ML20154H787
| ML20154H787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154H790 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-2387, NUDOCS 8603100374 | |
| Download: ML20154H787 (19) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a o,
/7 cts-J7387 g
i PDR OSOS%
C gJ j
fj DATE ISSUED:
2/6/86 J J i Law I i
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON THE SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM JANUARY 8, 1986 WASHINGTON, DC INTRODUCTION The ACRS Subcomnittee on the Safety Research Program held a meeting on Wednesday, January 8, 1986 at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, to discuss the proposed NRC Safety Research Program and Budget for FY 1987 and gather information for use by the ACRS in its preparation of the annual report to the Congress on the related matter.
The entire meeting was closed to public attendance as requested by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES). Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the cognizant ACRS Staff engineer for the meeting. A tentative presentation schedule for the meeting is included in Attachment A.
A list of documents submitted to the Subcommittee is included in Attachment B.
ATTENDEES ACRS:
C. P. Siess (Subcommittee Chairman), M. W. Carbon, J. C. Mark, C. Michelson, D. W. Moeller, F. J. Remick, D. A. Ward, and P. G. Shewmon (Part Time).
S. Duraiswamy (Cognizant ACRS Staff).
Principal NRC Speakers:
R. Minogue, G. Marcus, M. Hayes, G. Arlotto, F. Gillespie, O. Bassett, K. Goller, M. Ernst, J. Richardson, G. Burdick, J. Funches, K. Kniel, and M. Bell.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Dr. Siess, the Subcomnittee Chainnan, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following:
- Proposed NRC Safety Research Program and Budget for FY 1987.
9603100374 060206 PDR ACHS Cc,m H-23B7 PDn
'N
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986
- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mark on the FY 1987 NRC Safety Research Program.
- Impact of.the OMB-proposed. reduction on the continuing and proposed research contracts.
- A draft of the ACRS report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program and Budget for FY 1987 Dr. Siess said that in a memorandum to Mr. Fraley, dated November 14 1985 (Attachment C), RES Staff requested that the subject meeting be closed to public attendance, f.tating that premature disclosure of the possible curtailment or elimination of any contract (resulting from the OMB-proposed reduction) could result in the inability to retain key personnel and thereby frustrate the Connission's ability to implement the affected programs effectively. Accordingly, the entire meeting is closed to the public.
RES PRESENTATION Introductory Remarks (Dr. R. Minogue)
Dr. Minogue said that, based on the OM3 mark, a total funding of $98.5 million has been proposed for the FY 1987 NRC Safety Research Program.
This total budget as well as its distribution to individual Decision Units has not yet been approved by the Commission. Also, RES has not received any feedback from the user offices on the proposed research programs and the associated budget. There is a possibility that the total budget and/or its distribution to various Decision Units might change based on comments from research user offices and/or the Connis-sion. He said that any feedback from the ACRS at this time on the adequacy of the proposed research program and budget would be very helpful to RES in finalizing the formulation of the FY 1987 research program.
'o o,
1 Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 Dr. Minogue stated that a $250,000 grant has been issued to the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to establish a Comittee on Nuclear Safety Research to study the future NRC Safety Research program. This study, that is expected to be completed in a year or so, will look at issues such as the following:
- Is there a need for more research, and in which areas?
- If there is a need for more research, who should do it, industry or NRC?
Or. Minogue and Mr. Gillespie said that in addition to the above grant, another grant worth $175,000 has been issued to the National Research Council to study the research needs in the human factors area.
Dr. Minogue mentioned that, as a result of the significant budget re-ductions proposed by the OMB, RES is facing a major reorganization in the near future that might involve some involuntary termination of a number of RES Staff. One way of accomodsting the manpower-reduction issue, in part, is to terminate all research related to the development of radiation protection standards, and rely on the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) Standards in this area.
With regard to Technical Integration Centers, Dr. Minogue said that the continuing decrease in funding for the NRC Safety Research Program has made it apparent that there is a need to consolidate the research being performed in various national laboratories into fewer laboratories.
Such action would result in better management of the work done by the national laboratories and also would minimize the number of reports being put out by various laboratories.
