ML22230A139
| ML22230A139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/1979 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M790731 | |
| Download: ML22230A139 (135) | |
Text
RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RFCORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BUDGET PRESENTATIONS OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Piece _Washin g t on , D. C.
Dote _ Tuesday , 31 Jul y 19 79 ?ages l - 13 3
-eleo hone:
(20 2 ) 3A7 -37CO ACE
- FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
Official Reporters 44-4 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 2000 l NATIONWIDE COVERAGE - DAlLY
1 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Tuesday, 31 Jul v 19 7°9, at 9: 0 o a.mj._n the Corr.mission's offices in 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.c.* The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corre~ted, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The ~ranscript is intended solely for general informational purposes._ As provided by 10 CFR ~ .103, it
- is not pa'.*rt of the formal or *informal record of _decision of the matters discussed. ~xpress~bns of opinion in this transcript dq not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
- No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addr~ssed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
CR 6244 2 JWBeach UNITED STATES OF A..MERICA
- 2 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5 Ii 6 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS 7 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 8 ,,
I I!
ii11 9 ,I Room 1130 ii lj 1717 H Street, N. W.
10 Washington, D. C.
.I11 Ii
' : 1 !I,. Tuesday, 31 July 1979 Ji
,1
,I
-~. , ll r ... *1 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 11 "J'"j !l
- ..., 11 a,. m *
!I I
14 BEFORE:
15 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 16 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 1-,
'; RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner 18 PETER A. BR~DFORD, Commissioner I ~-*
'I JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 20 ALSO PRESENT:
21 Messrs. Chilk, Gossick, Denton, Englehardt, Haller, 22 Berkow, Barry, Eisenhut, Levine, and Hanauer.
23 A 24
-~.r.-,.-eral Reporters, Inc.
25
CR 6244 JWBeach 3 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (9:04 a.m.)
3 CHAIR.Iv~.N HENDRIE: Let's go.
4 The Commission meets this morning to deal with 5 i! the NRR budget. We will accumulate Cormnissioners as the day
~
" wears on, I would suspect.
7 Lee, I see you've got Harold and his troops* at 8 hand. Go ahead.
9 MR. GOSSICK: Yes, sir. We have NRR this morning, iO and BRG panel chairman on this one who is Mr. Haller, so, 11 Harold, why don't you go right ahead.
12 MR. DENTON: All right, could I have the first
- 13 14 15 slide.
(Slide.)
Let me tell you first how we put this budget 16 together, and several of the highlights, and then we'll go 17 through some of the details decision unit by decision unit.
i8 It 1 s based on the priorities that we had 19 discussed when we covered the 1980 budget. This is the 20 priorities being given to operating reactors, SEP, unresolved 21 safety issues, casework, those kinds of things.
- 22 23 24 If you remember, the Commission had recommended, and 0MB had approved, 85 people for 1980. This was not looked upon favorably by Congress until after TMI, at which time
,** -:-,c*--~ai Reporters, Inc.
25 they authorized an additional 100 people.
2 jwb 4 So in essence --
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That v:asn 't 10 0 on top of 3 what you requested, was it?
i,
. 11 4 11 MR. DENTON: No, it was in lieu of the request.
II I'
s Ii COMMISSIONER AHEAR.~E: So it's essentially 15 more than the request.
MR. DENTON: Yes. So essentially our 1 80 budget now is what you had approved it to be in '80.
MR. GOSSICK: That's not necessarily for exactly iO the same reasons.
11 MR. DENTON: Right. It's just referring to the
,~
- L total --
'r,
!..:* CHAIRMAN HENDRJE: I hope we 'didn 1 t forecast it.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. DENTON: Now what this 1 81 budget does is 16 take the same assumptions that we had made in '8.0 regarding 17 the priorities that assumed certain efficiencies in the way 18 we do business, but it reflects the TMI impacts, especially 19 the short-term impacts, that I can foresee today, and it I
20 envisions completing all the short-term actions that we see IIII I
21 today by January of '81.
- 22 23 Between now and '81, I would envision that we would complete the bulletins and orders, complete those actions on all operating plants, and those on near-term 25 operating licenses; complete the lessons learned
3 jwb 5 recommendations of the Task Force; complete the emergency
- 2 3
planning actions that I informed the Commission of a couple of weeks ago; and complete actions on operator training.
4 So in those four areas, the budget is different
!1 5 than the '80 budget, in that it attempts to account for 6 those actions that I see necessary as fallout from TMI, and 7 the completion of those by '81.
8I Now we have not atte~pted to forecast those
~ actions that may come out of the Commission's own special 10 investigation, or that may come out of the Presidential 1i investigation. BRG recommended, and I concur, that it was 12 difficult to forecast what impact those ongoing investigations 13 i would. have. So it* does not attempt a forward look in t):lose 14 areas.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But isn't there a difference 16 between trying to estimate what that impact would be -- which 17 is what originally I guess your submission did do, make an 18 estimate of how many actions, how many plans --
19 HR. DENTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: -- and providing a planning 21 wedge. Because it's clear that there will be some additional 22 actions, which makes it therefore clear that there will be 23 some additional resources required.
And I am uneasy without some kind of a planning 25 wedge built into that.
4 jwb 6 MR. DENTON: We've been on both sides of the
- 3 2 issue. We started with the planning wedge idea, thinking that there's surely going to be an impact and we should put
- 4
':)
, I I
tiII something in to cover those kinds of impacts.
Of course the other side of the coin is that I unless we can definitively explain where they fall and what cl II li 7 they will be, then they will probably not stand up, and we
\i ii
,I should wait until those investigations are completed.
8 i:
ii ii COYLMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, not stand up in 91 I
10 I front of whom?
11 Certainly when you defend in front of 0MB you 12 won~t:have that clarity of result; but by the time we get
- 13 14 15 around to defending in front of Congress next spring, you may very well have.
MR. DENTON: Well, I think that's a fundamental 16 decision point. We could do it either way. I guess, after 17 some discussion with BRG, we decided 18 MR. BARRY: I think BRG's position was we 19 recognized identically the)same:problem. And on the assump-20 tion that we would know something out of both investigations 21 in the October and November time frame, we could filter it 22 into the budget since we would know something then, but we
,~
_j can also go in in the budget amendment right after we send 24 the budget in, or a short time after that.
