ML22230A079
| ML22230A079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/08/1977 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M771208 | |
| Download: ML22230A079 (47) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER Of:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION & APPROVAL OF FY 1978 DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACTUAL PROJECTS Place - Washington, D. C.
Date - Thursday, 8 December 1977 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Pages 1 -
45 Telephone:
(202 ) 347-3700
CR 5796
-FB.m NR 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federcl Reporters, Inc.
25
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION & APPROVAL OF FY 1978 1
DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACTUAL PROJECTS Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, 8 December 1977
_The meeting was convened at 4: 00 p.m., pursuant to notice, Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
BEFORE:
JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner VICTOR GILINSKY,. Commissioner RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner
CR5796
.1 nk 2
cmwl 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Feoeral Reporters, Inc.
25 2
P-'-R O C E E D I N G S CHAIR.MAN HENDRIE:
If v;e can move on, the next subject is discussion and approval by the Commission of the application of the FY 1978 domestic safeguards technical a~sistance and research cohtractual projects.
This is a duty which has been assigned to the Committee by the authorization bill.
I don't have a copy ready at hand.
Is there a vote?
MR. GOSSICK:
There is, Mr. Chairman.
It requires the Commission publish a statement stating the need for the contracts for *py 1978 needs.
Prior to the use of 1978 funds for such contracts.
I might begin by saying some of the work is already under contract.
Some of it has been under contract in prior years for that matter and t~ere's a continuation of some of these projects that are involved here.
Withe beginning of the Fiscal Year, of course, people were ready to move out on ciertain of the projects.
So some of the funds are really already on contract.
We have withheld puttirig any more on contract, since the conference report -- rather the bill that has been passed and is now ready for the President's signature.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you say "under contract,"
3 cmw2 that-,means it is spent.* --
2 MR. GOSSICK:
Obligated.
The work is not 3
necessarily done or :. costed yet, but it's under *way and already 4
authorized to be done by a national laboratory by a contractor.
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What fraction is that?
MR. GOSSICK:
We don't have it.
It's an appreciable amount.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
50 perce~t, 90 percent?
MR. GOSSICK:
I would say closer to 50 percent.
MR. PAGE:
Maybe we have Research address theirs.
MR. LEVINE:
Billion anq half.that's obligated.
MR. GOSSICK:
We had the lawyers and the Comptroller in consultation with the GAO.address the question of whether or not, assuming the Pr~sident signed the bill last week or today, *whether we should do anything about ongoing work.
The answer that we have been given and have furnished the Staff i~ that no, that under circumstances like this it would be unreasonable to terminate or to put into suspension ongoing work that's already been authorized, since the law had not been passed and there:was no reasonable way of expecting that we might be called upon to do that babk beginning at the first of the Fiscal Year.
It was a possibility, but we didn't know whether it would be law or not.
In any event, the lawyers issued a piece of paper
cmw3
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 to our program directors that has told them, one, don't put anything more on contract.
4 But as far as the ongoing work, it's all right to let it continue.
Now, I have a memo that OPE furnished the Commissioners that raises certain questions about what does consolidation mean, how is this material coordinated and so forth.
I would like to address it before we get into the details of considering the various projects~-
We sent down to you a total of, I think it was 58 projects, totaling about $15 million face value and because we are not completely together in the Staff on some of the projects, we have held back about eight projects and I think the total face value of those anticipated value is about $1.3 million.
We will come back to you with those after they are resolved or if it's decided not to do them, we will certainly inform you of those.
I would say that when we get to the project-by-projec treatment here on the spread sheet that Sam's people have put together, that Ed Holloman asked us not to discuss the dollar value iman open meeting because of the implications from, you know, the contractor selection, the competitive* 0 24
~ce-Fe eporters, Inc.
aspect, and, you know, going out for bid on the precise dollar 25
cmw4
- II 1-e 2
3 5
amounts we have shown here <?-gainst the individual projects.
If you would like for--:Ed to expand on why that causes a problem,*I would be happy to let him do so.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When we ask for a proposal 5
we don't indicate the amount of money.
6 We are asking for bids to do it, to carry out a 7
specific job.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. GOSSICK:
To indicate what we have _in the budget for it sort of tips our hand as tq what is available.
According to Mr. Holloman, this presents a problem from the contractual viewpoint.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That lead me to ask, I wonder if the legal regu:irementsiwith regard to those projected dollar amounts that point over here, the Sunshine Act here and the authorizati0n bill manda:be.*to the Commission here, form a three-legged stool which can't be done.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can we legally withhold these numbers?
MR. GOSSICK:
Ed, are_ the dollar amounts withholdable under the F::r;:-eedom of Information request?
MR. MAYNARD:
These.dollar amounts would be withholdable under the Freedom of Information Act, yes.
24 Ace-Fe eporters, Inc.
The money that has been set out in the reports to Congress are in more lump sum.
Not. in the detail provided here..
I 25 I
I I
crows
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
2511 As far as regarding the Sunshine Act, I should defer to the Office of General Counsel.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are mandated to try to 6
do these enterprises in public session, unless there is some clear and pressing reason under one of.-:tlhe Sunshine Act exemptions.
So public discussion, I read the authorization bill ~today that we are supposed to look down rather more in detail than simply the overall safeguards research money, for instance, in the Office of R~search, Technical Assistance and Safeguards,m,other offices and so on, as I read the language, they go considerably beyond that.
They speak of contracts.
Is that compatible with being able to do these things?
MR. GOSSICK:
I guess all I would suggest, if there is a question, is that too much to put on this kind of effort, that we have to find some way of addressing it either in a closed session or some other way.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or in a somewhat more* summary fashion.
Consolidating groups of-individual contracts that are in a particular area, perhaps.