He said that Mr. Dircks, the then EDO, set up an interoffice group to look at candidate areas for Technical Integration Centers and also to
o, i
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 focus on some of the problems associated with the operation of such centers.
Dr. Marcus said that the interoffice group has identified four candidate areas to be used as Technical Integration Centers and is in the process of developing program plans in the areas of Thermal Hydrau-lies, Aging, Power Plant Maintenance, and Decomissioning.
These plans are expected to be completed by the end of January 1986.
She said that, although Decomissioning is proposed by one of the offices, they have not decided whether this needs to be included in one of the centers.
Dr. Siess asked whether the establishment of Technical Integration Centers would eliminate the work being done by some universities for the NRC. Dr. Minogue responded that there is no assumption that all work should be done only at national laboratories. He does not believe that it would preclude the work being performed at universities.
Dr. Remick comented that NRC and other Federal agencies should utilize the universities as much as possible to perform certain work. By doing so, they not only get some high quality work but also help some students to gain knowledge about the issues associated with the nuclear field.
Mr. Ward asked whether the Technical Integration Centers are expected to prepare reports that include the assessment of the research results for use by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) in making regu-latory decisions.
Dr. Minogue responded that he expects the contractors to play a larger role than before in putting together such reports.
However, it is not evident how much role they will play in deciding how the results will be applied in the regulatory decisionmaking process.
Mr. Ward comented that although the personnel in the national labo-ratories are good scientists, he does not believe that they have the expertise in deciding about regulatory applications of the research results. He believes that the RES Staff should assess the research r
- -.. _.. - ~ -,. - -.. - - - - - -. - -... _ -,, _.. - -
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 results and put together a report that could be used by NRR in making regulatory decisions.
Dr. Siess commented that some one in the NRC, either RES or NRR, should decide when a particular research work is completed.
It should not be the scientists who should make such decisions.
Dr. Siess said that the pros and cons of the Technical Integration Center issue should be explored in detail by a Subcommittee and also by the full Committee. After completion of such review, the ACRS should provide its comments to the Commission on this matter. He suggested that the RES Staff provide a copy to the ACRS of the program plan tnat is expected to be completed by January 30, 1986.
Summary of the Impacts of the OMB-Proposed Reduction - Dr. G. Marcus Dr. Marcus said that based on the OMB final mark, a total funding of
$98.5 million has been proposed for the FY 1987 NRC Safety Research Program. The allocation of this funding to various Decision Units are as follows. The allocations to individual Subelements are included in Attachment D, Page 1:
Proposed Budget Decision Units (DollarsinMillions) 1.
Reactor Engineering
$ 40.1 2.
Thermal-Hydraulic Transients 16.4 3.
Accident Evaluation 19.0 4
Reactor Oparations and Risk 11.8 5.
Waste Management, Earth Sciences 11.2 and Health Total
$ 98.5
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 i
Dr. Marcus said that the current total is $28.1 million less than that requested by the Commission to the CMB in September 1985. The following j
criteria were used to determine which programs should be terminated and/or deferred to accommodate this reduction:
'I
- Programs nearing completion should not be terminated prematurely.
- Accident prevention research should have higher priority than accident mitigation research.
1
- Where there already exists an acceptable (conservative) regulatory recipe, research to produce more liberal, realistic regulatory base should have lower priority.
- Research associated with complex international agreements, espe-cially those producing leverage on previous investment, should not be cut.
- Whole programs should be cut, and not just a little here and little I
there.
The overall impacts on research resulting from the OMB-proposed re-ductions are included in Attachment D, Pages 2 and 3.
