
I J1 MR. LEVJNE: It depends on which decision --
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I ho pe not.
13' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, I have been accumulating
- 14. office directors out here trying to get on. Let me ask, who
((
15 is in best shape to use the next 40 minutes efficiently.
16 You said 11:457 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 11: 45 I have to leave.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Dudley, or Vic, I a ssume the 19 I and E scratching continues to go on about trying to lay 20 this thing out. !
l 21 MR. STELLO: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE8 Let me see if I can clear these l'
23- other people out. We will either pick up et the end of this 24 discussion or as soon as we gather this af ternoon. Let's ,
25 get NMSS and NRR sufficiently close to the f ront so we ccn MM D WD D
a e si ~
l 54 )
)46 65;03 l
}
3 talk at them without --- and they can hear us. Bill, uranium I
l 2 recovery. There was a plus 12 on staf fing in '81. The )
3 question is how well supported that seems to be. There was 4 .an inclination to perhaps knock five people out of that. l 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, there were ten 6 people, and your chart said part of the workload was based l 7 upon 14 -- no, this was 14 actions with respect to new 8 facilities. )
9 VOICE: Right. You want a list of the new 10 f acilities we would be' licensing in '81 ?
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The new facilities in '81. f 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Particularly, we wondered were ,
13 those real f acilities?
[ 14 VOICE: We have a list of 13, actually, 13 real i
15 f acilities and we have two unidentified. I think -- 15. l 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How many of them are in !
17 agreement states?
18 VOI CE: None of the 14 are. We did not budget for 19 any of the concurrent jurisdic tion -- l 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is the answer to my 21 question.
22 VOICE: We budge ted for ten assistance programs. i 23 Actually we are gett$a; 20 in some cases.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Eut these 14 are for the most ,
25 part identified commercial projects in non-agreement states?
1 1
e 55 b46IOS04-n i VOICE: These were run through the caseload 2 forecast panel.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is the answer to my 4 . question.
- 5. VOICE: These are real cases. I-can give you the 6 names.of 13-of them today. There is one that has not been 7 pinned c5wn affirmatively.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine.
l 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In that case I would go with l
10 the plus 12. The question just was whether this was sort of .
l 11 a horseback guess at what might come in.
12 VOICE: That is why I was waving my hand because I 13 had it all up there.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You won.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Now on the NMSS-NRR 16 question.
17 COMMISSIONER MiEARNE: Bill, if you could, though, 18 sometime in the next couple weeks or so, send me a list.
19 VOI CE: Yes, we can run a copy off and run a copy 20 of the assistance to the agreement states.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You better have it in hand for 22 OMB to see. They will want to know how come you have got 23 all these f acilities.
24 VOICE: Right.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: For NMSS and NRR on the subject w-r y
56 ,
46 05 05 j 1 1 of safeguards, notably the reactor security panel program in ;
2- NRR, the Commission on balance has decided to shif t the bulk i 3_ of that responsibility into NMSS sometime in the '80 '81 4 time frame. There is recognition that there remains an 5 interf ace between reactor saf ety matters and reactor 6 security matters, which is most notable inside the plant 7 with regard to protection against insider sabotage, assisted 8 sabotage and so on, i i
9 There are sort of substantially diff erent apparent 10 judgments of the workload. There are 16 people in tha t ;
11 decision unit now in NRR and would be in '80, I guess. It 12 is proposed f or '81 to come down to about 11, reflecting, I 13 trust. the working through of the bulk of the plans that m
14 have ..ad to be submitted as a result of the implementation 15 of the part 7355. There are also f our NMSS people, or about l 16 t ha t , contributing to that effort. Now what Bill says is if 17 you send that program to me, then I have already got f our 18 peopl e working pretty much f ull time on it. I need a couple 19 more.
20 That turns out to be six man-years in '81, whereas l 21 tne configuration at hand here is more like 15 man-years.
22 How does it shake out? How would we best arrange the 23 transition, and what does NRR n.eed to keep in the area to 24 cover that interf ace and so on?
25 VOICE: Lee gave me the word on this yesterday,
' 57
$46 D5 06 7 I and we have what we call a transition plan bming worked on.
2 I think we were originally scheduled by Friday, but then we
. 3 were told this _ af ternoon. I have got two people on the 4 Metro coming down here with it. They should be here within 5' -15 orf20 minutes. We had a meeting scheduled for this 6 af ternoon in Silver Spring at 3:D0 o' clock where we were l
7 going to work out the details, but as I said --
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE8 I run out of a five-man l 9 commission f or consideration of this year's budget at 3:00 10 p.m. this ef ternoon.
11- VOI CE: We will have a piece of papert I'm looking 12 cack all the time, hoping my two Me tro people will come in.
13 They are. on the way down with a piece of paper. We can 14 probably sit down here and see where we diff er. We ha*/e a 15 transition program worked out.
16 VOICE: We came down with the understanding we 17 would be prepared to work it out right here right now. That 18 is in f act wny I came downtown. I don't think it is that 19 big a problem.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I guess all I am concerned 21 about is how many people is it really going to take. There 22 is a diff erence right now between six and fif teen. Tha t is 23 a pretty big difference. We have to be sure we don't make a 24 mistake and lop off people who in f act are going to be 25 n eeded.
L .' '
58
)46b507-3 1. VOICE: Yes. John Davis has been working with the 2 -- my group on- it.
What we have tried to come up with is a
( 3 plan to get into through '80 and into '81, making this c
4 transition. He has assured me. I just talked to him about 5 15 minutes ago. He said it looks satisf actory to him, t ha t 6 we can do it'.with the manpower we have talked about. Two to 7 three, Lee told me. I estimated two. Lee said something 8 about three.- However it works out -- this is in addition to 9 what we have right now.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It sounds low, but let's talk Ji about it.
12 COMMISSIONER .AHEARNE: Okay.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now you need to get your subway 14 riders in hand and retire to the back room with Roger and j 15 Darrell and so on.
16 VOI CE : Right.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Keep in mind tnat what I need, 18 as soon as you can produce it, are the sorts of numbers that 19 I n ee d to pu t this budget to bed. Further details between 20 the offices on wno, what, when and so on that don't directly
.21 aff ect the numbers here; a little more scholarly 22 consideration.
23 VOICE: Right. We will pol $ sh it up.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. THet 1 caves me in a
-25 position. Du d --
59 46'b5 08 i i VOICE: Chairman, while we are waiting, perhaps we 2 - could ao the NRR ' thing. I have.a tremendous ACRS conflict
< 3 this af ternoon filling in f or Mr. Denton.
- 4. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't you leave Denton --
5 VOICE: The remaining part of NRR he's talking o about, non-saf eguards.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is there another part? Remind 8 me what other questions did I have about NRR.
9 MR. CDOPER: These are not open questions but 10 rather' observations to the mark provided last night.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: We do have the standards.
12 VOICE: Maybe I could just make the observation; 13 it will take about two minute s. Then you can decide whether 14 you want to discuss it or throw us out. The observation is 15 t ha t the number, total number f or NRR is down approximately 16 37 f rom the EDO mark. Some of that 37 we would like to 17 speak to because it perhaps is a misnomer in the titles of 18 what is covered by some of those slots.
19 We have inadvertently lost our ted) spec writers in 20 addition to operating reactors. We want to make sure you 21 understood that those people were in one of those groups 22 housed in the 3/. Ahe other portion of the 37 we would like 23 to speak to is the cu tting of non-routine operating reactor I 24 activities. We can do that in terms of cutting back the 25 peo pl e . But the real impact of that is not that we don't
60 h46L'509!
0 i
t 1 do. the non-routine work,- but that the routine work that is j l
2 scheduled f or the resources that weren't touched by the 3 Commi ssion mark will not have the same end product. That l I
4 is, there will' be le ss routine work accomplished in view of 5 the f act that the non-routine will be there, it always has 6 been, it always will be.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Speaking to the first point 1
8 though, Roger, we have increased the number of people in ]
l 9 operating reactors. Now, I am not sure how you are going to l
[ 10 inter pret i t, or maybe the. comptroller interpreted to you 11 that there was elimination of tedt spec writers or some V
12 particular subset within operating reactors.
1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 k 24 25
l f 61
~
h46'0601 1 1 MR. MAITSONi There was a category of people cut l 2 : by the Commission .that evidently was somewhat confu. sed with 3 ' thef ELR - ye s, opera tional . surveillance people which were ,
1 4 . evidently conf used .with -the. ED0's people. We understand i 5- tra t part of the11ogic and accept 1.t.
6 The' difficulty is-that not all 15 people were ;
7 associated with- that kind. of thing. .The tech spec people 8 had been . in that cubby hole of'the-budget. . ;
9 MR. GOSSICK: How~many? j 10 VOICE: There are five people there presently l
.J 1 writing tech specs written as part of - the operational 12- surveillance program. l l
- 13. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The total of that was 14 wha t?