Well, it is a point-for talk later on~
For toqay, let's observe your suggestion and stay
cmw6
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7
away from mentioning the dollar amount on specific contracts.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you planning on running through these?
MR. GOSSICK:
Those the Commissioners have indicated through the secretary that they would like to have discussion of or have some question~ on, or in some cases the OPE memo
- has apparently been the motivation for showing some of them here as to possibly being a matter of interest.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How does thei.':.total break down between fuel cycle facilities and reactors?
MR. SMITH:
Of the projects that you have, the 58 which total $13 million, I can only give you the figures roughly that I have for the various offices.
Would you li~e that?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The total, I would say the total on the reactors.
Perhaps th~y're an overlap.
MR. SMITH:
I* don't have the figure at hand.
I have NSS figure and_NRR and we have to look at research and standard and*break that out as to whether it was 20 --------------
21 22 23 24 Ace-Fe.eporters, Inc.
25 in support of reactors or in support-of fuel.
MR. CASE:
A million five for reactors.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Out *of the $13 million.
MR. GOSSICK:
Including the research Sol is doing on our behalf.
cmw7 *
~=*
2 3
8 MR. CASE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So we are taLking about
$11.5 million directed toward fuel cycle faeilities, trans-4 II porta tion 5
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is there any breakdown 6
11 indicating how much of that is for transportation, trans-7 11 porta tion-rela ted activities?
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. PAGE:
We did not break them down by category.
Some of the projects benefit both transportation and fixed sites, so th~y serve multiple purposes here.
MR. SMITH:
We can certainly put that together.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It would seem to me it would be more useful to know the purposes for which we are
-~---*
researching *the categories, rather than the office who is sponsoring it.
It's interesting from a management point of view, but from a deci~ional_point of view whether it's useful to the dollars in that kind of work --
MR. PAGE:
The projec~s we send foward identify whether it's used for material coritrol accounting or fixed sites or contingency planning.
24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
MR. BARRY:
We can get you a general figure how much applies to the different areas, but there's a lot of it that applies to a lot of it, particularly study money, that crosses the board.
25
cmw8
- I_*
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:*: What somebody is telling 2
me, it's about-a million:and a half for reactors is the 3
4 5
best guess and 11 and a half for fuel cycle.
Now, could I ask, about 11 and a half, how much of that is fiscal protection and how much is directed toward 6
material accountability?
7 8
9 10 l l 12 13 14 These seem to be the interesting categories.
I don't know what we can do about going through little individual resea~ch pieces.
MR. BARRY:
We can give you research pieces if you want them now.
MR. ARSENAULT:
Of the:-.$7. 5 million approximately
$2 million is fuel cycle.
A half million for transportation.
15
$1 million would be forG reactor protection only, 16 and approximately $4 million would apply to physical protection 17 for the entire fuel cycle, including reactors.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That sounds like different 19 numbers than Ed gave out.
20 MR. GOSSICK:
Ed did not take into account work 21 done. in NSS: that would apply to reactors,*as well as fuel 22 cycle.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
He shook his head that he was 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
but it would be useful to have the numbers at the same time.
MR. SMITH:
We can put them together in any crosscut 25
10 cmw9 you wish.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Reactors, fuel protection, 3
material accountability.
. e 1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Fe Reporters, Inc:.
25 Transportation.
MR. SMITH:
I have the breakout for our office.
llllrc
CR5796
.bwl 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Can I ask a generic question about the whole package. To what exterthas the entire package, every project been scrubbed against all o:t:her projects to assure the.re isn't any redundancy.
MR. GOSSICK:
That was a point in the OPE memo that asked one, what does consolidation mean and how does
-the coordination process work?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I haven't read that memo.
I don't know whether I have it.
MR. GOSSICK:
At least a year ago, I don't recall exactly when it was, I guess it was* in connection with the '7 8 budget review, out of that we set up a procedure whereby all safeguards projects, research or technical assistance work, was to be reviewed by NSS, taking a lead with an 15
.' across-the-board task graup, if you will, primarily from the 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 standpoint of, are th~re overlaps, is there duplication, or if there is duplication,* is it necessary duplication? That has been in effect over this past year, and there is a coordination process, where, when something is put on contract or put out one, a 189, to ERDA, that it is sent out for coordination and looked at by the other offices.
Now, more recently, I have established, what do we call it, the STAR group.-.
MR. SMITH:
The STAR group, Safeguards Technical Assistance and Research Coordinating Group.
~t*s been called
bw2 I __ _
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 12 that since December of '76. From* December of '76 up until your recent memorandum, I think it is fair to say that we were looking at it from the standpoint of duplication, but only in a limited way.
That is looking. at the statement of work. Not statement of work. The scope of the proposed project. It was not an in-depth technical analysis of it, to address the question, it is needed, how does it do this and do that.
That was what was going on up until recently.
MR. GOSSICK.:
I guess a month or six weeks ago, August, I signed-.out a piece of paper which puts NMSS as the overall chairman.; of this task group, whe:reunot just duplica-tion or overlap is looked at, but whether the project makes sense in their view.
If there is a problem within the Staff as to agreeing whether this :should or should not be done, to get it elevated up, let me look *at it, if necessary, bring it to the Commission for resolution.
That is working now. -Will be working in the course of.putting together next year's budget.
So, anyway, that is where we are on the coordination situation.
These projects - that ~ere sent down to you, as I indicated, were pulled together by, NMSS working with other of fices.
bw3
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 NMSS has reviewed in every case their technical research projects and all research projects that relate to the fuel cycle area. NRR -~ and also with regard to the standards work that related to your area.
NRR has also done this with respect to the work relating to the reactor.and looked also at the I&E work.