~-*B
~ ~ - ~-' Reporters, Inc.
25 COYil1ISSIONER AHEARNE: 11
.A..mendrnent"? Or "supplement"~
i I
5 jwb MR. BARRY: Amendment. It would be early enough
- 2 for an amendment.
'-' (Pause.)
4 MR. DENTON: The other point about this budget, I
r
- ,!11 in a unique sense it's the first budget -- I think certainly ji c 11 in a decade that assumes no construction permit applications i
7 in 1
- 81. We're not budgeting any personnel for new applica-II I'
8 ti d
II tions. There may be some CP work going on in '81 from CP~
,I
-., !i 7 II filed earlier, but it doesn't assume any new incoming CPs II "iO I based on the Workload Forecast Panel's estimate. I think I
11 I;I! that has certain profound implications, not only for NRR's 11
,Ji IL ~I priori ties,. but for maybe the Commission as a whole.
- 13 14 15 and '83?
COM.MISSIONER A.HEARNE:
MR. DENTON:
What do you assume in Let me ask Herb.
1 82 16 MR. BERKOW: In '82 and '83, the Caseload Forecast 17 ii Panel assumed two new CPs per year. So '82 'and '83 do 1s I assume two per year coming on.
19 MR. DENTON: If there had not been TMI impacts,
- 20. I:11 our personnel requests would have gone down in 1 81, I think
{
II 21 when you look at everything else. So that was another unique 22 feature of the '81 budget.
23 With that background then let me turn to the first slide, which I 1 ve just sort of summa_rized these points I wanted to make.
6 jwb 8 (Slide.)
- 2 3
It starts with this one about the assumption of a future supplemental request, depending on the outcome of the 4 investigations.
iI s I! We could, if you would like, attempt to estimate
, II C I or project some sort of planning wedge. I don't have 7 numbers today --
8 COM.l'1ISS I ONER AHEARNE: I would appreciate it if i
91 you could, in the next couple of days, provide that.
10 MR. DENTON: Okay.
I 11 I The first slide, then, shows the distribution of Ii 12 the TMI budget impacts in '80 and '81.
- ]3, 14 15 units.
(Slide.)
Listed on *the left are the convention'al decision Before I get into the total 1 81 budget, I thought 16 you might like to see how it shakes down between the 1 80 and 1 -, 1 l / the 81. The purpose of these resources are to complete all 18 these actions I 1 ve described by January of '81, either through
'1'7" contract dollars or in-house people.
20 II COMMISSIONER AHEARL"\JE: Harold, when you say i
11 11 2i delta positions, do you mean these are people you have
- 22 23 2
switched in?
of it?
Or these are new people that you need because MR. DENTON: These are the number of positions
',-,-rel Reporters, 1n!.
25 in the '81 budget that would not be there if there had been
7 jwb 9 no TMI. The number of dollars and people, I guess directly
- 2 3
attributable to execution of the TMI actions.
COMMISSIONER JI...HEARNE: So that if I look at what
- 4 5 !1 1,
1i I'
i[
II your '81 would have been, I would have thought that as a result of TMI you would have taken one block of people and
'-- I said, ~ell, here these people are doing low-priority items, 7 and so we will shift that lower priority out to 1 82, and 8 here's a block of people now working on things in '81 because 9 of TMI. Those numbers wouldn't show up here, because these 10 you say are people who are in the '81 budget who wouldn't il even be there had not TMI occurred. So there would be an 12 additional block of people working on TMI-related items that 13 aren't shown here. Is thq.t correet?
14 MR. DENTON: If we had not gotten 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I bet you not.
16 MR. DENTON: I guess I don't really understand 17 the question. Let me go to --
18 COMMISSIONER AHEA&~E: Let me try again.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What this Commission needs is a 20 blackboard, John.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Right.
- 22 23 MR. DENTON: Well, let me try the next slide.
may help, if we go to number four.
It
~ :,-~c:i 24 Reporters, Inc.
25 (Slide.)
COMMISSIONER AHEAR~E: They're probably not on the
8 jwb 10 slide.
2 (Lo.ughter.)
3 ,I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Woops.
II,:
4 :1 (Laughter.)
- Ii,;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I wondered how you got past the governor that quickly.
(Laughter.)
MR. DENTON: The EDO 1 81 mark is the mark in the I
9 I distribution that includes the TMI impacts. Now iO COlftl~ISSIONER AHEARNE: Let me try again. Here's 11 my question: Let's take 730 for FY '80. Let's assume no TMI, and no other fluctuations in caseload, '81 would have i
13ii been 730 .
. ii 11 14 MR. DENTON: Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Does it make any assumption?
16 CHAIR-MAN HENDRIE: Yes, yes, but does that assume 17 he got his 85 in fiscal '80?
i8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Or whatever the number was --
MR. DENTON: Yes.
19 II I'
20 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In other words --
21 I CHAIRivlAN HENDRIE: He got the final Commission
- 22 23 request in '8 0.
MR. DENTON: The 730 is the part we'd asked for.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Now you go into '81. Without 25 TMI, you've got these 730 people working on certain projects.
9 jwb 11 MR. DENTON: Yes.
2 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: TMI comes along. Two things
" it then happen. First, you decide that of the work that that
!i 4 d 730 are doing, some of it is not as important as what they II 5 I! could be doing to help on TMI-related activity. And.so
, 11 CI: therers some number, X, whose work gets shifted to TMI, and ii their projects get put off until '82, or maybe get *sent to 711 11 8 1:li Standards, or to Research, or NMSS, somewhere else. So II 9 there's some number X of that 730 working on TMI.
10 In addition, because of TMI, you ask for more I
i 1 !11 people, and that's the number Y. And so the total nu.rrtber of i2 people then in '81 working on TMI impacts is X"plus Y.
13 And my question was: Was the 85 X + Y? 'That is, i4 the total number working on TMI-related impacts? Or just Y?
15 Which is the number of people, in addition of what you would 16 have asked for otherwise?
I 171 MR. DENTON: The 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The 42 and the 85.