15 MR. MATTSON: Fifteen.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Five of whom are writing 17 tech specs? H l
18 VOICE: Ye s.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Tha t is a subset program 20 within operating reactors decision unit and we didn't 21 address the subsets within it. We e ssentially made a 22 decision, here is how many people in division of operating 23 reactors.
L 24 My view would be that is then up to NRR.
25- MR . MA TTSON: Okay.
s e v 9
62 l
$46 d6. 02 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE . I . guess- if I could f rame for 1 2; H RR Lthe . pro po si tion, I gue ss tne. proposition they would make 3 is that just in thinking about how the number would come 4 out, we would tend to the transfer to EDO. I gue ss, all 5 things' considered, their position would be they would be I 6 happy to have us add 5, plus 46 in that decision. unit. I l
7 Your comment is, no, we won't add the 5, but you j 8 .are not constrained by what you have heard about 15 ,
I 9 operational evaluation people going over there.
10 MR. MA7TSON: Yes. l 11 The other thing I want to make certain we all 12 understood wcs that the routine operating reactors 13 productivity wi)) have to go down as a result.cf those
, 14 cuts. Because those people have to be supplied f rom 15 some whe re , that is, f or nonroutine work and tech spse lo writing.
.1 17 Sc, the amount of work that you have in front of 15 you to be a ccomplished by 'the routine category of operating 19 reactors will not be accompli shed.
20 Just so we are a13 cleer.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Also, Roger, Harold's 22 p'oint whi ch he made , that he has to take a diff erent 23 a ppro a ch , that handling --
( L2 4 - MR. MATISud: 'ies, wi t.n Inct understanding, of 25 co urs e .
. 2 . 2 Al b
63 f46b6'03.
1 CHAIRMAN - HENDR IE: Okay. Let/s see. Did I see 2 Minoque? Bob,1you can probably holler f rom there. We were .
l 3 . whacking you thr.ee. I 4 MR. MINOGUE: Right. We would take them out.
1 5 Fi rst , we would stop work on Appendix A. You l l
6 have bef ore you a paper that proposes some work to modify 7 Appendix A. We would propose to set that aside, come back l 8 to it, depending on what may be the number of applications, 1
9 five or six years from now. l 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Appendix A?
l 11- MR. MINOGUE: Appendix A to part 100, seismic and !
1 12 geological siting criteria. The possible glitch to that is 13 t te t that kind of manpower may also be usable in some of the v 14 part 60 work, high level wa ste f acility and also may be 15 useful in some of the work that may come out of a draft 16 provision of par t 100.
17 So I have got in my own mind a fallback 18 po si tion. If it turns out, let's say, as the task force 19 report comes bef ore the Commi ssion, you decide you want to i
20 do a lot more work in part 100, we are really having
- 21 manpower problems we adght instead divert one of the Appendix 22 A dedicated types to that and cut back safeguards area by l 23 one man as a third backup.
- (_ 24 The third _ position came out of the products 25 standards, related to handling of petitions and work on some
L 46NOo 04 64
- 1 ' quality ' assurance guides we had planned on consumer 2 ' products.
3' CHAIRMAN;HENDRIE: Where in terms of decision
'4 units.do these things come in?
5 MR. MINOGUE :
- That is decision unit Appendix A 6 is --
7 . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Power f ccilities?
8 MR. MINOGUE : Unit 1.
9 . CH AIRM AN HENDRIE: Wait a minute. That would be
- 10. plus 2 to 51.
Il MR. MINOGUE: Consumer . products is unit 2.
12 That is one position.
13 CHAIRMAN P.ENDRIE: Minus 1 to 42. The third one?
r .
.. 14 MR. MINOGUE : That is'3. Two f rom A ppendix A,
'1' 15 unit 1 --
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Sorry. It is then plus 1 to 17 50. This is the standards suggestion of three people. 171 i 1
18 to 168.
19 MR. MINOGUE : '
Right.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDR IE: What?
21 MR. MINOGUE: I think the work you did on 22 Appendix A h6s done enough to clear the air on some of the 23 problems. I t 'should f acilitate the handling of some of the 24 problems that arise 'in the licensing proce ss.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Bob, in decision unit 2,
4 )
1 65 346 0605 2
'1 your strength in there is now .about 39.
There is a 'plus ,
2- nominally, a plus f or the supplement ' to 43, then back one 3 off for 42. That .coesn't - it sounds 111ke you need to-4 -decide to take one of the supplemental people out of that 5 decision unit and put it in another one.- -
6 Do you heve a choice off hand?
7 MR..MINOGUE:. . I am not sure I understand the 8- question, j i
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The questicn arises because i 10 when in '81 you take a person out of decision unit 2 and 11 crop the total to 42, the configuration now is that you are 12 39, you go to 43 on the '80 supplement and drop back one.
13 .4R; MINOGUE: With the amount o.f turnover we s 14 have and all the workload --
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am just saying it is going 16 to look peculiar and your budget examiners are going to take 17 one of your supplemental people away to eliminate the peak.
18 I am suggesting you decide where you would like 19 that slot moved.
20 MR. MINOGUE : We would stick it in where it is 21 least conspicuous. I would like to lock at the breakdowns, 22 not just answer you off the cuff.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. I will leave you
( 24 to work tha t 'out with the comptroller.
25 MR. MINOGUE :
- We will work it out with the 14_, * . . . ~ - . - - - 9 -
c ,. - . , , - , - .-,
~
66 ;
$46 06LO6' ' ,
I l comptroller.
2' Mr. Chairman, were we going to ' discuss the 3- 700,000?. I wouldl11ke.to discuss that briefly with the l l
' L4 Commi ssion. ]
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I . thought you were going to q 6 take'that out of that NBS?
7L MR. MINOGUE: I think that needs to be 8 -understood. I will'be brief.
9 This is a program that is interrelated to the 10 upgrade in material control and accounting. It is a program 11- f unded now partly by DOE, partly by ACTA, partly by NRC.
12 The issue for several years is whether NRC should 13 f und this type of programt It is the type of detailed g
14 procedural standards, test procedures, and so on, and an 15 integral part of any kind of organized material control 16 a ccounting system. i 17 In other more conventional areas, this kind of i 18 thing is done by individual industry. The reason this is an 3 19 issue is that an agreement was originally arrived at.
20 The program is partly f unded by DOE, partly NRC -
21 and the individual industry we are talking about is partly .
22 government projects. ,
l 23 The reason. I raise the i ssue year af ter year is
[ 24 not t ha t I don't think the work is needeJ, I think t. ere is !
25 an agreement by all parties that it is needed but rather !
i e
i
9 mm 9
m %^ y
.o w w - 67
'lO6 07 1 . whet her the NRC should f und this type et program or not. If
.2 the decision'is made to drop it out of the '8! budget, that 3 . carries dith it an obligation, .we are going to have to, in 4 some way, deliver a message to the regulated industry ,which 5 -is largely handling government stuff' that they are somehow 6L going to h ve to pick it up or DOE or ACTRA.
17- We are not saying the work won't be done, we are 8 Just saying we won't f und it.-
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that me ssage came 10 through. I guess what ha ppened was that enough 11 commissioners picked up the -- picked it up, said, good, ;
12 tell the industry, for them to fund it.
13 MR. MINOGUE : The most orderly way to wind it 14 down would be to maintain it at a f airly high level through 15 '80, rather than try to do it instantaneously.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thi s was f or '81. It was to 17 c on tir. through '80 to provide reasonable time f or people 15 to unt stand somebody else ought to pick it up.
19 MR. MINOGUE : Fair enough.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Ought this be something we 21 ougnt to hcVe the courtesy of advising DOE? I 22 MR. MINOGUE: Very. defini tely.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I&E.
( 24 MR. STELLO: Yes, si r .
- 25. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't you work your way
68
$46 06 708L 1 into. a closer set of : chairs so we can talk.
2 Vick, we -are looking f or ? way to get reasonable
^
3 numbers in the appropriate decision units here to do the 4- f ollowing : To move forward with a combined resident and 5- ' unit, or whatever you would call it, program ,that puts one 6 person with each operating unit.
.7 Where there is only one unit, why, he's the 8 combined unit and site resident. Where there are two units 9 and two people .:nr three units and three people, why, the 10 senior of them is his unit plus the site and head of the 11 crowd and the other two are unit inspectors, one or two, 12 whatever.
13 Would also like to increase coverage in terms of f
14 construction residence. The question is given that the 15 Congress has bestowed upon us an additional 146 souls for 16 '80 in I&E, how does one lay out -- how do we arrange the 17 people numbers to get one person, one unit for operating 18 plants as soon as possible, and then within the 146, plus 19 the already authorized resident program, how much does that 20 allow f or putting some rare folks on construction sites.