13 MR. SMITH:
We looked at I &E with respect to other interplay with our program.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In answer to my question, there is no redundancy?
MR. GQSSICK:
If there is, it is agreed that it is a necessary redundancy, or warranted, but that is specifically 13 what has been looked at by this coordination process.
Yes, sir.
14 So, what we have done the, in sending these projects down, we l5 have listed them first of.all, starting off with the research 16 projects and then the technical assistance projects by office.
- 17 In each case, we have indicated.a user need who 18 19 20 21 22 23 stands behind given projects, starting in the research area.
As I had understood it, the sheet that was put out, was based on.inputs from your offices as to specific projects you wished to discuss, and we are available and have all the people here, that I think can take them on project by project.
24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
I am sorry we don't have this cross-cut of how this all breaks out into the categories we have discussed a moment ago, but we will certainly get that down to you as soon as 25
bw4
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 possible.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, the one sequence in this event, train of events which may not have worked as well as one would have hopped is for the Commissioners to fully develop their exception lists, :and so on.
14 I see people with paper clips in their papers.
I wonder if it would be -- what would you prefer to do?
Pick up items that you have got tagged, sort of from front to back, and we will always return, and so on, or would you like some summary, a two-minute summary statement, sort_of by major areas, primary areas?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Most of these are -- I mean no one tagged them.
I know th~t I have tagged a number of them.
COl"llUSSIONER KENNEDY:
- Could we just sta.rt down the front and the ones thst are tagged or somebody has got a question on, just raise it?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why not?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:. Start at the beginning and 20 see if we can go through to the end.
21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me ask a question.
The ones on that sheet are in the same order as the paper? That is the way that is deve.loped.
MR. GOSSICK:
With that, we can turn to the second project.under: research listing, the title is "Effectiveness
bwS 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 15 Evaluating Methods for Transportation and Physical Protection;"
I am sorry -- the first one --
GOMMISSIONER GILINSKY: _Are these grouped in some natural categories?
I see subtotal. I see that is the office subtotal.
But they are not grouped in any other subject category?
MR. GOSSICK:
No. They are not.
So*l, do you have them categorized by office or by function or transportation or reactors or safeguards --
I mean, in any way?
MR. LEVINE :
No.
MR. SMITH:
The title gives a pretty good description.
COMMISSIONER-KENNEDY:
It talks about fixed sites.
How much?
Half of it is for reactors and half of it for fuel cycles. or what?
COMMISSIONER* GILINSKY:
It doesn It give a sense of what we are trying to do with this $13 million.
To deal with i usefully, I 'think something better than --
MR. GOSSICK:
I don't think this sheet can do it, but I am afraid, literally, we can categorize them or stack l
them any way you like.
I guess what I am saying is, it is necessary to read the purpose or scope of work for each of these to get a feel for what they are.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's group them in some
bw6 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace-F. Reporters, 7n~.
25 categories that reflect the problems, we are trying to do.
MR. GOSSICK:
Some you can break down. Some will have applicability to more than one of the categories we have been talking about, transportation or reactors.
MR. SMITH: We have done that, Commissioner, for our own particular offic*e~ We.have broken them out into contingency planning for analysis, international licensing technology, but* we can break it out, in cooperation with the other office directors almost in any way that you wish.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are they in any particular order?
Within an office are they listed?
MR. GOSSICK:
No.
MR. SMIITH:
But they could be. They can be.
MR. GOSSICK:.
You mean on a priority basis?
COMMISS>IONER GILINSKY:. No; physical protection, actors, or whatever.
MR. ARSENAULT: A problem we frequently encounter 16 in :trying to list and categorize these things, the structure of the safeguards program within the NRC is multidimensional.
One way to do this is functionally.
You can categorize them by physical protection,.. material control, contingency planning.
Another way is by the user office which is an organizational structure.
Another way would be according to the particular part of the fuel cycle to which it might.be directed, and with safeguards frequency, there is no specific focus.
bw7 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 17 I mentioned a moment ago, that many of the research projects are as applicab~e to reactors as to other portions of the fuel cycle..
Physical security generally would fall into this category.There is little difference in that category between the types of facilities. So while these projects could be categorized according to any particular *set that y-ou would like to identify, there is no priority basis for categorizing them in any other way than by office.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess it is a little disturbing.:that the offices don't seem to agree on whether they are equally applicable or not.
MR. CASE:
There may be a difference between that and do we support it~
He may be doing some research that he things may be app_licable to us.
They are two different things.
MR. LEVINE:
To summarize what Frank said, you need more than one coordinated list to get all the information.
You may need tw-o different cross-cuts.
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: For myself, if you leaf through a series of -.these, they are all plausible, and they are going to do interesting things, and I want to know whether I should be:{saying yes or no.
MR. BURNETT:
The integrated s:afeguard plan, you know,we are pursuing has run on this same problem.
They have tried to categorize all the projects that are *being pursued, and in the ZBB we came up with six categories.
In the
bw8
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 18 integrated plan I have come up with 10. What you are uncove.ring here is exactly the problem that we are hitting. What are the names of these categories.
We are trying to do that in the integrated plan. We have made no attempt to do it here in this presentation.
The more historical natural format was by office. That was the way it had been pursued up to now.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
Let's grant that.
We have the breakdown by office. But within the office break-down, within the office listing, they seem to be listed.
more or less in a random fashion.
MR. BURNETT:
In the $ta tement.they are. But in NMSS 12 we have put it in six categories. All of NRC has not done that, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner. That is one of the things that is being addressed in the integrated safeguard plan.
MR. SMITH: What: we did-for** our own particular office, I had that problem wheri I was trying to review it, was to force the, project back into -the decision uni ts we used for '79 and to find out what the objective of the overall thing was, and what the project was that was going to support that objective.