19 MR. DENTON: Well, let's take the case first with 20 no increase in people in rg1 and what would we have done?
21 We would have shifted the people from lower priorities up 22 into the higher priorities, and that would have been the case 23 where Gerry Lynn got shifted up.
There's a little bit of a change in workload, but 25 let me ask Herb, if you think the '85 is X + Y, or is it Y?
10 jwb 12 MR. BERKOW: I think it's just Y.
2 CO~.!MISSIONER AHEARNE: So then there are more 3 than 85.
4 CHAIRI-L~N HENDRIE: I would be surprised. I don't 5 I think you can.
I!
611 MR. BERKOW: Without TMI, our needs would have II 7[1 been about the same in '81 as they were in '80.
8 Ii MR. DENTON: Well, let me describe where some of 91 these TMI-related people go.
10 We're assuming, for example, one additional man-11 year to review each OL application because of TMI. That was I ,L not in our previous case workload. So that's a certain 13 II number of people.
I 1
14 And then we assume, like it's 2 manyears to 15 apply the TMI lessons on every operating plant. So that's 16 a certain -- So we've tried to show on our chart number three, 17 I if we would like to go back, where we think those people go.
18 (Slide.)
19 So I guess, as Herb says, it's mainly Y for the 20 85 .. That everything else -- That otherwise the budget would 21 have given us just the amount of -- the right number of A
22 23 24 people to do in '81 what we'd done in COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
MR. DENTON:
Fine.
1 80.
Well, if we just stop on page four
.: *---2-:-a; Reporters, Inc.
25 just for a moment, then, the bulk of the increase between 1 81
11 jwb 13 and -- between '80 and '81 is in the operating decision unit.
- 2 3
It reflects the people necessary to carry out those actions on all the operating plants. It projects a small growth in
- 41 5
I II
!I the SEP program; a decline in the safeguards unit -- and I'll go into each one of these in detail -- a decline in the
, Ii1!
C casework; some increase in technical projects, and it's in I
I 7 the technical projects area there is a setaside that I want 8 to discuss with you; the advance reactors area drops; and the 9 rest of the bottom part of the table is pretty much constant
- ,o from 1 80.
11 There are two setasides in the budg~t that warrant 12 some discussion. One is the Phase III of the SEP program,
- 13 14 15 and I'll treat that one in detail; and the se~aside for non-NRR support, and I'll treat that when we get to'that unit.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is the SEP setaside included 17 in the 810? Or not included?
18 I MR. BERKOW: The setaside is in the out years.
I 1 It's in '82 and 83. So it's not shown on this table.
19 1\
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It's page three, setaside.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wait a minute
- 22 23 of 26.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But there is a setaside in '81
- . ""--;c:i Reporters, ,:~.
25 MR. BERKOW: That's for technical projects.
3 CHAIRYw..N HENDRIE: But the SEP setaside is in the
- L i' l
I I
!: I out years.
MR. BERKOW: In the out years.
C i MR. DENTON: -- an agreement on all the issues, 71 except those two setasides.
i
,;, I Is that fair?
"' i
- I 9 MR. BERKOW
- Yes.
i 10 II (Slide.)
I I
11 MR. DENTON: The next slide, number five, shows ii li 12 *1 the same decision units, and shows the dollars. Once again i3 I we have no disagreement with' BRG, unless it's in the s~me 14 two areas: SEP out years, or the technical projects setaside.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There didn't seem to be any 16 dollars in the NRR support.
17 MR. BERKOW: That's correct.
18 MR. DENTON: The non-NRR support.
19 MR. BERKOW: We had dollars originally. Those 20 I were taken out by the BRG. We did have some program support I
I 21 dollars in non-NRR support.
22 MR. DENTON: So we and BRG 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it's such a wealthy 1,.,eerc: Reporters, ~n~. office that the loose change that falls off the table --
25 (Laughter.)
13 jwb 15 MR. DENTON: It was not much money, as I recall, 2 $160K, or something.
3 MR. BERKOW: $170,000.
4 MR. DENTON: The real issue is the resolution of 5 the people for that non-NRR support.
)1 11 6 Ii Let me turn then to the decision units themselves Ii 7
II in more detail, starting with slide number six.
II s I! (Slide.)
\*!
I 9 This breaks out where the people go in '81, and 10 the program support. This is the EDO mark. The top item 11 shows that we've got to create a new mechanism to process
- ~
')
actions. At the moment, we process actions case by case.
- 13 14 15 We have a lot of outstanding actions still on the 70. operating plants. It takes a lot of people, and I think one of the things we'll be looking toward over the next year is finding 16 a different way to pro~ess one single action throughout the 17 plants that have operating licenses.
18 The present way of doing it, where each one 19 submits his own piece of paper, and we have to have someone 20 review it, we have to have someone from I&E inspect it and 21 write it up, is just awfully manpower consuming.
22 I don't know what the answer is, but we need some 23 new way to do business in order to process the change through 24 the entire industry. I have talked to industry about it,
- ,c--rai Rep-:iners, Inc.
25 and in general one kind of idea that you could envision, if
14 jwb 16 industry would agree, is that when there's a change needed, 2 that if they would have an outside group review that change 3 in all plants and categorize the ways in which that change J
I
,. I I
is carried out, and write up one report saying it's been changed this way in 23 plants, 19 elected this alternative, 6 and the other 6 did it this way, and here are all the analyses 7 all in a neat bundle, and give us one report on all 70 plants, 8 i then we could have that reviewed *with a lot less manpower 9 than treating each plant.
10 If we're not careful, we're going to continue to 1 1
spend a lot of our resources in just running a change through 12 every existing license. It's not going to be easy to affect 13 the change. We've got our whole system structured docket by i4 docket by docket.
15 The 190 people, I'd sure like to find a way to 16 get them into something other than a case-by-case interpreta-17 tion.
18 Another change in this -- another highlight here --
19 is putting an increasing effort on operational surveillance.
20 I'm sure that as a fallout from the new group to look at 21 LERs we're going to devote a lot more attention to operating
- 22 23 experience in the future.
We're going to be spending more effort in attempting to learn those lessons. So we've shown the 15 positions
'**-,-e,al Reporters, ~n~.