21 That is, how f ar down the construction sequence 22 can one go?
23 MR. STELLO: Let me see. If we are going to stay 24 with ths qumber 146, we change the policy so that we have a l 25 singl e in spe ctor , resident inspector, at sites where there l l
D "' *'
FI *D h S .YY LQ D
&a 6 l
i S46 06<09. 69 1 are just one unit, rather than what was proposed would have 2 two.
3 That ' would save out of the 146 en additional -- .
1 4 there' are 32 single unit' sites, 317 32 for fiscal '81.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I a ssume that doesn't count ;
6 Humboldt or a dead site.
l
.7 VOICE: Humboldt has been excluded f rom all our 1 8 figures for resident planning.
9 . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 32 single unit sites?
l 10 MR. STELLO: With the policy of not putting the I I
11 second inspector, which I want to point out that that will l l
12 create an inconsistent inspection policy at single and i 13 multiple unit si te s. l 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why is that?
15 MR. STELLO: The resioent program, re si den t 16 program as 1.t is now defined with the site resident, his 17 tasks are already set. The unit resident program was an 16 addon to whe t would oe done.
19 You clearly can't have the resident do what is 20 now asked of him in addition to the new tasks without 21 cutting back.
22 So, at single unit sites, something diff erent 23 in terr.s of inspection philosophy would have to be done,
( 24 than at a dual unit site where you would have two, that 25 would, one that would do what we proposed with the site
-. _ . - . . =. . -_. .- . _ - . .. . . . - . . . . -
1
. l
.l l 73
%4600 10 l- 'i nspector.and add on with the additional inspector the 2- concept .of unit. inspector that we described. So' to me,:1:
.is clear tha't the' inspection philosophy between sites will 3
4 beiddferent.
5.
6 V 7 a-
. a/ . g 9
10 11 12 13 14- ,
t 15 16 17 16
. 19
'20 21 22 .
23
- (._
~
24 25 r , _ - , _ - . _
L46.07.1 71 LT 1 COMMISSIDNER AME ARNE4 There will be an inspection -
2 philosophy between sites different under. all those options.
- 3. The degree of difference will vary.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's .take a two-unit 5 site.. Along the proposal Joe laid out, you would have one 6 Te s ident plus one unit inspector. The resident, in effect, 7 is kind of the unit inspector also for that site, for that .
t 8 unit.
.9 And there is another unit inspector.
10 CO MMISSIONER AHE ARNE : When we are going to a
.11 policy of one site resident per site independent of how many 12 units, unless that person did no inspection whatsoever, was 13 strictly 1.00 percent a PH representative, there was 14 automatically a dif f erence in inspection philosophy.
15 MR. STELLO: What the resident inspector would 16 do at the sites is a program that was laid out and his 17 activities were spelled out.
18 True statement. Let's agr ee. That is in 19 existence today. _.
20 CCMCSSIONER GILI NSKY: But thet can be adjusted.
21 MR. STELLO: de clearly can adjust it. My point 22 being the way in unich it's adjusted will cause e different 23 philosophy in single-unit sites than dual-unit.
( 24 COMMI SSIO.!ER AHEARNE: And may require diff erent 25 treatment.
e f
46.b7.2 72 l
LT ~1 MR. STELLO: Clear.ly. I am not suggesting that l 2 policy isn't one that I can implement,
~
f 3 CoiU!,ISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I still don't fo.llow ,.
4 that. Given'that you can adjust what these men do, it seems 5 .t o me -
- 6. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But there is a certain inertia
? in the system connected with having constructed a resident 3 Inspection.regine to which the people have been trained.
9 So It can certainly be adjusted.
10 Cola'ISS10 DER GILINSKY: I can see that. What you
- 11. are saying is, if we keep the resident inspection regime 12 f i xed, then there clearly will be .a difference. But -
13 CD)S!ISSIONER KENNEDY: No. Yo u wi.11 ha ve t wo 14 different kinds. You will have one resident inspector, that 15 1s, unit inspector, on a two-unit site who is doing the 16 program A, that is, the existing program.
17 You will have another guy on unit 2 on that site 13 who will ce following program 3, which is a diff erent lo . inspection program. Simply because he's going to not only 20 hen :ne unit, out the site.
21 Isn't that right?
.22 MR. STELLO: I am trying to make clear that there 23 will .ho a diff erence. If you accept the dif f erence, it's ;
24 okry by me.
25 C0!Sil SSIONER GILINSKY: It seems there will be y
~
1 1
i
-46.b7.3 73 1 LLTc l- a difference if we keep the present resident inspector program l 2 fixed. But it seems-to me you can adjust so that there isn't
~3 e difference.
4 It may be'that this adjustment is a diffleult thing 5 to do. That's something we haven't gone into.
6 MR. STELLO: 'Given that you make the adjustment, you 7 can . strive to get as much consistently as possible.
1 S I am. rendering a judgment that there will not be l 9- consistency in laying the program out with a single inspector l
10 at a single-unit site and multiple inspectors at multiple-unit
.11 sites. l l
l 12 It will be different. I think the degr ee of 13 coverage in what you will get at the multiple-unit sites 14 will be greater than what you will get at a single-unit 15 site.
16 CO AW.ISSIONER GILINSKY: Per unit. l 17 MR. STELLO: Per unit. Adding what we were edding 18 as the addi:lonal philosophy for unit inspectors.
19 How, i f you do not want that philosophy, then we 20 could go back and rethink the whole resident program to try 21 to get as much consistency as possiole.
22 But we have laid out two distinct, separate 23 programs.
( 24 COMMISSIONER GILIN3KY What you are saying is ,
25 even if you adjusted things, you would end up with 1sss
.i e
, _ _ . _ , . _ , ,y......-y_ . ~.-.y. e p,, , , . . ..-w --y,,w,-,
46.07.4 74 il E-
.1.T -- '). .coverageLin some sense at a single-unit site than you would
'2 at a dual site. That'seems a lot because you have got a more ,
I 3 experienced guy at the ' single unit.
41 Then .you are going to put a more experienced guy, ,
l
'5' 'more junior - f ellow, at the double-unit site. Ye t you are 6 ending up with more Inspection there than the single-unit site.
7 MR. ST:ff08 Because the f ellow that was going to-S be added was en add-on inspection activity which went to some 9 of the issues we talked about.
10 He was going to look at the engin.eered safety J1 f eatures in terms of their readiness and tectibility and i 12 status at all times that he's there.
13 It's 1.00 percent. It's all. He was going to be 14 trained to be able to conduct that kind of inspection. The 15 site inspector that is already assigned already has a 16 program. I could cut back on tnet and have this more senior t
17 person pick up some of it. Not all.
18 It wouldn't have the sense of balance.
19 COMMISSIOliER AHEARNE : Could I borrow e f ew minutes 20 of'your time? l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE There are acout six minutes. Go.
22 COMMI SSI ONER AHEARNE2 If I can, could I shift you 23: Just for a minute because I am going to have to leave at
~( 24 a quarter of. I think you can continue your reclame. out I 25 would like to know. Do you have the numbers Joe asked you?
4
1 4f.07.5 75.
.?
LT 1 MR. STELLO: ~I just gave you the number. If you 2' . w' a n t --
3! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: For example, one of the 4 questions I thought had been relayed was, just as an 5- assumption, make the assumptlon we are going to the program
- 6 Joe' laid'out, then what does that.give you, how far down into' 7 the construction cycle do you then allocate inspectors? .i 8 MR. STELLO:- All of them. I could cover all the-9 construction sites if you take away the 32 inspectors that ,
10 would be added to the single-unit sites.
.11 CO MM ISSIO NER AHE ARNE : You could then cover all 12 construction sites? ) i 13 MR. STELLO: They could all be covered. True?
14 Excuse me? All construction.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Even starting when -- early 16 steges of construction?
17 MR STELLO: All steges. All construction.
13 COMl4ISSIONER GILINSKY: How many sites are there 19 where construction is ongoing? ,
l 20 VOICE: Forty-on. .r two. -
21 MR. STELLO: I think there cre 42. tie now neve '
22- 19 'that we had planned to cover. 50 tnet would -- J l
23 COWilSSIONER GILINSKY: $.nd there is some overlap
( 24 between operating sites er i' construction sites.
25 COMMISS10 DER AHEA.d2: That v:ould cJ so pick u* /Ei.
D *
- lD '"D 3' Y M
.Me AXL L i
1 46.b7.6~ 76 LT 1 By '81, the number of. sites that would be under construction, 2 you could have them all covered?