Mr. Michelson asked whether there is any research focused on future plants. Dr. Marcus responded that there is no research planned on I
future reactors.
i l
l i
i l
~
'=
o Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 IMPACT OF THE OMB-PROPOSED REDUCTION ON RESEARCH PLANNED IN INDIVIDUAL DECISION UNITS Decision Unit 1: Reactor Engineering - Mr. G. Arlotto Mr. Arlotto discussed the proposed reduction for this Decision Unit and its impact.
l
- Commission request to OMB
$44.6 million
- Allocation based on OMB final mark
$40.1 million i
Reduction
$ 4.5 million l
The proposed reduction of $4.5 million will be accommodated by tenninat-ing and/or reducing the research in the following areas:
- Reactor Vessel Program
- Terminate Reactor Vessel Integration
- $ 0.5 million
- Terminate Additional Requirements for Materials
- 1 0.2 million
- Reduce Structural Integrity of Water Reactor Pressure Boundary Components
- $ 0.5 million
- Electrical Equipment Qualification Program The following research will be terminated:
I
- Qualification Testing Evaluation
- $ 1.6 million
- Electrical Penetration Assemblies
- $ 0.1 million
- Equipment Survival in Hydrogen Burns
- $ 0.2 million
- Performance of Electrical Equipment
- $ 0.7 million
- Fire Protection
- $ 0.7 million
l i
[
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986
+
Mr. Arlotto discussed briefly the impacts resulting from the termination oftheresearchmentionedabove(AttachmentD.Pages4-6).
j i
Dr. Siess asked, if the ACRS recomends termination of the program on Seismic Margins, what would be the reaction of the RES Staff. Mr.
Arlotto responded that the Seismic Margins.research program was estab-lished as a result of the ACRS recommendations on several previous occasions.
If the ACRS ' recommends termination of that program, he might f
give it consideration. At a later part of the meeting, Mr. Richardson said that even if the ACRS recommends that the Seismic Margins program be terminated, it is less likely that RES would do so, because of its relation to issues raised by the Charleston earthquake and by the Severe l
i Accident Evaluation to include seismic events.
j I
Mr. Michelson commented that operating experience seems to indicate that
[
there are still several problems associated with the performance of
(
I certain safety-related electrical equipment under accident conditions.
Experience also shows that there are several things that need to be understood regarding the propagation of fire and the effects of fire and fire-fighting measures on safety-related electrical equipment.
Inspite i
of these indications, he does not understand the bases for the termina-i tion of the research on Electrical Equipment Qualification,
- Further,
'f research programs planned previously in this area were directed at J
prevention of accidents rather than mitigation.
He does not understand i
the philosophy behind the decision of the RES Staff to spend about i
$8 million to study the effects of earthquakes beyond the design basis, l
l and not to spend any money on the qualification of electrical equipment, i
which he thinks is more important for the prevention of accidents in i
operating plants. Mr. Arlotto responded that he agrees that research on
[
Electrical Equipment Qualification is important.
The decision to terminate research in this area was made by the RES management. One member of the Staff stated that he believes that the main reason for the termination of the research in this areas was lack of strong user-office i
endorsement.
l I
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 Decision Unit 2: Thermal-Hydraulic Transients - Mr. F. Gillespie Mr. Gillespie discussed the proposed reduction for this Decision Unit and its impact on the planned research.
- Commission request to OMB
$23.4 million
- Allocation based on OMB final mark
$16.4 million Reduction
$ 7.0 million The proposed reduction will be accommodated as shown below (Attachment D, Pages 7 and 8).
- Terminate follow-on program requested by NRR at the Multi-loop Integral System Test (MIST) facility
- $ 2.9 million
- End all U.S. thermal-hydraulic integral testing
- $ 2.0 million 4
- Terminate Nuclear Plant Analyzer development
- $ 1.4 million
- Eliminate University programs on water hammer, visual loops and analysis centers
- $ 0.7 million Mr. Ward asked about the purpose of the remaining $2.5 million budget for the Integral Testing Program. Mr. Gillespie responded that it is 4
intended to keep the Semiscale test facility in a standby status.
Mr. Ward commented that the thermal-hydraulic behavior of the B&W reactor design is not as well understood as the other pressurized water reactor designs, and adequate tools do not exist at this time to analyze the complex behavior of the B&W reactor systems.
He believes strongly
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 that the MIST follow-on program is essential to develop necessary information to raise the level of understanding of the unique features of the B&W design.
r Indicating that the Staff seems to believe that without additional data from the MIST follow-on program their capability to analyze some of the transients at B&W plants will be limited, Dr. Stess asked whether this i
means that absent additional information from the MIST follow-on program they do not have enough confidence in the continued safe operation of the B&W plants.