25 there. Operating licensing has some growth in it, just due
15 jwb 17 to the increase in the number of people, but we intend to 2 increase the number of positions in that area by '81, do 3 more of it in-house, bring in more human-factor type people, 4 I and in general upgrade our entire operator licensing review I
5 I efforts.
~I
", COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is the 22 -- how does that 7 correspond to how many there are right now?
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, let me ask the same 9 question, from my standpoint. The present strength in the iO decision unit, the budget layouts indicate, is 199. Is that I I a fair -- as far as you know, a fair --
12 MR. BERKOW: Fiscal year '8 0.
13 ' CHAIRI:1.AN HENDRIE: It corresponds to what you've*
14 done for that. Let's see. However, that assumed, what? The 15 85?
16 MR. GOSSICK: Yes.
17 MR. BERKOW: Well, the 199 number is fiscal year i8 '80, end-of-fiscal-year '80 number. Is that what you were 19 reading?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. Okay, I'm reading too 2i high. What's the present? 166?
22 ~ill.. BERKOW: Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You'd agree with the 166.
~'Oc-rai Reporters, ~n!. Okay, so the delta for the decision unit, then, is a 25 hundred and, whoopee, seven people?
16 jwb 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's going to --
2 MR. BERKOW: From '79 to '81.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Because the 1 80 situation is --
4 I I don't know exactly what it is why, I've been trying to look at the deltas in terms of the present strength of the I
, I I
C .i organization. So it 1 s a delta from '79 to 107.
ij I.
71!
, I Do you have any idea what the deltas up and down 11,I 8 'I ii the line are?
MR. BERKOW: Yes.
10 CHJ\_IRMAN HENDRIE: Who don I t you go ahead, Harold, I
': I.!!
- i and Herb can make a couple of scratches.
~ ~. !
lL COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, the question I had, I
13 I Harold, was: If I looked at the I.
I 14 11 MR. GOSSICK: They're on the chart. Not the 15 deltas, but I can -- just leave that up and I can add them 16 up and give them to you in just a second.
17 COY.!MISSIONER AHEARNE: Going back to the charts 18 that the BRG at least used, where you had 11 conduct operator 19 11 licensing examinations, it had 14 in 1 80, going to 16 in 20 1 81, and then staying at 16 -- oh, I see. "No data provided. 11 Ii 21 So I guess staying at roughly 16.
- 22 23 24 How does this 22 track with that?
different line than Is that a MR. DENTON: I think our first submittal to BRG
"-c .c>:1:: Rep,'.lrters, Inc.
25 I we didn't have good data on that area. This is the second i
r 17 jwb 19 time we went back. Herb, do you recall, how many people are
'.2 :: now in operator licensing? Isn I t it 11?
- MR. BERK0\\1: Presently it is. With management, there's approximately 14. These are all total people, not professional manyears. At the present time, I think there's about 14.
MR. DENTON: Then when we took a harder look at it to beef it up, what numbers did we go to?
MR. BERKOW: 22 was the number we went to.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you're at 14.
MR. BERKOW: For fiscal year 1
- 81. We need an additional -- just in the TMI, we need an estimated additional 1
- 4 people in fiscal year 1 80, and then 2 beyond that in 81.
,~ So 6 of the 22 people shown here are TMI-related for operator 7
5 licensing.
- 6 :! MR. DENTON: And we'll have a paper coming down to you shortly that deals with --
MR. GOSSICK: It's on its way. I signed it yesterday.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess I'm surprised.
What do you do in the out years? It still seems low. What do you do in the out years?
MR. BERKOW: The out years, we -- I don't remember exactly. We probably just showed some normal growth because of the increasing number :of plants that they would be
!I 18 jwb 20 I' servicing. It I s probably a modest increase each year.
i 2 i! MR. DENTON: So it was 6 that were related to TMI.
11
- i
cmtl'.iISSIONER AHEARNE: When you say "short term,"
you mean it's --
- . li
\., !1 MR. BERKOW: Based on what we know now, the
!I 7ti short-term lessons learned.
I' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you don't mean that you
- li would be dropping below that?
- 1 Ii
-1. "> I!
V !I MR. BERKOW: No, no. This represents an enhance-11 ment of the operator licensing program, and it will probabl~{
, ,., il remain at at least this level.
'..:..*4r
- C01"11liISSIONER AHEARNE: Those I guess are part of i;
J:
": /
'"" II j I my question. Is it an enhancement, or, Harold, are you 15 I thinking, as you mentioned in the amendment, that you may 16 have to have a fundamental change in approach. Are you i/ considering any fundamental approaches in operator licensing?
18 MR. DENTON: The paper we're coming down with has 11 1*? ii a lot of improvements in detai_l. We've not yet got -- it's i;
-1 20 :1 not a quantum jump. It's more simulator changing requirements, 11 ti 21 !l more clear delineation between*;-:operators and senior operators.
j!I 22 !i!: So it's about 20 or 30 small actions, and that's what the 6
- I!
- ,' 1 people sort of represent.
,.,., I! Ii;, We haven't come up with a new quantum way of doing
_.., Ii F.f*fJ:*.;-rers. Inc. Jj
- 5 !_ business, yet.
19 jwb 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are you at all looking at 2 that?
3 MR. DENTON: Well, yes, we are, and I think the 4 I paper would be our springboard to go from there.
5 One of the things that industry is planning on 6 doing that's encouraging --
7 COlftl~ISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, I'm familiar with that.
~I I'-1R. DENTON :
bl
! Slide nurr~er seven summarizes at the 9 I bottom the total TMI-related resource needs, 26 positions I
10 and approximately $1 million that are due to TMI that go 11 into the operating reactor decision unit in 1 81 total.
12 (Slide.)
13 One of,the key assumptions in our budget this 14 year is that we're going to reduce the excess amendment 15 backlog to zero by the end of '84, and "excess backlog" is 16 jargon for those amendments that you'd have in-house under 17 optimum conditions, just the turnaround times. It assumes 18 more than 10 actions per plant.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I seem to recall the amount 20 of backlog that is excess continues to rise as the number of 21 plants rise.
22 (Slide.)
23 MR. DENTON: Slide number eight shows the total-~
A 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Before you lose that slide.
--* * .T: Re;x,ners, Inc.