3 VOICE 2 We would have a resident inspector at 4 Levery unit, pre-op, 'startup and operating, and every site 5 :on construction.
6 MR. STCTIO: That is if you r.e'tise the philosophy.
7 CO MMISSIDNER AHEARNE 3 Yes, Vic.
8 MR. STELLO2 Of the 146. I don't know what cutoff 9 you have made be yond that. I am asking a very specific 10 question to make sure.
.11 .It's the 146. If I take the 146, I make the 12 assumption that I am not going to cover the single-unit 13 sites with an additional inspector.
1 14 QuestionJ Could I use those additional resources j 15 to cover construction sites? And the answer is, yes, and we 16 wi.11 cover a ll of them.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE 8 What assumption of total 18 number did you make for '81?
19- MR. STELLO2 '81 had 150 positions for the unit 20 resident.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 Additional?
22 .MR. STELLO: One hundred fif ty additional positions 23 for the unit resident program.
( 24 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: If you go that route, cover 25 all the construction, take into account the training,
46.d7.7 27 LLT ' 1 et cetere, that you have got in, do you have any, then, extra l l
2- ' personnel in your request? Your request, as I recall, was 3 1019 for '817 4 MR.-STELLO 1037.
5 CONMISSIONER AHE ARNE: 1037. l l
6 MR. STELLO2 Plith this philosophy we have been 7 talking _about, I . think there would be a f ew- lef t over.
8 Thirty-two, -we have 19 of the 42 covered. That,would be 9 23. Nine left over.
10 Co ?MISSIONER AMEARNE: So that if we did go, if 11 we were going the kind of cuts we had talked about, that would i
l 12 take care, eliminate those nine and go a little further in.
13 So it probably would not be all construction 14 c ove re d.
15 MR. BARRY: I am not really sure. If you get to 16 a 920 base total -
17 MR. STELLO That is a diff erent .ballgame. Now, 18 I answered the question starting with 146, redefining what 19 the 146 is.
20 When you start cu.tting and you are -- now you are 21 c u.tting .117 positions back. I am not prepared to tell you 22 what the impact is -- l 23 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE: If you were at a 920 base,
( 24 'you don't know what, under the philosophy the Chairmen 25 de s cribed, you are not prepared to answer how many qm 1 0 b D
gs D
s bY =
L46.b7;8 78 LT 1 construction sites would be cover.ec at 9207 2 MR. STELLO: I can if you make a lot of
- 3 . a ssumptions, again.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: John, 1 think you are about to go.
5 I think what I went to do for the next 15 minutes, 15 to 40 6 . minutes or something like that, is with Vlc and his people, to 7 try to map out some of these numoers.
8 We will see you at 2:00 and do a recap en this.
9 Co hWISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine. Thank you.
10 C01SISSIONER KERNEDY: Do you need us to go througn J1- this mapping e xercise ?
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If you would pref er to wait and 13 hear it in summary form, why, I wi.11 understand.
14 I might as well do it here, rather than move 15 everybody in the office. Why don't I say the people who 1
16 would like to stay and scratch heads with me on it, I 17 encourage it but --
IS CD)!RISSIONER KENNEDY The re is a diff erence between 19 welcoming them and encouraging. If you are encouraging, I 20 will stay. If you are welcoming it, I will thank you and 21 go.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, I guess I would put it on 23 a welcome basis..
( 24 Le t's s ee how many Commissioners stay. If three 25 stay, it's a meeting. If we go under three, that ends the
46.!O7.9 79.
LT 1 m ee t ing .
2 COMMISSIOdER BRADFORD: Ev.en if you go under three, 3 there would be something to. be said f or keeping the record.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Yes, good point. We will run 5' the transcript even it. there. is just me.
6 COMMISSIONER KEINEDY2 What needs to be done is 7 .just ite. rete with it. It doesn't seem we could all c'ontribute 8 greatly to that.
9- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't you come up and grab .
10 table places and let us take a minute and a half.
, il ( Re c.e ss . )
- 12 o -
)
i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
80
$46.08-01 n ! . COMMISSIONER GI_INSKY: Suppose you are throwing 2 the strategy into the two units.
3 .MR. STELLO: Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: He can do some --
5 MR. MOSLEY: He can do half in each unit.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: He ' can do seme unit stuff 7 and some what was otherwise done by the region.
8 MR. STELLO: He could.
9- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Those resources can be 10 added to the guy in the single unit plant.
11 MR. STELLO: You could.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What you ere going to end 13 up with is not as much of the unit program as you were i
14 planning, but you could still, it seems to me, do it in a 15 way t ha t is consistent.
16 MR. STELLO: We will strive for consistency. I 17- will give you a judgment. It is going to be extremely IS difficult. I don't think it is going to be accomplished. I 19 think single-unit plants will have an inconsistent 20 inspection activity than multiple-unit plants. I think that 21 is where it i s going to 'come out. That is my judgment. I I
22 will try not to make it happen that way, but I don't think 23 you are going to get it. We have to go back. You can take
( 24 t ha t philosophy and --
25 MR. MOSLEY: In e ssence, you aren't giving us any
I
, 81 h6[08f02
,n
~1-people f or the uni.t program at the one unit site because we 2 already plan to have the resident .there.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What we would Lbe saying is r
4 ' tha t of Lthe re sident, less than the standard package, have 5 him picki up some of the unit work and some of the standard package gets replaced by~ inspection f rom the regions.
7 MR. STELLO - What-you have proposed, in the way 8- you have proposed it, would require to-try to achieve 9 ' consistency, doing some of .that. Tha t is what you will have 10 to do. It i s the only logical way to try to get there. I 11 am offering a judgment. It will ce very, very difficult and 12 I don't think in the end result you will see the consistency 13 you want, because it i s the type of individual, it is the 14 training they get. You can only stuff so much between a set 15 of ears.
i 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Will we be covering places l 17 like Big Rock Point?
18 MR. STELLO: Yes.
19 COMMISSIONEF GILINSKY: You will have a resident 20 plus unit inspector?
21 MR. STELLO: Yes, all .your operating plant sites, 22 - one'of each.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If you had a f air number of
( 24 smaller.. plants like that, you might want to rethink it for 25 that plant. I take it back. Lacrosse. You have got Big '
4
,,, ,, - , , - y w - ~ # y --, ,- -
y- ,,v.-- .-, , , _ _ - - , ,,,y,,~,r,, _-~ + , -
82 546'Oc C3 n- 1 -Rock and Lacrosse, a pair of little units, single uni ts.
2 MR. STELLO: Dresden I.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, but the Dresden site, 4 similarly, but you have got two and three. You have just 5 got the two --
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: If you have just got --
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Then I will have to spend a lot 8 of time writing the Governor of Michigan.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What you are saying, as a 10 practical ma tter, given the Bureau characteristic rigidity, 11 i t i s hard to do . .
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That it may be difficult.
13 Let's try to map. W ha t I want to do is try to map some of 14 the numbers here and see how they run. While we are about 15 i t, why, we can also see what it would take to go up to that 16 system I proposed bef ore, which was no less than two in 17 order to always have a reactor type and a resident type.
16 MR. STELLO: iio less than two i s ea sy. You add 19 32.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do yru have the sheet on 21 the sites? It is a usef ul one.
22 MR. STELLO: The one that I had?
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I t says how many sites 24 there are.
25 MR. GOSSICK : Of the sites under construction,
83
@46'06 04
. I 7 1 roughly half, .about 49, as I recall, are less th:n 25 2 percent _ comple te.
3 (Pause.) f 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me see the other thing, 5 too. Let's see.
6 MR. GOSSICK: There was another piece of paper put 7 toge t he r. Commissioner Kennedy had it out yesterday.
6 Something he had asked for.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. First of all, how 10 many people have we got in the resident? I am not quite 11 sure how to organize this. How many people do we have in 12 the resident inspector program at the moment who are -- let 13 me ask it thi s way. How many authorized slots are there in j i
14 I&E for resioent inspec tors who are going, who are headed 15 f or the field? Not trainers. Not trainers or clerical 16 s u ppor t . Hang on. Resident authorized slots I will call 17 them, because you may not have . filled them all . These are 16 f or people who are headed f or sites.
19 MR. STELLO: How do you break down? The 93 I will 20 break oown f or you. 72 opera ting plants, 72 --
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is the base number?
22 MR. STELLO: 93.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: These are authorized?
! 24 MR. STELLO: Si autnerized.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What was your assumption about
l'" l 84
$46 IOS 05 n 1 817 12 MR. STELLO: 93. 72 for operating plants.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, start again. I want to 4- know- how many you have got now.