We have that.thrust. But that was only so that --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are only going 3 1/2 million out of 13?
MR. SMITH:
That is true. As Bob said, traditionally, it's been by office.
bw9
- E2 19 We didn't have a mandate to cross-cut.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that correct?
you are 3
2 1/2 million out of 13?
4 5
MR. SMITH:
He is saying 2 1/2 for our own NMSS.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I meant work projects that 6
they have categorized.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You could have categorized a
all of the things which you called upon Research to do for you.
9 You are the originator of.the projects, which would be 10 another, what, 4 or 5 million, I guess?
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. B-q,RNETT:
- 3. 5.
24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25
jeri 1 c.6 Fi 2
3 4
20 MR. PAGE:
If 1.5 goes to reactor and the rest --
MR. SMITH:
About 11.5.
MR. PAGE:
That includes transportation, too.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You are the originator of all 5 of that.
6 7
8 9
10 MR. BURNETT:
A great deal of it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The part you originated, called upon Research to do for you, obviously you can categorize it.
We have not been called upon to do that ll up until this very moment.
My office put all of this together.
12 I can cut it in any shape of pie, if you just tell me what: shape 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 you want the pie.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This is all in response to Hou:se Conference_,Report~7598, requ~ring we publish a statement.
What does the statement actually say?
The Commission findsf what?
MR. GOSSICK:
The lawyers have been working on this.
Jay, where are we?
MR. MAYNARD:
We have drafted up a proposed statement for people to react_,to.
The legislative language is not very clear.
It says, one thing that is clear, you must find there is a need for the contract.
What more than that is something I think we have to work out ourselves.
The statement we propose, simply says that "Tihe::cornrnission has reviewed each of the projec
jeri 2
- 21 statements and finds there is a need for the contract."
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sort of a one-sentence state-3 ment?
4 MR. MAYNARD:
A very summarized statement, yes.
One-5 page statement is what we have addressed up to this point.
6
. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
. Apparently the Congress felt 7
some of the same need for a conceptual framework as was indicate 8 earlier, and they would rather we were sitting here going throug 9 this exercise than that they do it.
Is that what is behind this?
10 MR. MAYNARD:
I can summarize the legislative history 11 for you as I have read it.
I wasn't present.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't know if I need the whole history.
Whatever: answers the question, *11'Why?'
11
~
MR. MAYNARD:. Well, you get a different impression with each report you read.
But the House was clearly concern- -
ed that whenever the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research let a contract that we had.determined that there was a user need for, that seemed to be the thrust of the House report. -
The Senate.:report, the.re is a concern we are relying too. much on outside contractors in the safeguards areaJ so the Commission is to look again at the need for the contract.
is pretty much the two things that come out of the report.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is this a fairly unusual That 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
thing for the Congress to do?
MR. MAYNARD:
Yes.
25
. jeri 3
- I --
22 CHAifil'T..AN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
I lost the tailend of 2 that.
I am sorry.
3 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We don't have a draft.
MR. GOSSICK:
It hasn't gotten down to you.
It is 5 in the Staff.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me go back.
You probably just 7 told me and I was looking the other.way and missed it.
I am 8
sorry.
Do you derive from the language of the conversation and 9 whatever is in the report, that there must be an individual 10 Commission statement on each contract?
11 MR. :MA¥NARD:
I come to that conclusion, yes.
12 Although I think we can review all of the contracts and make one 13 finding as such.
14 COMMISSIONER.KENNEDY:
We can make a finding on the lS total program, so long as all the contracts that comprise that 16 program are then listed.
It implies that we have, by -so.. doing, 17 18 19 we have reviewed all the contracts and find them all consistent?
MR. MAYNARD:
That is the conclusion I get.
- MR, SMITH:
Initially _we were talking about the 20 Federal Register notice.
The Commission has reviewed the 21 22 current proposed domestic safeguards project which would involve the expenditure of Fiscal '78 contractual funds and has conclude 23 there is a need for the proposed project.
It would also say, perhaps, a statement describing the work benefits and users' needs for each project has been placed in the NRC's public
jeri 4
- 2 23 document room, and that these statements will be updated as appropriate.
That was when we first started off.
I haven't 3 read the final.
Does that say pretty much the same thing?
4 5
6 MR. GOSSICK:
Pretty much.
MR. SMITH:
It is along that line.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It's pretty clear though 7 in order to satisfy whatever the concerns the Congress had, 8 at least that the last package,. the.*stuff that goes in the public 9 ocument room, has to indicate through the overall framework and 10.coherency of the package.
If Congress had taken this step, they 11 must have felt the Commission was spending money in ways that 12 lacked come coherent accountability.
I just don't know.
13 MR. SMITH:
That is*a feeling I have, a perception I 14 have, based on discussions with Staff members and so forth, but 15 certainly that was not -- that particular concern wasn't 16 reflected in the authorization bill.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Except to the extent that 18 Congress doesn't usually do something like this.
You can infer 19 from it that *tb.~y must have something in mind.
Would it make 20 sense for us to look ultimately toward approving those documents, 21 those ones that are going to go into the public document room, 22 as part of approving the whole package?
23 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER BRJI.DFORD:
When are we likely to see 25 hem?
. jeri 5
- 24 MR. GOSSICK:
That is this package.
2
~..R. SMITH:
We can recast this package in different 3 ways as we have talked about, and bring it back.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This package is the first 5 draft of that.
6 7
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
MR. *=:BURNETT:
There will be a second package coming 8 to you, that there are still a small amount of projects under 9 review.
10 MR. GOSSICK:
We will get it to you as it is 11 resolved.
No matter how we resolve it ot stack up the projects, 12 we still, as of necessity, we have to address each one of these 13 projects.