25 Could I have that slide back?
20 jwb 22 beg #2 (Slide.)
2 MR. BERKOW: Number seven.
3 CHAIRJ\iAN HENDRIE: How do we class 11 excess, 11 again?
MR. DENTON: It's 10 -- I think it's 11. "Excess" would be greater than 10 actions per plant outstanding.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
7 MR. DENTON: So what the goal is is to have less 8 than 10.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Backlog greater than 10 times 10 number OLs. Right?
11 COlfLMISSIONER AHEARNE: The item I wanted to call 12 your attention to on this is the difference between what 13 I Len had been talking about, the budget amendm~nt, and what 14 this has as a budget supplement. And I think that at least 15 I would -- my first preference would be for a planning wedge.
16 My second preference would be for a budget amendment. And I'd 17 go for -- I'd plan on_putting in a supplemental only as a 18 third resort, because we certainly ought to be able to try to 19 Ii get someting out in the way of a budget amendment.
20 II MR. GOSSICK: Yes. This depends on how quickly II 21 ii our visibility gets good enough to really see what that impact I'
11 22 is. Certainly it would be preferable to do it through an 23 amendment.
MR. DENTON: The amendment that I -- How late 25 could we make an amendment and still --
21 jwb 23 MR. BARRY: We could make an amendment anytime 2 after we submit our budget.
MR. GOSSICK: Up to when?
4 M.R. BARRY: Up to the time there is a.n .Authorization
- ,,. i Act passed.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But it usually gets 7 MR. BARRY: You've got to get it up before the s !I subcommittee, before the subcoIT1.J.uittees actually hear you.
1!
ii
? 11 COMJ'1ISSIONER AHEARNE: You ought to really have 10 II it up there certainly sometime in March, I think.
I 1i MR. BARRY: Yes. The main thought on an amendment 12 is that if the resources that would be required as a result
- i3 14 15 of inquiry, ,investigat~ons turned out to be very significant, that 1 s when COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And that's what certainly 16 the planning wedge that they had forecast would have been 17 linked to., and the original estimate they came into BRG with 18 was quite significant.
,17" MR. BARRY: Yes.
20 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: Of approximately almost 21 a factor 3 more than in total over those short terms.
22 MR. DENTON: Right.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You're "excess backlog,"
A 24 then you're assuming 10 per plant, you say. Then you also
':;,,:9:a: Reporters, Inc.
25 have imbedded in there an assumption upon the increasing
22 jwb 24 number of plants will have operating licenses.
2 MR. DENTON: Yes.
3 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: Going up to, then I 4 ;! gather, 120 in '84.
Ii
\i MR. DENTON: I think we get up to 108.
I 6 iI COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 108 in '83.
I MR. DENTON: You're right, yes.
7 I 81111 MR. BERKOV*i: It's 108 in '83. That's right.
9 MR. DENTON: This is sho1/4~ on slide eight in iO some detail for up through '83. Take the number of operating
- l units, if we actually -- I have some doubt about whether we
,1-") will actually achieve all those operating plants in the 13 schedule, but *this is, once again, the standard forecast, assuming that we're able to meet the construction dates on 15 these plants.
16 These are how many would be ready to operate, if i7 we were able to issue a license by that point.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You have imbedded in here 19 the assumption that you are going to be contracting a fair 20 amount of the amendment work?
21 MR. DENTON: Yes, and that's an item completed by 22 contractor. We're just about to select the -- you'll remember 23 last year I mentioned that we were going to take 200-or-so amendments and go out and find a contractor. That ' s a very 25 laborious process, and we are now down to ?electing a
23 jwb 25 contractor after compl~ting all of the paperwork. And I
- 2 3
think that would be -- Darrell, is that 200 amendments that we're farming out to one contractor, and I guess some of
- 4 III II s Ii Ii I
these other 740 are the ones that we have routinely farmed out where we could to the existing labs.
,C II Ii MR. EISENHUT: Yes, we've used national labs on Ii
!I 7 11 it. This is roughly about a million dollar p~ckage put
' II ii1; 8 ji together on an independent contractor, where we went under an 11 9
i' RFP looking for someone qifferent than a national lab.
)0 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: _It is an extendable contract?
11 MR. EISENHUT: I think there's a two-year extension 12 you can have, so you can get a three-year program.
13 C01'-:1MISSIONER AHEARNE: So it would be a maximum of
' 14 five years under that.
15 MR. EISENHUT: No, I'm sorry. It's one year, 16 with two one-year extensions on it, as it is right now.
,/ COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Three years.
18 MR. EISENHUT: Three years.
19 MR. DENTON: So I would hope, with* someone like 20 that, we couid involve them in the original questionnaire 21 that goes out, and in the review of what comes back, and let
- 22 13 24 them do all the field work for us.
we can farm more and more out.
And if it works well, (Commissioner Kennedy arrives at 9:37 a.m.)
'. ,-,,.a;c:! Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess somewhere I had come
24 jwb 26 across that idea in one of these books that you were planning 2 on continuing the contract out longer than those three years.
1
- 3 Maybe it's because this done by contract goes at least four 4 years.
,. MR. DENTON: Well, I think we've always managed
,)
6 to farm some out, but this is different than the special 7 contract that we 1 re working on.
8 COJV'.tJIHSSIONER AHEARNE: But this done by contract 9 would include the national labs in what you do traditionally.
10 MR. DENTON: Yes.
11 MR. GOSSICK: Harold, why do we assume the number 12 goes down by contractor, rather than at least staying level?
13 MR. DENTON: Let me ask Darrell to respond to 14 that.
15 MR. EISENHUT: What was the question, I'm sorry.
16 MR. GOSSICK: Why do we assume the actions by 17 contractor goes down each year, instead of at least staying 18 level?
- ,9 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, because one of the asswnptions 20 II was that we wrapped this program up and the excess backlog
!I 21 decreases to zero by 1984, so you see it as just a matter of 22 you don't want to run the program for four years and then 23 truncate it instantly. So we tried to phase it out as sort 24 of a bump as we bring it back down.
',_,._* e:e:i Reporters, Inc.
25 You notice also the program support, the actual
25 jwb 27 total numbers of millions of dollars is decreasing, too.