5 MR..STELLO: 47. Fiscal year 1979. 47.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You had proposed ~to increase
.7 ;that in the '60 budget --
8 MR. STELLO: Want to gio to 74.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, you wouldn't have.
10 increased it more than nine, i
11 MR. DONNELLY: You may be confusing it with the '
12 resident program --
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE No. The authorized strength in 14 the office was 715 at the end of FY '79. When we went 15 forward with the '80 budget, the authorized strength at the 16 end of '80 was to be 724. So you had 47 authorized resident 17 slots in '79. No goddamn way you could have more than 56 in IS ' 8 0, at least up to the time the Congress started to pump 19 people in; okay.
20 MR.'DONNELLY: We did have because there is a 21 trade-off between resident and regional inspectors. ;
i 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You were going to convert into 23 t ha t ' a t the cost of regional inspectors?
5 24 MR. DONNELLY: Yes, sir.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE In '80 whet would that have 1
l
.-. - - -= - - . . .
- 85
'4ebSL06'
- 3. ~1 looked like then?
- 2. LMR.'STELLO: In-'80, 74.
< ~3' CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE: Tnat would have .taken 'it up to 4 ~ 74. Still-74?
5 MR. STE110 8 Yes, in '80.
6- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If I took 74 and subtracted
.7. nine, would that 'be the number o'f conversions?
8 MR. STELL0s Your arithmetic includes a benefit
-9 when you go to .the resident program. So you can't quite do 10 that. You actually gat some savings.
Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ne ve rthe l e ss, the bodies have 12 to come f rom some place. ,
13 MR. DONNEl1Y: In addition to the savings,- there 14 are growth in other programs that -makes the net number of 15 nin'e a product of not only resident inspectors but -- ;
lo CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Of course. So the conversion i
17 is some number between 74 and 65: true?
18 MR. STELLO: A pproximat ely.
19 CHAIR"AN HENDRIE: Has to be. So the way you were 20 going to staff this prep. ram in '80 was by wholesale 2 'l conversion. On the other hand, back in '79 when we 22 insta11eo this program, there was a chunk of how many slots 23 went into it?
w 24 MR. DDM:ELLY : A total of 61. Some of wnich were
. 25 for performance aopr?'l:1, some of which were training.
D lD *D
. . N s [3'Y@tR A
, , , , - - - r , , --
.ea ,e,., -<w, *--w ~,-%~
86 46.bS~07 .
i 1 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And maybe some clerical support 2 'and balanuc --
.g<. 3' MR. DONNELLY: Balance of 40-some odd. -
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Got you. So, now i n '81. By 5 the way, is the 74 -total or incrementalt. it's incremental?
6 MR. STELLO: 74 is total. 27 incremental.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. The conversion is 8 of the order of 20, 22 or something like that. I understand 9 t ha t now. 23 if I put delta at the head of this column, and 10 total at the heaa of this column, I have 47, I now have 74.
11 In '81 you w3re going to add --
12' MR. STELLO: I am sorry. I am using the numbers 13 we gave you rather than the one I had written down. The
,~
14 numbers -- it is total 91.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Total was 91.
16 MR. STELLO: In '81 versus the 93. That would 17 include Humboldt and Indian Point which we subtracted out.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. Prefer that. That is 19 another 17 people.
20 MR. STELLO: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, with 91 residents you were 22 going to cover -- was that-the end of it then ?
23 MR. STELLO: Yes. 91 covers 70 operating plants, T.. '24 91 --
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: h'ait a minute. I have to
- l 46'd8.08 t '
I figure out where I'm going to write this. The 91 residents 2 who are going to cover -- ;
( 3 MR. STELLO: 70 operating plants. Sites. 70 on 4 operating sites.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Operating sites. !
6 MR. STELLO: These are all site residents.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Some of these, are these all I I
8 reactors?
9 MR. STELLO: All reactors. 19 construction sites
.10 and two fuel facilities. That is the way the 91 breaks 11 down. i 12 COMMISSIONER OILINSKY: The 70 sites are for how 13 many reactors?
14 MR. STELLO: It is 108, I think.
15 MR. MOSLEf: 106 total. That is in the operating 16 license and pre-op stage. i 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wait. You just conf used the 18 i ssue . The 70 operating sites have got how many reactors?
19 Oh, I see. You say some have got reactors under 20 construction? I 1
21 MR. MOSLEY: Pre-op is --
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's jus.t ask the 70 operating 23 sites, how do you get 70 opera ting si tes? Just lucky, I ;
l
- i. 24 gue ss. Anyway, how many. total reactors on those sites?
25 MR. DONNELLY: I don't know. There are 106 in
1 88
$4d [0S -Ok q~ ,1- . pre-op, start-up and operating. There may be some in.
2 - construction on.those sites that I didn't count.
< 3' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay-, 103 plus.
4 MR.:DONNELLY: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But 108 that you are 6 . inspecting?-
7 MR. STEllor out of the se, yes.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And you may have 'some 9 construction at those sites?
10 MR. DONNELLY Yes.
11' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 91. Very good. Now, If Ihad 12' to go on and look at 'S2, do we know what my -- to ke ep that ,
13 . level of coverage, what would I have to do in '827 14 MR. STELLO: We were proposing to drop the two 15 f uel f acilities at tha t point. That was 96 total. If you 16 want to keep the two, it would make a hundrea.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There are grumps about doing 16 that. The total amount comes to a hundred.
19 MR. STELLO: A hundred.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And delta of nine. And in '53? l 21: MR. STELLO: 103. !
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Did you go any beyond that?
23 MR. STELLO: No. {
l 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you have a breakout of how !
25 many sites you are covering at 103?
t l
e
, -- c. - -
89
$46 08-10' 1 1 MR. STE110: I don't.
2 - MR. DONNELLY: The construction sites stay at 19 3 So it is a subtraction process. Subtract 21 from 80 sites 4 in '83. . Other: than construction and f uel.
5 6.
7.'- :
8 l
10 1
11 12 l
13
(; -
15 i
9.
f.' 16
-17 16 19~
20 21 22 23-i 24~
'25
-. . . . . . - , - . m ,--c 7 ,-emi w
l -:
hadIOS c!- 90 l' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You wLil still have 19 2 construction, two fuel. Tha t is 24 I must. have 82 reactor 3 sites, God knows how many reactors. The construction sites l
)
4 are those in -- how do we _ categorize the ones we are 5 covering? Do they have to be in preopen testing?
6 MR. STELLO: Rated at 50 percent. Prior to
- 7- pre-op, rated at 50 percent. ;
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There are also sites at 9 which there no operating reac tors.
-10 MR. STELLO : That is right.
l 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: They are the sites, when 12 you count t he 19 ?
13 MR. STELLO: Yes. Those are the sites for which 14 there are no operating reactors f or which the site resident 15 'is ceing a ssigned.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Are there places, there must 17 be sites where there is a site resident and a construction 15 resident.
19 MR. DONNELLY: Yes. Not now there are not. I i 20 don't think there are any in '80. In '81, there are two or 21 t hr e e .
l 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask why there are l
)
23 more of them, because if the site resident is not expected l l
24 to look at construction, why do we put residents at sites !
25 where there are no operating reactors? Following what I am 1
I
' --re m
1 ;
- h46709!02 91 ;
I saying?
2 MR. DONNELLY: I think it may be on the cri terj a i n '3 ' used in assigning the construction residents initially. You 4 try to have 'two plants in construction, or whatever.
5' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Is that how the 19 got 6 picked, they had more 'than one plant under construction?
7 MR. DONNELLYr I am not f amiliar with the details j 8 of the selection. criteria. ;
.l 9 MR. MOSLEY: That was one of the critoria, 10 construction beyond 50 percent and le ss than pre-op. Also i
!! if there were two that were significantly along, they' i 12 may -- and neither was 50 percent, that may, you know, 13 cause them to get consideration f or a site resident.
4
' 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If we a ttempted to cover all 15 the construction sites, I am not quite sure where to pick ;
16 up. I don't think a re sident has to be there when the first
}
17 dozer starts clearing top soil.
IS Suppose you pick up a site resident, oh, wnen 19 they got ready to pour, by the time they got ready to pour 20 the first of the saf ety related f ootings, f oundation 21 structures, saf ety related buildings, which would be a 1 22 f raction of a percent probably, or 1 percent at most of the 23 S curve.. How many sites would that add?
] 2J- MR. STELLO: I would be more inclined to think it 25 would be more like all of them, which is like --
U N60903 92 '
1 MR. GOSSICK - Far less than 25 percent complete.
2- 96 reactors. .They are on 52 sites.
I 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We have 96 units on 52 sites 4 with cps or LWAs?
5' MR. GOSSICK: Yes. Of those 52 sites, there is l 6' only five where there are already operating reactors.
7 Wait a minute. That is current, yes. That is 8 the problem. This is current. So, it would be more than 9 t Fa t. I don' t know how many.