This is what has to do into the PDR, I guess.
14 MR. BARRY:
Mr. Chairman, I really don't believe that 15 CongressionaL:.intent is for the Commission to have to review 16 each and every contract, or 189, we have a 172 work order form 17 on contractual assistance, before it goes out to be placed out 18 19 20 21 22 23 for work.
I do think we are being requested to -- the Commissio is being requested to look at wh~t I will call the 11project level," which may be one or more contracts, in terms of certain discrete typ:~ of safeguards work orders that is going to be placed on contracts, but I really don't believe that the intent is for the Commission to review every contract.
24 Ace-Fe I Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This doesn't give us anything but a listing of contracts.
25
25 CO.MlHSSIONER KENNEDY:
Are these projects which will 2
involve more than one contract?
I assume these were single 3
contract projects.
4 MR. BARRY:
I guess what I am saying, you can add up 5 all your contracts and categorize them into project~type 6 activities.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But that hasn't been done 8
here.
9 10 MR. SMITH:
For the total package, no.
MR. BARRY:
Of course, you can look at the discrete 11 items on the list.here, but I don't believe that they -- the 12 discussions I have had with the Staff, from both sides of the 13 House, is theY-:want-~to>be satisfied that the Commission is 14 satisfied that we have a viable safeguards program; that you 15 are in complete agreement with it..
16 Well, we, of course, do this in part or in general 17 terms, when we go to a-budget review, but we don't necessarily 18 look at it in perhaps as fine a detail as the Congress would 19 20 21 22 23 24 like us to do in this particular functional activity.
I think what we are looking for, in my interpretation is to be satisfied that the project activity level, that~the type of effort that we are buying under contractual assistance is necessary and that they don't expect to have to look at every contract to ensure that that contract, in a sense, is worth the ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
sum total.
Because we have an awful lot of contracts that could 25
jeri7
- 26 invol ved __ in this thing, that would take an awful lot of your 2 review time.
3 MR. GOSSICK~
Would you rather have us regroup it 4 for you, stack it up in stacks?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It does seem to me that some 6 regrouping is going to be necessary.
I think the* package which 7 is in hand, which takes the work. ::-.a.,contract at a time and 8
says that this contract today, here's the name, rank, s_erial 9 number, and all the rest of it, is an essential listing as part l O of the process.
So it is good that that is in hand.
11 The Commission's problem is to simulate i~ a short 12 time and see how -- I have some doubt it is practical for the 13 Commission to discuss and debate and vote upon each of what are, 14 how many 15 16 MR. SMITH:
60-some.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sixty~odd things coming down the 17 line.
I expect to do so on any detailed basis is really rather 18 more than was expected.
I think if you will take this stack 19 and try to construct for us these crosscuts, these documents 20 stay the same, but we need some crosscutting summaries which 21 attempt to sort out into the category areas.
Physical protectio 22 reactors, if you like.
I am not quite sure what the categories 23 ought to be, but you have been worrying about this with regard 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
to the integrated effort and the ongoing programs, so you have a pretty fair jump* on the problem.
25
jeri 8 -.
2 3
27 Now and then some subtotals, so we see how these look.
Presumably, if there is a category like physical security:_*.., __
reactors, you could indicate the total going into the area, and 4
what contracts or portions of contracts in* this list contribute 5
to that area in your judgment.
This kind of a crosscut, I have 6 tried these things before, and let us all recognize right here 7
and now, these are not going to be, you know, down to the last 8
penny, 17 cents of a contract goes to physical protection and 9
$1.50 to something else.
It just can't be done that way.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As a matter of fact, I would 11 expect that some of these contracts, even though you_say, you 12 can allocate out of $10,000 contract, $5000 is really for 13 reactors, as a practical:matter if you decided you didn't want 14 to do.the reactors, what you really wanted to get was the same 15 work done for fuei cycle facilities, you would still pay the 16
$10,000.
17 MR. DIRCKS:
It 'says 5.4, of that I can identify 18 1.5 in reactors and 3.8 or.9 in what I call "other," but that 19 "other" includes fuel cycle and the spilloff to reactors.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is the rest of i:ib:then 21 "material"?
22 MR. DIRCKS:
It is about 700,000 in transportation.
23 I have about 5.5 in material and accounting, then I have a general category,* called "general."
1.4 million.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What I am trying to say here is,
28 we all must recognize, I think, the attempt to mak.e the crosscut 2 is a useful one.
It helps to organize for our purposes into 3
sort of a functional category rather than an NRC organizational 4
system, where this work is going, but because the work is by 5
specific contract under office, why, we recognize that in 6
making the dollar cuts, for the crosscut, it is very much a 7 matter of judgment involved.
8 I think the Staff's judgment, the cognizant Staff, 9
familiar with the contracts, are in a position to make a reason-10 able estimate without agonizing over the details.
You have to 11 exercise your judgment, make the divisions you see fit, and let' 12 just all recognize that isn't going to be a dividing which is to 13 be subject to, *you know, to detailed auditing.
It just doesn't 14 work that way.
I think.we will continue to need this package 15 which has the individual contracts listed in it, but the cross-16 cuts under a category in the crosscuts, a reactor, physical 17 security of reactors, if-that is one, you certainly ought to 18 list a contract or portions of contracts that contribute to 19 that, and ~hether you want to bother to put the papers, stack 20 additional copies of papers under.there, I don't know.
Maybe 21 22 23 what you do is to assign these things a number.
Number 1, number 2, or A-1, B-1, or whatever, and list them that way for reference in this package.
~
24 A.ce-FeS'Reporters, Inc.
25
- 1!4
.fml CRJ796 29 MR. BURNETT:
Mr. Chairman, I have six categories 2
I can throw out.