2 It's a program we've been gearing up, trying to when we 3 release the contracts, we're going to be trying to taper it dow-n.
I
~ !
- JI MR. GOSSICK
- But you don 1 t really want to get the I
cl I backlog to zero. You want to keep the backlog.
I 7[ MR. EISENHUT: No, the excess backlog we want to
\
8i l
run to zero. There are always residents in-house on any plant,on about 10 action items, and that's the second-to-the-iO bottom line. You can see it's 10 times the number of plants.
11 The excess backlog would be -- there is no column I
1.t.
II I
in 1984, but it would be zero on this chart .
I:
MR. DENTON: r'think we would continrie to spend J about $3 million a year in contractor support, for whatever 15 actions were in-house; it would eliminate the people needs.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. At the moment, for 17 contractor efforts, you have some lab efforts in this?
18 MR. EISENHUT: ~ Yes.
19 MR. DENTON: For example, in-service inspection is 11 20 II being done by teams out of EG&G, I believe.
I 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So you would have --
22 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, we have --
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And you're processing an RFP-A 24 type train.
- .-, We.*e:! f'i eporters, Inc.
25 MR. EISENHUT: We're processing an RFP where we're
26 jwb 28 basically looking at five different contractors right now, 2 but we have actually 3
CH2'.:\.IRMAN HENDRIE: How long has that been underway?
4 MR. EISENHUT: The RFP is due first to be let in about a month. Hopefully it's this fiscal year.
MR. DENTON: It 1 s been underway for a year, essentially.
MR. EISENHUT: It takes about a year to be gearing 9
up. We have --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How soon did you get the first 11 labs to work on it?
12 MR. EISENpUT: Under the RFP?
13 CHAIRIV'.t.A...J\J. HENDRIE: Well, under this program.
14 MR. EISENHUT: Well, there 1 s two different things 15 here that are being confused a little. Most of the $8.8 16 million in FY 1 80 will be let by standard letter October the 17 1st, just like there was a considerable amount of effort under 18 program support in 1979.
19 MR. DENTON: Let me try to clarify it. There was 20 a lot of resistance in-house to going out with RFPs because 21 it is so time-consuming and laborious. We can place it with 22 the labs immediately, and it has taken us one year to go the 23 RFP route, and we could have had those 200 done if we had A 24 done it in the conventional manner, but we deliberately chose
_,,':<Wm! Reporters, Inc.
25 to go outside the national labs and try to develop some
27 jwb 29 independent capability.
- 2 3
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
MR. EISENHUT:
And why was that?
I think, to answer it, there's a
- 4 5
lot of people working today. There's about several million dollars' worth of people in the labs working today, and this 6 is a continuation.
7 I But then over and above the national labs at 11 1
8 1 Livermore, and EG&G, et cetera, we're adding in 1981 a 11 p
91 $1 million bump on an RFP. So we're just talking about a 10 small piece of the actual overall puzzle.
11 MR. DENTON: You asked, Coromissioner, why it takes 12 so long --
- i3 14 15 COI.V'.tMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, no. I was asking why --
you said you purposely decided to go outside through the RFP rather than what you referred to as the "conventional route,"
16 going directly to the labs, which would have been a lot 17 shorter. Why did you do that?
18 MR. DENTON: I think that was made during last 19 year's budget considerations.
20 One was to provide a basis for comparison of cost 21 with the national labs.
- 22
~"'
,t..:,
24 Secondly, a feeling that we should at least explore divorcing some of this work from the historical national labs, and we knew there were some GAO reports looking into this sort
. **,-eri:i Reporters, Inc.
25 of thing. So we thought we'd test -- put our feet in the water
28 jwb 30 to see what was out there, and it takes a lot of steps to 2 get to the point. But we have found now a number of
'l
,.)
qualified, private firms who were not otherwise in the nuclear 4 business, who are interested in doing certain things for us.
5 COV.!MISSIONER AHEARNE: How many actions will be 6 completed by the contractor in '79, which I guess would be 7 the national labs?
8 .MR. EISENHUT: How many --
9 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: Actions completed by iO contractor in '79.
11 MR. EISENHUT: In '79, I think we have a total of 12 a little over $3 million, and it runs in about .15 rnanyear i3 per action; and it's about $70,000,* so it's -- $3 million is
. 14 around 300 Is it 220? 200, I stand corrected. It's 15 $3.3 million for -- there's some nonroutine stuff in there 16 that's on-call emergency work.
17 This year it's been running the target is 18 around ~10,000 in action, I believe. But I think there's
$3.3 million in that overall.
20 MR. DENTON: This area is one that I intend to 21 give a lot of attention to and see if *we can do more in those 22 areas of prioritizing these actions and combining them and
'.23 getting more efficient ways to deal with it. The end-of-year backlog continues to grow through '80 before we start bringing 25 it down.
31 29 jwb COYu~ISSIONER AHEARNE: Now do I gather that there-2 fore we will have some of this work being done by your staff, 3
some of it being done by the national labs' staff, and some 4 of it being done by the contractor?
MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And these are -- each of those will do the complete effort?
MR. DENTON: They would write reports and send them to the staff, and then the staff would always have to do 10 something even if the lab does it or the contractor does it, i1 but we are trying to find slices of the amendment action that 12 can be done largely through a qualified -- and in one 13 technical sphere, without taking a lot of interaction back 14 and forth -- like snubbers, or supports -- pick out one area.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay.
16 MR. DENTON: So I think this is the biggest budget 17 growth area, and Len has done some projections for 10 years, 18 I think, looking at the number of amendments. And I think 19 for the long term this is the area we have to focus on to 20 find more effici~n6y; 2i MR. BARRY: We have all agreed on that -- I know
- 22 23 the Chairman hasn't been, but the rest of us have.
(Slide.)
MR. DENTON: Item number nine shows the types of 25 efforts that we have labeled "operational surveillance in the
30 jwb 32 budget." We have 15 people going into this area, which is 2 continuous,surveillance of the reports. About half of this 3 is review and evaluation, and that's following experience, and the other is the systematic feedback process under review.
COiv.1.MISSIONER KENNEDY: These 15 positions are all NRR positions?