I 10 MR. STELLO: 42 is the number that would be under 11 construction, that number we had, right? l 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you, at the 13 point that-you would initiate the program, how many workmen e
14 would be onsite at t ha t point?
15 MR. STELLO: Hundreds.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Two- or 300 anyway, because 17 these are big sites. The area inside the f ence may be 16 mostly glass. But in the course of construction, why, you 19 end up mucking- up 4- or 500 acres.
20 So, you are likely to have a guard force of a 21 dozen-cod people hanging around, 100 people doing site 22 clearing and piling up rubbish, running earth moving
)
23 mac hine ry .
( 24 MR. STEL10: Concrete finishers, laying out 1
25 rebsr. i h
Y 5j46209 041 93 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: By the time yeu get ready to 2 pourEfootings, why, you have probably gone cheac and put up 3' c ba tch plant. So you had a cread of 40 or 50 people in 4 there f or a while on the batch plant.
5 Now you have got an operating crew still there, o You have got warenouse people, stockyard,. war ehouse people 7 laying out --
8- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Is there enough work for 9 an inspector to be occupied?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would be included to come in 11 at a slightly later time. Maybe at a percent or two 12 completion rather then this first f ootings.
13 MR. STELLO: At that point in time, they have 14 started to :naRe arrangements .to buy a Iot of piping, pi pe 15 relateo components. You have got a lot of the material lo certifications and pipe werk already starting to flow.
17 Marble Hill is a good example, it was what, 2 IS percent? One unit was 2 percent, 10?
1V CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If one of the things that you 20 want out the construction resident is a sense of how the 21 whole tning is going, then, really, the earlier he comes a 22 part of the package at the si te , why, the better it is, his 23 background. And he knows what went before. There weren't 24 too many people around bef ore he got there. ,
l l 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
I i
$4670905' 94 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If there are 1000 f olks 2 ' working'when he gets there, boy, there are a lot of -things
- 3 going on and so on.
4 So, all I am groping f or here is to see what. if 5 we really.went back to quite an early stage? What would 6 ' that -- what' I am doing .is saying that the answer to that 7 question is 96 units on 52 sites. If those I assume that I 8 could subtract the 19 that are currently covered.
9 MR. THOMPSON: Correct.
10 MR. STELLO: You would have, at the worst, an 11 addi tional 23, at the outside.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 33 si te s -- l 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 42 or 52. .
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wait. ,
l 15 MR. STELLO: 42 sites in 1981. 1 16- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 42 or 527 17 MR. GOSSICK: It says you are going to have 10 of 18 t he s e --
19 MR. THOMPSON: Current is 52. But there is some l 20 coming out of the end of the pipeline.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. So, I get 23, but you 22 said five of those already had operating reactors.
23 MR. THOMPSON : We had that on the current. How i, - 24' t ha t pi c ture is changing between now and 'Si, we don' t 25- know.
6 s
?
- 95 c)46 09'Oc l
, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It might-go up.
1
! - MR. THOMPSON: ~ It could go up. I CHAIRMAN HERDRIE: From the standpoint of
( 3 1
4- smelling _your_way around a si.te, it isn't clear to me that !
1 5 if you have an operating unit and site resident and one j 6 being build 'beside .it that tha t guy doesn't -- you know, it 7 is the being there at the site and in the area that is the )
1 8 sense = of wha t is going on. I 9 Now, let me see where I want to go. You don't go 10 out past 83 in terms of projection of things coming on. But 11 w ha t ha ppens is when one goes on out, that sort of year by 12 year, you ge t a f ew more operating units.
13 Some of these come in at sites that are already 114 c ove r ed , so on a resident inspector program, that is a no, 15 never mind. So as you go down the years, you need three 16 people this year, 12 some year.
17 MR. DONNELLY: Growth in the early years was 16 really catch-up to get everything f ully planned. The 19 f ollowon is small .
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
21 Now, what is .the traning e stablishment, training 22 and support establishment to go with this? I f I l ook a t the 23 training cecision unit --
I 24 MR. GOSSICK: There was 11 set aside, the unit 1
25 program, '80. It drops off, 10 in '82 and nine in '83.
l
@46JO9 07 96 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You have got about 14 people 2 doing training. So some fraction of those are resident
.3 trainers, maybe a good fraction.
4 MR. MOSLEY: At this point in time.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I guess you were taking most 6 of the support was sort of being done out of existing 7 resources. That is, that some activity, su pport activity.
8 I am just not sure whether I want to write down here or not.
9 MR. DONNELLY: We don't have the training 10 resources separately identified f or resident inspector 11 program for the numbers'you want there, nor do we have the 12 su ppor t resources se parately identified.
- 13 What we do, we figure a total professional 14 amount, then there is an addon f or clerical support and so 15 f orth to tha t.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right.
17 MR. DONNELLY: It comes out about a 30 percent 18 f actor above those numbers f or suppor t, excluding training.
19 30, 33 percent. ,
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All rignt. Make a note. Add 21 30 percent f or nontraining su pport. And the training is a 22 separate line.
23 Now, if -- I am going to keep drudging along this F 24 line and try to see if I can understand it.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It would be nice at some i .
l
646iO9 08 97 1 poin t, I- con't know if we have to have it now, an idea of 2 how many -- w ha t overlap _is with the construction, je 3 MR. GOSSICK: We will run that out. Put it in the 4 brown ' book, too, be sure it is available. i 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Because you really need 6 that.
7 MR. GOSSICK: You can get it out of here, but you 8 have go to through several different tables to run it out.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE - Now, if we start doing unit 10 inspectors f or '79 --
J1 MR . GOSS I CK : Mr. Chairman, do you want-Bill to 12 come back at 2:00? They have it all worked out and an 13 agreement within NRR. -
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We have got about four or 15 five points we have agreed on.
16 VOICE: We can ao it in two minutes.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think at least one of you 18 ought to agree on at least a spokesman to stay and present 19 it to the Commissioners so the Commission can hear it.
20 VOICE: If Daryl and I stay, we are in perf ect 21 agreement.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: On the unit slots, we have 68 23 - operating units and how many sites?
( 24 MR. THOMPSON: You are talking about today?
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I gue ss so, yes.
, - - -, , , - + - , ~ , ,y- - v- g
- i. . ,.
c)46 09.09 96 1 MR. BARRY: Number 'of sites?
- 2. MR. GOSSICK: 70 licensed on 48 sites, f 3 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 70 licensed on 48 sites. One 4 ~o f those is'Humooldt. Se the eff ective number is 68 on 47 5 sites. That is why you n.eed 47 resident inspectors.
6: MR. STELLO ' Does it come out that wayt 7
8 g 9 10 9' -
-11.
12 13
,.c
'~
14 15 16 17 18 19 .
20 21 22 23-( 24- '
25 1'
't 99
)6'.10.1. ,
l LT 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Probably not. But let's enjoy 2 the coincidence. Now, well,'it's just 68 minus 47. You
( 3 need another 21.
4 MR. THOMPSON: No, because some of those are, two 5 of them are f uel facilities, ' and some . construction. .
6 MR. DONNELLYi Forty-se ven inspectors that we 7 Indentiiled.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE No. On the reactor site. You 9- have got 68 active OLs on 47 sites. That must mean you 10 are headed sooner or later for 47 residents, means a 11 difference of 21.
12 We ll , it's more than 21 because some of the 21 13 may have three unitst we don't have any four-unit sites I 14 but we have got et least one three-unit site.
15 MR . GOSSI CK: Nineteen two-unit sites, seven ;
16 thr ee-unit sites and one four-unit site. ;
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Anyway, we need -- 1 18 MR . STE LLO : Is the four-unit site operating?
19 MR . GOSSICK: That is what it says. Browns Ferry.
20 MR. STELLO: I don't know. Not operating. I 21 ,
MR. GOSSICK: That's what it s a ys .
22- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If I have got 68 active OLS and 23 47 sites and each site has. a resident inspector, I need 21
( 24 more people on the one oerson-one unit, today.
25- MR. THot!,PSON: Today.
1
J 9
100 6.lde2:
1 L? 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Would that, is that sort of a l l
2 fi scal 83 number? 1 3 MR. DONNELLY: I don't.think that's right.
4 Mr. Chairman, I don't want to mislead you. I may be not 5 understanding what is going on.
i 6 But are you taking the difference betw.een 68 and . )
7 47 and coming up with 21 ? We only will have at the end of 8 fiscal '79, 23 operating resddent inspectors out.
9 The others will be at construction sites and the 10 fuel facilities.
11 MR. THOMPSON: So it's 33 to 68.
12 MR. DONNELLY: Thirty-three to 68 is the comparison, j 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I guess, yes,
- ut you have got I 14 people in the pipeline to cover.