Dr. Minogue responded that if there is a real need for j
some sort of a follow-on program at MIST and there is no money for it, one way is to put some licensing pressure on the industry to provide the necessary information. He said that a decision on this issue has not yet been made.
Dr. Siess commented that this is an important issue.
If the Staff I
believes strongly that, without additional information from the MIST I
follow-on program, they will not be able to assure the continued safe operation of B&W plants, then they should shut down those plants and let the industry come in with the necessary information.
Dr. Siess asked, what is the level of funding needed to support a MIST follow-on program.
Dr. Minogue responded that about $9 million would be required for that program.
Dr. Siess asked, if the overall research funding is reduced further, could the budget for the Thermal-Hydraulic Transients Decision Unit be reduced by 10% to accommodate part of such reduction. Mr. Gillespie responded that any further reduction in this Decision Unit would cripple the program severely. He does not believe that they could have a meaningful program if the funding is reduced further.
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 Decision Unit 3: Accident Evaluation - Mr. F. Gillespie Mr. Gillespie discussed the proposed reduction for this Decision Unit and its impacts (Attachment D, Pages 9 and 10).
- Commission request to OMB
$25.4 million
- Allocation based on OMB final mark
$19.0 nillion Reduction
$ 6.4 million The $6.4 million reduction will be accommodated by terminating research in the following areas:
- Fission Product Release experiments at the Annular Core Research Reactor (ACRR).
- Severe Accident Sequence Analysis (SASA) program at the Sandia National Laboratory.
- Out-of-pile containment core melt aerosol release, and transport experiments at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
5
- Separate effects experiments to determine the oxidation kinetics of
]
molten-fuel and structural materials at the Pacific Northwest l
Laboratory (PNL).
i Dr. Mark asked about the level of funding proposed for tests in ACRR and NRU. The Staff responded that a total funding of $3.7 million is proposed for this purpose.
I Dr. Siess asked whether the funding for this Decision Unit could be reduced if there were further reductions in the total research budget.
Mr. Gillespie responded that several codes in the severe accident area need to be validated.
If the funding is reduced further, they will not be able to perform the necessary tests intended to provide information for use in the validation of these codes.
4 l
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 Stating that most of the efforts in the Fission Product Source Term area are intended toward mitigation of accidents, Mr. Michelson commented that he does not understand the rationale behind the RES decision to place so much emphasis on mitigation research.
In view of the limited budget, he believes that more emphasis should be placed on accident prevention research. Dr. Minogue responded that although they have gathered a lot of information in this area, he believes that there are large uncertainties that still exist. He does not believe that the 1
Commission is re'dy to make a decision on this issue in face of these large uncertainties.
Dr. Siess commented that it would be very difficult to get rid of all unanswered questions. One has to first look at how the results of the source term research are going to be used in making decisions in the licensing process, and then decide which unanswered questions need to be answered and which ones don't.
He realizes that some data on the containment loading and containment performance need to be gathered.
Once that is done, the research efforts should be directed toward the prevention of core-melt accidents. He believes that this sort of approach is being used in Europe. He wondered why such an approach is not used in this country.
Decision Unit 4:
Reactor Operations and Risk - Mr. M. Ernst Mr. Ernst discussed the proposed reduction for this Decision Unit resulting from the OMB final mark and its impacts (Attachment D, Pages 11-14).
- Commission request to OMB
$15.6 million f
- Allocation based on OMB final mark
$11.8 million
/
Reduction
$ 3.8 million I
--.-n
-. ~. _ -, - -.. - -
_.. ~. - - -
l l
l l
l Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 l
I The proposed reduction of $3.8 million will be accomplished by:
l
- Reducing the activities related to the Probabilistic Risk Assess-ment (PRA) Application, and Regulatory Analysis.
l
- Terminating the efforts on Accident Consequence Codes.
l Dr. Mark commented that, even though the Accident Sequence program has been transferred to the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00), RES should discuss with AE00 whether there is any need for continuing the agreement with the U.K. in this area prior to cancelling it.