If the Commissioners have any others we can 3
add it.
4 Physical security of reactors, the physical security 5 fuel cycle, transportation, material accounting, contingency 6 planning and information handling systems.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other --
8 MR. BURNETT:
Inspection supports one of these things.
9 I am trying to get this into a format that you can use it.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I think maybe the shoe 11 is a little on the other foot.
If we knew the format in which 12 you all conceived of it, that would be the format.
13 14 MR. BURNETT:
I can do it that way, too.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would have to verify, while 15 I agree with that, I would have to say in fairness to the Staff, 16 that we would have to then agree, whatever it is they come up 17 with, will accept.
18 I have a feeling that history tells me that that migh 19 not quite float, and that they would probably be willing to say 20 that, too, given half a chance.
21 22 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fair enough.
Maybe the answer is, there isn 1 t a format right now and therefore we will have to devise one.
24 Ace-Fed Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess what we ought *to do is tell them what we want and then come up with it.
They have 25
30 already got what they wanted.
What they thought they needed.
2 MR. GOSSICK:
We can do this and be back next week 3
- easily.
4 MR. CASE:
I would like to suggest some of _the cate-5 gories, not all of them, as Bob mentioned, have to be split 6
between reactors and fuel cycle facilities.
It is more than
- . 7 just the first one.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In pursuit of that, the 9
kind of question I had is dn the first oner If you would like 10 to throw it out.
We don't need an answer right now.
11 First in talks about power reactors, and then fixed 12 site physical protection, the paragraph on.user need is apparent 13 ly an NMSS user need.
14 Now, if it is power reactors, why does the user need 15 the fact NRR --
16 17 MR. GOSSICK:
Nuclear facilities COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Facility characterization 18 methodology *--
19 20 MR. GOSSICK:
This applies to both --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Power reactors are fuel 21 facilities.
To the extent that power.reactors are involved, 22 23 24 why wouldn't NRR be one of the --
MR. BURNETT:
We don't think we need it.
MR. ARSENAULT:
Just a minute.
Excuse me.
I have A.ce-Federcl Reporters, Inc.
some difficulty in understanding the comments, because one of th 25
fm3
- 31 user needs we hve, and one of the contracts that we have, in 2
fact, obligated this year, was an $80,000 contract to respond 3
to an NRR response to transfer preliminary results of precisely 4
this project to them for operational use.
5 Now, it is possible that there is a misunderstanding 6
concerning the source of those.
7 MR. CASE:
Somebody has decided.to. spend the money.
8 say, we don't need it, but given you get some results, I want to 9
look at them to see if I can use them.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
I think my question served its purpose, in terms of measuring the need to have those kinds of glitches straightened out before we finally sign off on the page.
MR. GOSSICK:. I guess I would have to say in all candor, there probably will be some of these where I wouid agree with Cliff that, or we may all,agree with Cliff, that they are needed on the fuel cycle facility and may or may not be applicable.
But I agree with Ed, if it is going to be.done anyway, I *sure as heck want to take a look at it.
- If he's in the posi-tion of saying, he endorses the need for this, you have to go out and defend it from scratch on your own.
24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me ask this question, to satisfy my curiosity on this one.
There is a project here for X amount, totally aside from whether NRR has ain interest in 25
fm4 *
-~
32 this or not, if this project goes forward, which was requested 2 II by NMSS, would the cost be X amount or X minus something?
3 MR. SMITH:
Let me say we support the objective of 411 the project.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought it wa~ your project.
6 II Research was doing this for you.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II MR. SMITH:
This particular one?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
MR. SMITH:
We put in a written request to have RES to research this project.
Now, we didn't necessarily tack a certain dollar amount to the project.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I understand that, but this is your project.
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Researcr is saying -- you want this job done and this is what it is going to cost to get it done.
So the amount, the X dollar number, X number of dollars attached to this proje~t is what it takes to get NMSS's project done.
Is that correct?
MR. SMITH:
I would say that is right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that right, Saul?
MR. LEVINE:
I would say so.
24 Ace-Feo Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If this is in your budget, this is the way you spend it.
25
fm5
- 33 MR. BURNETT:
That is sort of difficult.
This pro-2 ject we agree at this time should be pursued.
That is the 3
best estimate we have been able to.work up with Research and us.
4 We rely on Research to tell us the final cost of that project.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:.I mean without getting 6 overly detailed.about it.
I am asking in a general sort of 7 way.
8 MR. LEVINE:
These are worked out at the Staff level 9
and coordinated, including the Staff.
They don't have to sign 10 off on the cost, but they know what it is going to-cost and 11 know the details of the program.
12 MR. SMITH:
Let me say in this particular one we made 13 the request to Research, that we had a need.
They came back 14 with a project that would probably have fall-out not only 15 for us but also for reactors.
They have attached a certain 16 price tag to it.
We haye gone.along with that.
I think it 17 is fair to say that we both agree that at the end of some point 18 in time, if we don't see tangible results coming out that we 19 feel can be fed back into the licensing process, we won't pursue 20 the. area any more.
21 Now, we might have differences of opinion between, say, the Safeguards Division and Research as to what the proba-22 23 bili ty of success, of corning up with something in t.,11.is area is, 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
but we both feel it is worth a try.
MR. BURNETT:
The one you have struck is a more 25
fm6
- abstract project that NRC is pursuing.
When I got here and 2
started reviewing this, I had some difficulty with it in my 3
mind.
I got a briefing on it, and I have seen some tangible 4
results up to now.
It is a young project.
5 So I have talked to Research and I said, on these 6 first four, which are modeling studies, that I thought it 7 was premature for me to judge the accuracy of this work.
I 8 was not prepared to turn it off.