- 15. MR. THOMPSON: We do.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I t's the trainint lag, r ather 17 than sonething else that prevents it from being filled.
18 MR. THOMPSON: Tnet's right.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: : rom the standpoint of trying 23 to say what number of people do we need, how do you divide 21 up the 146, why, I think I can -- tne training lag?
22 MR. DONNELLY: We did, too. You are talking about 23 unit?
a 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am trying to work down the 25 unit column. I have got the resident delta total, now I am
- ~
101 a6:10.3 LT 1: trying tc work up a unit col umn where we understand- that under i
2 this sort of system, why at least for single units, you no )
'( 3 ' longer have site' residents and unit residents.
4 You neve got sort of a -- you have got e combination 5 . type. Now, well 'l et's s ee.
6 I would regard that 21 to get to the -- as the Unit, 7 sort of the additional increment over the residents to get S to this aiming. point.
- 9. Now, that is, '79. Have you got any idea what it 10 becomes in '807 .All right, what is it in 'El? How many do 11 you have to. add?
12 Considering that you are only adding where you don't 13' already.have one person. Every time - you add a uni t --
(
14 MR. DON 1 JELLY: I am confused by the number 68. Does 15 that include pre-op, or only operating licenses?
16 MR. STELLO4 That is operating, licensed plants.
17 MR. DONNELLY: Included in our aoproach to this 18 were the units that were in the pre-operational stage.
19 MR . !40 SLE Y : .But we have a. number, 93, in '81, units 20 would have operating licenses.
21 14R . STELLO: That is the numoer.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Suppose I make a column called 23 reactor OLs, and I will call them -- call the 79 number 68 k 24 active ones. In '60,.what will we do?
'25 MR. STELLO: Ninety-tnr ee in 19S1. j
- i g" 9 } Q
~
D""]D w o Ju oJL 1.(t/L, j
1 , .e- - 2 . ~ - - .
f
-t a '102 6.[10.A !
4- LLT : l' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ninety-thrae in '81. What is 2' ' 82?
-(
3 MR. DONNELLY: Operating units, I show 82. For 4 f iscal '80.
5- MR. BARRY2 '80 is 82?
'6 CH AI RM AN1 HENDR IE 2 And fiscal '82?
'7 MR. STELLO2 . Fiscal '82 would be 1.00.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: '83?
'9- MR. STELLO: One hundred thirt een.
10 (Pause.)
11 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. Maybe we can go l'2 back and -- I guess I am not -quite sure how to cut the -- if 13 I-go to '81, by which time the residents are supposed- to be
.f' 14 out on sites, if I have got 19 in'the current resident 15 program, never mind what it might become, now, the current 16 . resident program I have got 19 at construction sites, two, 17 and that -- two at fuel facilities. Twenty-one people.
18 If I go to the column of total resident inspector 19 slots, then, and subtract 21, in principle, then, I have the 20 number of residents who are available to be assigned to 21- reactor sites.
22 -In '81, I have.930 OLs, 91 residents plus 21 is 70 23 at-reactor sites. They are 'all due to be on station by '81?
[ . 24 MR. MOSLEY: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 Tnat means I have got 93 OLst I
~
i
103 Lld.5 lir .ll .have got 73 residents, I have 23 unit s.
2 So it Iool:s to me.like I need a total of 23 unit
( 3 people beyond ine resident. inspector program, if the 4 underlying ein here is one person-one unit, never mind site.
5 MR. STELLO: Operating units. No pre-op, no 6 constructic:,. <
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's in fact, then, not very many 3 additional people over the resident program as now 9 constituted, at least through '817 10 MR. DONNELLY: What did you nu:. s come out to in 11 ' 81, the delta?
12 CHAIR;/.AN HENDRIE: I don't know what bound for a 13 delta, exactly. But what I did was to sc e of go to the --
14 how many GLs, how many sites, how many residents assigned to 15 reactor sites.
16 Subtract one from the other. I get 23 reactors 17 with OLs f or which in excess of the number of . residents.
18 MR. MOSLEY: In '81, that's right.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRJE: I only need 23 to cover those.
20 MR . MOSLE Y : That's right, because there are 32 21 sites with only one unit.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If I go out and say that 23 eventually -- I have got this 96 units on 52 sites, right?
24 MR. GOSSICK: Right.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: rie have had some cancellations, D* i Yh MALh lD N ~ "W"
I 104 1 0..'6 LT 1 .so we are back down from that already.
2 Tyrono, Sterling, God knows what will happen to g
'3 the New York units. 1 4 MR. MOSLEY: Those. numbers are out beyond the '81 5 time frame as f ar as OLs are concerned.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. I was getting ready to 7 try to leap to the asymptotic situation. What I will project 8 is A, if I take an optimistic view of it, I would say we are 9 9oing out of the 96 units on 52 sites, since I Anow we are 10 going to lose some, let me take a careful view and say lose
.11 12 units and.eignt sites, that will bring me down to Plan G 12 for 84 units on 44 sites.
13 How does that strike you? I am trying to decide 14 how many reactors we are going to have on the assumption.
15 MR. THOMPSON You are going to lose 12.
16 CH AIRMAN HENDRIE: At eight sites. That leaves 17 rae a pipeline with 84 units on 44 sites coming down the line, 18 to which I a dd 6S active OLs. I have got it somewhere.
19 MR. 00SSICK: This may be of help --
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Sixty-eight on 47. Go ahead.
2 1 MR. GPSSICK: In addition to the 96 on 52 sites 22 under construction, in the planned category, there is 29 1 m3 on 16 site s and onl y -- 14 of those are not included in the i 24 previous -- in other words, they are new sites. !
25 You can go through the list here. There are a lot j 9 Y D IP
- 4 o Ju
}D ]D o JU. 2_
h Iru a
4**
t 105 N6,fi0.7 LT 1 of them obviously that are going to be droppdag out f rom what 2 we understand. Twenty-s ix In the order ed end publicly 3 announced category.
4 5
6 7
8-9 10 11 12 13 14 O' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[46..J l .1 106 RLT 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE I have got to make some-kind 2 of by-guess-and-by-God of what will come through out of the
, 3 pi peline . I think my 84 and 44 is probably not bad for the 4 CPL-WA group but maybe some of those in the CP group are 5 in hard places, so they will come through.
6 Let me go up a f ew. I will go up to 90 units on --
7 I - gue ss what will be -- now that gives me a grand total of 8 158 -- how about 92 units on 56? 160. If you end up with 9 160 units, do I know how many sites there are?
10 MR. GOSSICK: Well, according to this, and normally 11 in double-checking f ound an e rror, some thing that doesn't 12 . bother us so f ar, total of , let's see, 46, 43 would be 91 13 and 14, 105.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: For planning purposes, let me 15 take 95 sites. That means you have got 160 people on the 16 reactor sites. Nothing in construction. I don't knew what 17 you do with the construction people.
18 Trade them out or convert them, I guess.
19 MR. STELLO: Convert them.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 30 percent of that is another 21 53 people. You will have some training staff left even if 22 it's only f or a ref urbishing. You will have refurbishing 23 of skills and also make up of attrition.
24 So there will be a training staff of probably, 25 I don't know'what.
s
@46.'11.2 107 LT 1 MR..DONNELLY: Twen ty, 25. Take 25.
2' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Two hundred thirty-eight, call 3 it 240. So if we go in this direction, ultimately, we have
'4 a staff of around 240. In order to go from that point to a
.5 level where you have no site, just a single person, tha t is, 6 minimum NRC on-station commitment of two, you would have to 7 a dd --
8 MR.-STEL10: In '81, you would have to add 32.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thirty-two. Can you tell from 10 the brown book out of the whole array of things how many 11 single-unit sites we have got now?
12- VOICE: Single-unit sites on the whole thing?
' 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
14 VOI CE: I would say we are showing 21 in the 1
15 l i c en sed-to-o pera te , showing ten in the construction-authorizea 16 and showing three in the planned.
17 MR. GOSSICK: Thirty-f our.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don' t know whe ther t ha t's 19 worht Ininking about or not.
20 MR. STELLO: It's a dif f erent kind of a program 21 if we go to a minimum of two.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, if you go to a minimum of 23 two, what it means is tha t you retain some distinction between 24 unit inspectors and si te inspec tors.
25 MR. STELLO: Right.
l l
L-
108 66.fl;3 LT 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You would like them to know a 2 12 ttle about each other's trait .obviously. But there is a 3 seperation in tne curriculum and qualifications and so on.
4 At two-unit sites, of which we have a f air number, 5 you would then have a unit inspector assigned who .would have I 6 to cover both units.. You might get- a li ttle hel p on. that- f rom l 7 the site resident, but primarily you will have to cover-both ;
i 8 units.