{
Mr. Ernst discussed briefly RES responses to some of the previous ACRS recommendations and to some user-office coments (Attachment D, Pages 15-18),
t l
Decision Unit 5: Waste Management, Earth Sciences, and Health -
Mr. K. Goller Mr. Goller discussed the proposed reduction for this Decision Unit and its impacts (Attachment D Pages 19-30).
l
- Commission request to OMB
$17.6 million l
- Allocation based on OMB final mark
$11.2 million l
Reduction
$ 6.4 million The proposed $6.4 million reduction will be accomplished as shown below:
' Terminate the agreement for transfer of the responsibility to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the operation of Seismic network in the Eastern U.S.
- $ 1.0 million i
1 Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986
' Terminate research on Radiation Protection and Health Effects
- $ 1.6 million
/
' Terminate High-Level Waste (HLW) research in basalt, and reduce research on Radionuclide Transport and Waste Package Performance
- $ 3.8 million Stating that the disposal of HLW is a major safety concern as compared to the disposal of the Low-Level Waste (LLW), Dr. Siess asked why the funding for the HLW research is held at FY 1986 level but that for LLW research is almost doubled.
Dr. Carbon raised a similar question. Mr.
Goller responded that the FY 1986 funding for the LLW research is significantly less than what is actually needed. He does not believe
^
that they will be able to continue at that level in FY 1987.
In the HLW area both NRC and the Department of Energy (00E) are doing research.
However, in the LLW area, NRC is the only one doing research.
- Further, the LLV problem is more immediate than the HLW problem. The LLW Policy Act, as amended in 1985, requires that within two years the NRC should provide technical guidance to the States to come up with alternate LLW
~
disposal methods.
If the LLW research is funded at FY 1986 level, he does not believe they will be able to provide adequate and timely guidance to the States.
Dr. Siess asked how much money DOE plans to spend on HLW research.
Dr. Bell responded that the DOE HLW research funding is about $300 million which includes funding for site-specific investigations, inter-actions with States and tribes, and preparation of environmental assess-ments.
NRR COMMENTS - MR. K. KNIEL Mr. Kniel discussed briefly the preliminary NRR comments on the RES-proposed research and budget for FY 1987 (Attachment D, pages 31-35).
He said that NRR has not yet discussed its comments with RES and it
F Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 plans to do so in the very near future. Some of the areas where HRR differs from RES are as follows:
- NRR does not support the Integral Thernal-Hydraulic Test Facility.
It believes strongly that the follow-on MIST program should be funded.
- Nuclear Plant Analyzer program should be funded.
- Mechanical Equipment Qualification program should not be funded.
- Steam Generator examination work at PNL should not be funded.
- Support for the 2D/30 and ROSA-IV efforts should be reduced.
Mr. Michelson wondered why NRR does not support research on the Mechan-ical Equipment Qualification inspite of the problems experienced in this -
area.
Dr. Siess asked who decides to terminate a program that was established in response to an user-office need. Mr. Kniel responded that, normally, the user office will perform an analysis of the need for that program and decide whether it should be terminated to support some other more important program.
Mr. Funches discussed briefly the. Technical Assistance Program activ-ities and the associated funding in NRR (Attachment D, pages 36-42).
i 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) COMMENTS -
DR. M. BELL l
Dr. Bell stated that NMSS agrees with the RES-proposed research and l
budget for FY 1987 in the waste management area. He discussed briefly
Safety Research Meeting Minutes January 8, 1986 the Technical Assistance Program activities and the associated funding in NMSS (Attachment D, Pages 43 and 44).
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT 0 0F THE ACRS REPORT TO CONGRESS Dr. Siess reminded the Subcommittee members that the forthcoming ACRS report to the Congress will not be in the form of a NUREG, but instead will be in letter form similar to the June 1985 ACRS report to the.
Ccmmission. He is not sure about the e'xtent to which the ACRS should address the budget in the report; this issue needs to be discussed further at the full Committee meeting. He believes strongly that the ACRS should write periodic research letters, commenting on a specific research program, rather than writing reports on the overall research program twice a year.