9 But at the same time I said, that during this 10 fiscal yetar, that is running, if I don't see some product out 11 of it tha,t will indicate that the final produce is usable 34 l2 or in truth a usable _product, then NMSS will not be the customer 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 in '79.
because I But I *didn't,.feel I should turn it off right now don't have sufficient data to counsel you that I am going to have -- I am going to miss or I am going to hit.
That is the way Research is.
Isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Bob, let me ask you a question.
Suppose we had some magical ability, to *know that if we pursued a line of research for several years it would get us some useful results, if you.knew that, supose you knew this project carried out for five years would produce a genuinely valuable evaluation technique, methodology, analytical methodology.
Okay?
If we 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
had that secret knowledge there-would be no question about supporting it for five years?
25
35 fm7 MR. BURNETT:
Of course, not.
There would be no 2 risk involved.
It would just be holding our place until we 3
get to the top of the line.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Unfortunately, we are not equipped 5
with the secret knowledge either way.
6 How do you establish whether or not projects which
.7 may turn out to require a long development *time to go forward, 8 if they have, you know, if they have sort of year leases on 9
results?
10 MR. BURNETT:
I have also followed a phased program 11 on a project like_ that, being somewhat pragmatic I have to be 12 convinced to go to the next phase, so it is either on a yearly 13 14 phase or it is on a perk.' chart phase.
We can look and see and see if we are getting a result or at least we are establishi g 15 a. premise that I am going to achieve a tangible result.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 So my answer there is, a phased contract effort.
It is very hard for me to support it with no codifyin principle coming back to me.
I know, I am like ' Pavlov's dogs, I have to have some conditioning to get to the end.
If.I don't have this somewhere along the contract, I become very leary*.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But that sounds more like a good basis to imagine a technical assistance project han a research project.
You know, there are numbers of intellectual ventures which have been of enormous value to the human race,
I-I I
fm8
- 36 which, had you said, and what is the work product for year 1 2
that you shows me as a continue for year 2 and at the end of yea 3
2, what is the work product that shows me I should continue 4
for year 3, it never would have been achieved.
5 MR. BURNETT:
I agree.
Sir, I have a limited budget 6
and I can only sky-blue so many things at one time.
7 MR. SMITH:
This is why I think --
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This is the difference between 9 Research,. s outlook and the technical -- and the outlook for the
- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 technical assistance work that you control -directly in your office.
I think the reason there.is one *-- one of t~e reasons,n the only reason, but one of the reasons there is an Office of Research is there is some of this work which necessarily is more speculative, has rather more the academic research aspect, more of an intellectual gamble, if.you will, as compared to a sort of engineering project think, where you can map out what is reasonable to.do here in the next.period of time, and then we either get pretty close to it or -- and go ahead or we find we can ' t and decide what to do th.en.
19 20 21 22 23 Research was established in part to provide this kind of a home:, for at least a limited amount of work in the Com-mission's program.
Ace-F. Reporters, ~~-
25 MR. BURNETT:
I totally agree with what you are saying.
It is my understanding the recent guidance that has come down from the Commission has established two vehicles to t
e 4 2
3
- 4.
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 37 run Research.
Those with the users and those that are nore sky-blue in ature, th.at Resear.ch has the authority to pursue on their own.
All I'm saying, in a line position, that I would like as a.mny assurances as possible to produce a productivity product, and I am not commenting at a11* in the other areas.
38 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we distinguish 2
between those two. categories of research projects?
We 3
haven't segregated a group.and said these are sort of at 4
5 C
7 the discretion --
MR. BURNETT:
No, sir.
The way we are working, I can't comment for other offices, but on projects that I don-'t feel that I can support, okay, then I go back and 8
tell Saul this and then he decides whether he wants to
~
go through with it on a power research basis.
10 MR. SMITH:
I think clearly in the area of
.l I research, the o.ff ice of_ research ought to have the right 12 to commit funds io research in these areas that perhaps 13 we don't necessarily see but they do.
14
]5 16 17 18 We can-'t tell whether or no~ the pay-off is immediate, but is sounds good.
It sounds right. And if it did work, it would be fine.
To"have an office of research that could only conduct purely mission-oriented research orders and agreed to by the line offices, I just don't IY think that's a good way to go.
20 I think he ought to have a certain amount of 21 budget that is perhaps in the long-range research mode.
22 MR. GOSSICK:
That's reflected in the modified-23 user requirement paper I sent down here last week that you 24 25 and I and Commissioner Kennedy discussed.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We may be scouting rather far
i796.05.2 2
3 4
5 0
7 afield from the original subject.
This may be more fun to talk about.
Give me the last word.
39 MR. LEVIJ\\JE:
I agree it"s been useful con~ersation, but as of now, our safeguards program has a user _requirement from every off ice for every project we are running.
We are not doing any safeguard projects of our own volition.
6 When the agency started, because we were
~
disorganized, we started some projects without user support.
10 They have been given user support.
Now all of your J l projec.ts are that way.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now back to the cross-cut 13 business.
14 15 MR. GOSSI Cl(:
One question as _to procedure
- I assume we come.back with a cross-cut with these things 16 in various stacks.
Is it intended, then, we will still go 17 thrDugh project-by-project?
I guess I would like to know I 8 how we are going to proceed.
lY COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That-"s a good question.
20 I would like to know what it is we have to decide; 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems ~o me that the 22 commission will have to decide on a statement that can be 23 published in the Federal Register that says we find 24 25 appropria.te reason, whatever the right language is, to carry out the following contractual work in the safeguards
7Y6.05.3 2
3 4
5 40 area.
This work is described in a se.t of papers which are filed in _the public document room, and wi.th an appropriate reference number, or whatever, and whether it bec.omes a regular report or whatever.