9 MR. STELLO: Plus there is. quite a bit of ef ficiency 10 in two-units. Once he's learned it f or one, he's got it for 11 both.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Particularly where there are 13 twin uni ts, .that is the case. You are going to have sites 14 where you have got dif f erent machines. ..
15 MR. STEL10: Not too many.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No. In a place like Bilstein i
17 where you have got 5s and Ps --
16 MR. STELLO: That will be more difficult.
.19 MR. GO SSI CK : Small number, you can adjust for that 20 by making en exce ption to the general rule.
I 21 MR. STELLO : You could. The philosophy with which 22 you could come at it, I think, is di.ferent enough. I think 23- the besic decision you are making here, the philosophy of the ;
i 24 probrem. Jeclaing how you are going to go.
25 Une thing that concerns me most is being able to get i
OC O
.M M1AL
1 h46'."1 1. 4.- 109
- -LT. l some sense of consistency.. And with one position a ssigned to 2 a site. I think you have really got to revamp the whole
(- 3 program to try to strive for that consistency, and I am not 4 sure you .can ever get the re .
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What minimum of two -- .
6 MR. THOMPSON: You are a lot closer. ,
7 MR. STELLO: Thea I don't have that concern. ;
8- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You are pretty good. .
9 MR. STELLO: Right. l 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In fact, I would make it an N 11 minus one rule. Minimum of two. That is, a one-unit site 12 gets two, a two-unit site gets two, three-unit site gets ,
13 three.
14- MR. STELLO: That's not N minus one. I t's N with 15 N, not le ss than two.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good.
17 MR. STELLO: I guess in terms -- add about 32.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That 32, though, is back how
-19 f ar into the cycle?
20 MR. STELLO: '81.
21 MR. BARRY: No. One of the basic questions you have 22 got to answer is if you go pre-op back into construction.
23 MR. STELLO: We would still do that, yes.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We haven't actually talked about 25 the construction.
h l
'46.11.5 110 LT I MR. STEL10 Not all. ,
1 2 MR. BARRY: That was one of the basic questions 3- asked yesterday.
4 MR. STELLO: Some, but not all.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me start a column, I didn't 6 get very f ar on that other unit inspector.
7 Let's see if I do any better here. Start a column 6 which says N, N greater N, or equal to two. For '79, t ha t is, ,
9 for the present situation, I now need 94. Right?
l 10 I have got 68 units active on 47 sites. If N is 11 1 not less N two on the reactor site, it would be two times 12 47. Ninety-four. That is sort of one of the big problems 13 with N.
14 MR. THOMPSON: More than that. Si x ty-e ig ht plu s 15 47.
16 MR. STELLO: No. He's saying N equal two, but --
17 something bigger than 94.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I see.
19 MR. STELLO: You would have to have 98.
- 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ninety-eight. If I advance to 21 '81 --
22 MR. BARRY: One hundred eight.
23 MR. THOMPSON: Plus four. l l
I 24 MR. BARRY: Right.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: One hundred twelve?
211
- 66. fl . 6) l LT 1 'MR. STELLO: No, 108 -
2 MR. DONNbLLY: What year? l 3 MR. THOMPSON: One hundred eight units, pre-op.
4 startup and operating.
5 MR. MOSLEY: That's not the right answer. l 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Seventy operating sites so. there 7 aref140 plus the three-unit and f our-unit stations, which are l 6 like another f our. All right, 140, 150. Le t's s ee. l 9 I have to go back, actually, and subtract people 10 at reactor sites from this. So I subtract 26 from the 98 and 11 get 72. And in '81, I have got 150, but 70 residents already 12 projected.
13 So that would be a total of 80 under this. And what 14 it is in FY '80, someplace in between. And on an asymptotic 15 basis, it looks like it would be about, I don't know, 270.
lo I think we endec up with 32 or 34.
17 MR. STE LLO : One hundred sixty units at 105 sites.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Somebody read me that out, it 19 was about 34. The asymptotic level of the program would be -- i 20 MR. STELLO: Tnat f our multiple-unit sites? l 21 VOI CE : On the outyears? I 1
1 22 MR . STE LLO : We don't have the figure. ;
1 23 VOICE: Wait. If you just want the total numbers.
1
( 24 MR.uGOSSICK: Current pro jec tion. Okey, 25 multiple-unit si te s. ou t of the 105. tr. ore _s one five-uni D**O *D T wo o S.$ ,
, y ..-.,.g ,7... .-
I i
546.'111 7 .112 Three
~
LT 1 site, I guess.Palos Verdes which.isn't going to happen.
2 four-unit sites and 57 two-unit cites.
3 MR. STELLO: Three hundred ' thirty-seven.
(
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How did it get up there?
5 MR. STELLO: One hundred sixty units. I am sorry.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ninety-five - sites, some of those j 7 are three- and f our-unit. ,
-8 MR. STELLO: Three hundred twenty. Not less than 9 two. It would be 334.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I still . don't understand how you 11 get up there, but just wait a minute.
12 Let's s ee. For the one per son-one Uni t, we 13 c.Iculated 240 total. That came about f rom 160 units on 95 14 sites, so you had 160 people, one a ttached to each unit. I 15 put down 53 as a supporting overhead. Added 25 for training 16- and got 240.
17 MR. STELLO: Right.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If we do the N rule --
19 MR. STELLot Two times 160.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, two times 95. I have got 21 160 units, 95 sites. ;
22 MR. STELLO: I am sorry. 1 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So that gets me 190, and now how i.
24 many two -- how many. three-unit and f our-unit, what is the 25 thr ee-uni t --
)
, . - ,-..,r.
- I465'lloS- 113
- l LT '11 MR. STELLO
- Ten three-unit, three f our-unit and one 2 five-unit.
1 g 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: For each of the ten three-units, 4 I get a delta of one. For the three four-units, I get~ delta 5 two. I have 16. Then I get delta three. I have 19. I now 6 have a delta of 19.
7 Everybody agree to that? I am now up to 209. A 6 t hird of tha t i s 70 peo pl e. Is to 79 and a batch of trainers 9 which I am going to k.eep at 25, 304 10 How does that strike you?
Okay, wi th a 30 percent 11 overheao, 25 trainers, I now come out with an in toto of 12 240 one way and 304 the other way. ;
13 Now, the . authorized slots that I have got f or the 14 program at the moment are, I bon't know --
15 MR. STELLO: Do you mean within the --
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, in the agency. I have 17 got something of the order of 53 or 54 authorized slots at 16 the moment.
lY MR. STELLO: Fiscal year >79?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. Pre '80, right, as we sit 21 right now. You have got in the -- you had about 53 diff erent 22 slots previously authorized by the Congress and everybody 23 for residents. You converted about an additional 20 out of 24 regional inspectors to get you up to, or will. Let's s ee .
25 Yes, to get you up to the total of about 74 f olks in this l
-,,~'
46/11.9' 114~
LT l- program n'ow. Not counting trainers and support.
2- MR.-DONNELLY: You mean by in the program, in the
_g 3- pipeline and out there? Yes.
41 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Actually. 53 slo ts. It may be 5 6C. All I am groping 'against is to s ee, let's see.
i o What was the '79 increment? There was a 79 add-on 7 f or resident inspectors. And it was? I 8 MR. GOSSI CK: Sixty-one total.
9 MR. DONNELLY : Fiscal '78.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: '78 supplement. If I subtract !
11 that from en eventual total under the one unit-one pe rson 12 system of 240 I need 180 more slots. l 13 MR. DONNELLY: Let me suggest that you don't do I 14 t ha t , because the numbers that 61 included people for the 15 performance appraisal effort. It was the revised inspection 16 program, training, performance appraisal.
17 CHAIRMAN HE!IDRIE: What do I back down to, 53? l 1
18 MR. DONNELLY: ' would use about 45 as the number l 19 associated with the -- l 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I will compromise with you on 21 50.
22 MR. DONNELLY: Okay.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That means I need 190 on a
/- 24 one unit-one person basis. I need about 254 on the N not less 25 t han -- two .
D**D T Y D fd
.A . . J) A
v
's
- )46d 6.10 115 LT 1 Well, one way, on one basis, we are three-quarters t-
- -2 of the way home with- the action already underway in Congress.
3 60 percent-of it. Okay. Let us quit. For whatever it's 4 worth, there is my work sheet. I don't know where it leads 5 me.
-6 MR. STELLO: Do you want us back at two?
3: 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:- Yes.
8 (Whereupon, at 1 :12 p.m. , the meeting was 9 -concluded.)
I l f-1 7:i 12 13 14 15 is .
17 le 1 Iv 20 21 22 l 23
/ 24 3 3
25
(
4, i