The Subcommittee discussed Draft 0 of the report to the Congress and provided several comments. Dr. Siess suggested that cognizant Subcom-mittee Chairmen prepare Draft 1 incorporating the recommendations of the Subcommittee. He said Draft I will be submitted to the full Committee for discussion during the January 9-11, 1986 ACRS meeting.
Dr. Siess thanked all participants and adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
12/5/86
-TENTATIVE PRESENTATION SCHEDULE -
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON THE SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM JANUARY 8, 1986 ROOM 1046, 1717 H STREET WASHINGTON, DC ACRS CONTACT: Sam Duraiswamy (634-3267)
NOTE:
Presentation Time should not exceed 50% of the total time allotted for a specific item. The remaining 50% of the time is reserved for the Subcommittee questions and_ answers.
TOTAL PRESENTATION ACTUAL ITEM PRESENTER TIME TIME I.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 15 min 8:30 - 8:45am II.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Robert Minogue 15 min 8:45 - 9:00am BY RES y
c.
Technical Integra-f 15 min 9:00 - 9:15am tion Centers III. RES PRESENTATION the~
10 min 9:15 - 9:25am Summary of,s jg.
,,,,, g a.
Commission Budget Request to the OMB and the OMB Mark b.
Reactor Guy Arlotto 30 min 9:25 - 9:55am Engineering
- BREAK ***
15 min 9:55 - 10:10am 3 ; lha :l d.
c.
Thermal Hydraulic Sam Sassett 30 min 10:10 - 10:40am Transients d.
Accident Evaluation San-Bassett 30 min 10:40 - 11:10am e.
Reactor Operations Frank-Gillespie 30 min 11:10 - 11:40am and Risk P4 Li f ':J e f.
Waste Management, Karl Goller 30 min 11:40 - 12:10pm Earth Sciences and Health ATTACHMENT A
/?
i
I Safety Research Program January 8, 1986
-TENTATIVE PRESENTATION SCHEDULE -
TOTAL PRESENTATION ACTUAL ITEM PRESENTER TIME TIME IV. NRR PRESENTATION Zoltan Rosztoczy 20 min
~12:10 - 12:30pm a.
Areas Where NRR Differs with RES b.
Technical Assistance Program Activities r.
in NRR V.
NHSS PRESENTATION
,s., c.,.,,,
15 min 12:30 - 12:45pm a.
Areas Where NMSS Differs with RES b.
Technical Assistance i
Program in NMSS.
- LUNCH ***
60 min 12:45 - 1:45pm VI. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT 0 0F 225 min 1:45 - 5:30pm THE ACRS REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
- ADJ0 URN ***
5:30pm
/) ~ L
LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE DURING THE JANUARY 8, 1986 MEETING 1.
Memorandum from C. P. Siass to ACRS members related to guidance for the preparation of the ACRS report to the Congress, dated November 7, 1985, along with Table 1 - Assignment of Responsibilities for the preparation of the ACRS report to the Congress - dated November 7, 1985.
2.
Portion of the " BLUE BOOK" dealing with the Commission's Budget request to the OMB for the FY 1987 NRC Safety Research Program.
3.
Program Support Budget Estimates, (FIN level budget information),
dated November 4, 1985.
4.
ACRS report to the Commission transmitting comments on the NRC Safety Research Program and budget for FY 1987, dated June 11, 1985.
5.
RES responses to ACRS recommendations contained in NUREG-1105 (ACRS report to Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program Budget for FY 1986 and 1987), dated May 3, 1985.
.6.
RES responses to the ACRS recommendations to the Commission (con-tained in the June 11, 1985 ACRS report) on the FY 1987 NRC Safety Research Program and Budget, dated July 19, 1985.
7.
Memorandum from W. J. Dircks to Chairman Palladino, " Revised FY 1986 Budget Estimates," dated November 5, 1985.
8.
FY 1986 Impacts, dated November 1985 (From RES Staff).
9.
Presentation Materials provided by the Staff during the meeting.
ATTACHMENT B
. _ _