And the commission has to be able to majority-vote on that statement and the 6
list of contracts to go --
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So we will will have to 8
go through the whole list to be prepared to accept them.
Y CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I think in the sense 10 that your offices, I see --
J 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What i*"m going to say, 12 it-"s not sufficient to(have said, we like these nice 13 categorizations and we think these numbers look about right.
14 15 16 That's not,what we are deciding is -- that batch of contracts to do this kind of research is okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That" s right.
The cross-cut 17 information which will be a little compilation is a way lb of trying to see the overall pattern.
1 Y MR. CASE:
Mr. Chairman, I would be worried about 20 changes. in the future if your approval was that fine.
I 21 don/t have much in this~ but I don1 t think I would be 22 that much concerned about it.
But others.-- that-"s a 23 pretty.tight bound you put on them for a whole fiscal year.
24 MR. BARRY:
You end up being a contract review 25 board, having to review the specifications.
57Y6.05.4
- 41 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would be delighted to 2
entertain some less tightly drawn proposition, but I 3
have to have some confidence that does ~he council's 4
5 off ice believe it meets the needs of the statute?
MR. CASE:
It de pends to a large degree on 6
what is put before iou.
7 MR. LEVINE:
It would see to me there 1 s a b
compromise here that might work.
Y One, you could do the categorization you have 10 requested.
Then, instead of having a product list under
.l I that categorization, have paragraphs which describe all 12 the work, but do not spell out individual projects.
13 That will allow more flexibility in case we 14 15 have difficulties and have to change our direction.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is required is a lo s,tatemen.t of need.
It-j's not approval of each condition.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We-11, that's a good question.
18 No amounts authorized to be appropriate, et cetera, et lY cetera, et cetera, may be used by 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The s1:atemen.t su_pporting 21 the needs for such research study or technical assistance 22 has been prepared and published by the commission.
23 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That-Js this.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The question that I asked before was, did that require consideration of the
796.05.5 2
3 4
5 6
7 b
y 10
.I I 12 13 14 15 42 individual contracts, and the answer I got back was yes.
I would be glad to reconsider it on advice of counsel.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It certainly requires consideration of the subject of the individual contract.
MR. GOSSICK:
At the risk of being premture, here's a draft of what is being proposed.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do I read it?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If we are going.to have another meeting anyway,.wouldn't it make sense to circulate that?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would think so.
What you are saying, Peter, it/s like Saul suggested:
here/s a category of physical security of reactors, the contract work, and here's a total.
And 16 contract wovk under this covers, you know -- and then sort of 17 short paragraphs representing each contract as they stand 18 at the moment, but not citing the individual contract to IY say we find that to be necessary.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It might be useful to say 21 22 23 24 25 we find it necessary because -- but, yes -- rather than saying we find it to be necessary and that the terms consistent with the contract are all right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So you wouldn/t put into the document room this detailed thing on each contract?
.7Y6.05.7
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
b y
10
-1 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 I end up with 258 *categories.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Reactor, physical security, conditioning -
44 MR. BURNETT:
Contingent planning -- it's both reactors and fuel cycl~s, for instance~
O>MMISSI0NER GILINSKY:
Okay.
But these are two basic dimensions, it seems to me.
CHAIRMAN HENUR IE:
All right.
I'm wondering if we ought to try to come up with some cross-tut pattern and float it back to the commission real quick to see if you would agree to it, so.when we go through the.exercise and come back again, it would be satisfactory.
Is that a.11 right?
MR. G0SSICK:
Why don-'t we sent that down to you?
a-iAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Also, the language of the 18 proposed finding.
lY MR. SNYDER:
If I can make a suggestion, in your 20 integrated saieguards program you are putting together, 21 it ssems to me this is a vital element of that.
22 Now what do you need to do to organize that 23 program?
24 25 MR. SMITH:
We are not far enough along.
MR. SNYDER:
But it would be nice to have the
2 3
4 5
6 7
43 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He's talking about the last paragraph.
COMM! SSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no objection to putting that in the document.
If it is needed to be changed, it can be changed correspondingly.
But It wouldn/t necessarily consider those the --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Finding, inflexible and d
binding'?
Y COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Those themselves are JO the statement of need.
Is the the frame work you had in ll mind or did you figure each of these was in fact a statement I 2 o t need for that. part i cul a r pro j e ct'?
l3 MR. SMITH:
For each of these, we have it broken l4 l5 down in scope, the expected results andthe user need.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess the user need 16 is in fact a statement of need.
l 7 MR. GOSSICi<:
That's right, if endorsed by the l8 commission.
IY COMMISSIONER GILHJSKY:
It would be good if we 20 could have sort of collective judgments.
If there are any 21 disagreements, I would like to know about them.
It ought 22 to be just contracting offices desighating the breakdown.,
23 MR. GOSSICK:
We will take care of that and bring 24 25 it back to you.
MR. BURNETT:
Every time I try to categorize it,
- i7Y6.05.t3
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 y
10
. 11 12 13 14 15 16 same categories for your needs as well as the commission~s needs.
MR. SMITH:
If we can do that, we will.
45 a-IAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do we have a problem with the timing?
MR. GOSSICK:
No. - Everything is on hold.
ItJs not already on contract and will remain so until this is out.
But, yes, we are delaying things~ obviously.
We are not going to jail, according to our legal adyice.
MR. SMITH:
Our program is no.t suffering very much from the delay~ but it could be *
)
COMM ISSI Oi-..JER KENNEDY:
Maybe we can get a legal opinion on precisely what it is we have to publish in the Federal Register.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I think we will want advice into that.
17 Thank you very much.
18 (Whereupon, at 5:oo p.m., the hearing was lY adjourned.)
20 21 22 23 24 25