7 MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: How does this relate to the 9 recent decision to concentrate units to one in the EDO 10 shop looking at LERs and related items; and then one in each 11 organization 12 MR. DENTON: It's intended to be entirely 13 compatible with our* effort that goes along to carry out and 14 execute those recommendations that the new office would 15 recommend, plus our own effort that we need to feed in in 16 certain areas. So we've attempted to make this compatible 17 with that.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But this would be the 19 location in your organization that would match that.
20 MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
21 COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY: 1/4'There are the --
22 MR. GOSSICK: I was going to say, minus the one 23 or two I'm going to have to tap him in order to form this
- ,,.le,c:i Reporters. ~n~. office, as I indicated to him.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. That's where you would
31 jwb 33 get --
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: "One or two"?
3 MR. GOSSICK: Well, I'm going to go across the I
4 I!ii staff and pick up spaces here and there in order to make that.
ti 5 j! COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How many is it going to be?
Ii c- I! MR. GOSSICK: Somewhere between 15 and 20, perhaps.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 15 or 20 in your group, and 8 15 in NRR?
MR. DENTON: Well, to the extent that -- I guess 10 we'd have to work out the details as to what that group does, 11 and if they do it we vwuld pull back on some of it, but we 12 see a continuing need to implement what recomrnenda~ions, and 13 there are some things that I think we foresee we would do
- I 14 that they wouldn't do.
15 MR. GOSSICK: You remember the Task Force study 16 under the Option 3. Option 4 would have pulled the whole 17 operation out of the offices and consolidated it.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I understand. I under-19 stand the principle. I have difficulty in seeing how the 20 i numbers relate to the principle.
I 21 MR. DENTON: Let me ask Darrell if he can explain 22 how many people we put in this area now, and this is intended 23 not to duplicate the new group.
MR. EISENHUT: Yes. I think if you look at it, a
- c.-:-:,-f,~a1 Reporters, ~n!.
25 little bit of these people are not necessarily identifiable
32 jwb 34 as, you.know, one person working completely on this area.
2 For example, each of the project managers on his 3 particular case looks at operating*experience. So you could I
I 4 j count a certain piece of each person by project.
i
,..~: i! COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is that what's in this 15?
61 MR. EISENHUT: Some of that is, yes.
71 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: So how many bodies is it?
i
,... I MR. EISENHUT: I don't know the actual number.
0 !!
i 9 It would probably be no more than one or two.
10 Now you've also got technical people looking at l1 our licensing event reports.
12 I beg your pardon?
13 c;orv.1MISSIONER AHEARNE: I was just saying, those 14 are the one or two that Lee is going to take.
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. EISENHUT: Well, he gets an arm and a leg here.
17 The technical people also are looking at it, as 18 they routinely go about processing and doing their routine 19 operating reactor work, which is probably another three or 20 four people.
21 So that's something -- maybe 5 or 6 of the people 22 of the 15. NRR has been doing some work looking at foreign 23 data. I believe it comes out, Herb, to one manyear in NRR?
.A 24 MR. BERKOW: About that .
~.-:fWe~a: Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. EISENHUT: About a manyear. Again, that's
33 jwb 35 scattered throughout NRR.
2 So this gives you a little bit of an idea. The 3 I&E vendor reports, I&E reports and vendor reports, we also I
I 41 probably put in a couple of manyears on.
I
~ I
=- !
I Now the thing that's missing in the delta that's 6i I not here is -- one of the things that has not.been looked at 7 is generically looking across operating experience for trends, 1
I 8 ii for example.
- i 9 I So what this amounts to would be an increase in 10 some of those areas.
l1 COM..MISSIONER KENNEDY: Is NRR supposed to do that?
12 Or is this other group supposed to do that?
- 13 14 15 MR. EISENHDT: No, the other group does that primarily, except there's a few people in NRR that basically support that activity, and then as it was envisioned, the I
- 16 minute the larger group comes up with some requirements, it 17 may well entail going back to plants and digging out a bunch 18 more data.
'~*
I So there clearly is an interface function there.
20 It 1 s just very difficult to quantify the exact number. The 21 Task Force ca.i."Tle up with a complement of a few people for that, 22 I believe is the recommendation of Option 3.
23 MR. DENTON: I guess we'd have to have a little experience with this new group and clearly delineate what 25 they want to do and what we do.
34 jwb 36 COYLMISSIONER ~.HEARNE: And what assumption about 2 the new group is request based on?
3 MR. DENTON: I assumed here that the new group 4 would do the trends, for example, the things that aren't being I
ii 5 !i done now.
Ii 6 II,, MR. EISENHUT: I think that's right.
il 7 iii: MR. DENTON: And we would still do most of the ii ii 8 i1 stuff we are currently doing. About half of these people 1!
- i still have to go in a feedback into the process, and even if
- I' 10 I the new group provides the feedback, we have to do something n I with it to get all of the details straight as to who it 12 applies to, and so forth.
MR. EISENHUT: Yes. ,r think th~ proposal had each I
14 of the offices -- major line offices -- having the equivalent 15 of about half of these people, or a small number of people to 16 interface with that large group.
17 COMIIUSSIONER AHEARNE: Well, my question, though, 18 Darrell, was: When this budget was put together, this proposal, what assumption was made about what that new group 20 would be?
21 MR. EISENHUT: It was basically along the lines 22 of Option 3.
23 (Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford arrive at
~ '.:'c-.e,a: Reporters, ~n~. 9
- SO a* m * )
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I have the feeling that what
35 jwb 37 we have here is something -- it wouldn't matter if we were 2 talking about 6 or 8 peoplei we're talking about 30 people, 3 and thus a fairly good chunk of manpower and cost, and it
) !!
"-' i I seems to me therefore it would be worthwhile going back and ii 11 s I! taking a look at that, and in a somewhat more precise way i
6 II than I have the feeling we've looked at it up to this point.
i!
7 i\ MR. DENTON: Well, you can 1 t 11
,-, i\
0 ,: COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY: Because the numbers we're 9 II talking about can range anywhere from 15 to 30, and it lO I depends entirely on the assumptions one makes. And I think 11 ! before we go up and start talking about 30, we ought to know 12 what those assumptions are.
13 MR*: EISENHUT: Well; but now the other point, as 14 I mentioned, about half *of these people already exist and are 15 doing wor_k on opera:t_ing experience. So it's somewhat slightly 16 less.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, these aren't 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I understand that.
10
', MR. EISENHUT: It's certainly a good point.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Darrell, is it incorrect 21 to call them "positions"? Is it really "manyears"?
22 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, I think it's positions, 23 because everything in our budget
- 24 CHAIRMAN KENNEDY: Oh, no
'* ,:,c-e;c:; Reporters, Inc, 25 MR. EISENHUT: It's this one
36 jwb 38 MR. BERKOW: It's staff years.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It's "years," not 3 I "positions. "
'I1 1
/ 11
- ll MR. DENTON: Yes, it's --
d i; Ii
- ..: l: MR. EISENHUT: I thought everything was converted i'
6 to breathing bodies, but if it isn't --
7 (Laughter.)
8 I MR. BERKOW: It's that portion of the 273.
I
'i
"'7* MR. DENTON: Every project manager puts in some 10 time in this area, and we count that little slice.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So there are not 15 12 identifiable people --
13 MR. DENTON: That's right.
14 MR. -BERKOW: That's right.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: positions focused on 16 this; its the manyear allocation.
17 CO~.MISSIONER KENNEDY: Equivalent.
18 MR. DENTON: I think this issue is one of those 19 across-the-board issues that all offices are going to 20 contribute to this function, and once we work out the 21 details --
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It wasn't clear that the 23 view was contributive, but --
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, also your chart shows
- c-e;a! Reporters, Inc.
25 "positions 11
37 jwb 39 MR. DENTON: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: which of course 3 immediately raised the question.
4 MR. DENTON: I think it should be "manyears,rr 5 ,,1! myself. And it reflected, I guess, our own office's attempt 6 to second-guess what this group would do and would not do, 7 and that what they mainly do are new things that are not 8 being done now; and that we would continue to do the legwork 9 that has to be done to apply some new trend that turns up.
10 (Slide.)
11 The Operator Licensing slide, number ten, we 12 touched on already, the fact that there are six new positions 13 due to the TMI impacts, and the kinds of areas that this 14 paper we've mentioned recommends we beef up our program in.
15 Since we've covered that one, let's go to number 16 11, which does have --
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could I ask a question on 18 that? On simulators, do you have any contribution towards 19 what kind of programs are put into the simulators? In other 20 words, the types of routines the simulators handle?
21 MR. DENTON: We intend to in the future. I don't 22 think there's anyone here today from the Operator Licensing 23 group, but I think it's been more informal. We would be briefed on what the simulators could do, and they tended to 25 stay within the bounds of all the operating experience and
38 jwb 40 didn't attempt to simulate multiple failure or phenomenons 2 beyond the design-basis accident, and there are two areas 3 that we hope to move into by '81.
I I..;
II;; COMMISSIONER AHE..i',.RNE: Do you have people who
.: /! are familiar with what simulators can and cannot do? Or i1 t ii,,ii are you going to hire consultants?
7I II I MR. DENTON: We'll have to hire these kinds of I
8 u
I skills or retain them through consultants.
9 II COM..1'11ISSIONER AHEAR.'I\JE: Do you .have the monies 10 in your budget to do that?
11 MR. DENTON: I think between we and Research, we 12 do. We've talked about the same things.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSK.Y: What kind of skills are 14 you talking about, Harold?
15 MR. DENTON: I'm thinking that we need in this 16 area more human-factor skills, people who are knowle.dgeable 17 of the man/machine interface than we have now.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's what 'I'm worried 19 about, simulators and their programs.
20 MR. DENTON: I would not intend to have here in 21 these six people who are detail simulator programmers, I 22 think that would be -- we would probably go to Research and 23 get them to do that kind of analytical work for us. We Cf.re.! Reponers, ~n~, would be more in t:ae other side.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What's the word "designers"?
39 jwb 41 COMMISSIONER AHEAR~E: People who are architects.
2 Essentially software.
3 I MR. DENTON: Yes.
4 Ii MR. LEVINE: I think you really need two basic 5 ![ kinds of talents here that would have to be merged and set 6 I requirements that the NRC thinks are suitable for simulators I
7 \ to expand their capabilities.
I I
8 i You need people who are good operators, and you I
9 need designers who can make the analysis to get done* what 10 the operators want, and ~o define accidents beyond the design 11 basis accident. And between Research and NRR, we can do this, 12 I think.
I
~
.j MR. DENTON: *I think we saw ours more lookihg at 14 *~11 the information that is available now on operator/machine 15 interfaces, and beginning to apply that to what we do. That 16 was an area that we just largely neglected in the past. We 17 would get into how often will someone make an error if called 1s I upon to repeat a function in an allotted time.
191 CHAIR.Vi.AN HENDRIE: Harold, only because we have 20 I mentioned the equipment a couple of times here, not because 21 it's necessarily part of Operator Licensing as a subunit, 22 how much have we thought about whether we ought to have a 23 simulator of our own/ or two?
MR. DENTON: We haven 1 t ridden it down, but there 25 is an increasing feeling I think that for our own reviewers,
40 jwb 42 for example, who worked in the systems area, it would be a
- 2 3
real increase in their skills to have access to a simulator where they could run for themselves the kinds of transients that we're normally analyzing on paper, to get a real feel for 4
how the machine operates.
6 I think it would be a real asset. Maybe we 7 wouldn 1 t need to train all of our people -- there are some 8 skills in which we don't use simulators -- but certainly for 9 our fundamental systems people to worry about reactor systems, 10 I think it would show a marked increasing o,f, 1.our own standing 11 in this area.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would it be something that 13 we ought to have our own? Or could we lease, or rent time 14 of someone else?
15 MR. DENTON: I've not attempted to look at the pros 16 and cons of that, but th~re are so many utilities who appear 17 to be buying their own like Oconee is, and TVA is that 18 they're making the decision that they need it for their own 19 operator force, and we're as large as they are probably in 20 these areas, and the logic then would be that we could 21 probably afford to have our own.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Who would you be training 23 on this?
MR. DENTON: Our Reactor Systems reviewers, so that 25 instead of just always looking at curves on graph paper as to
41 jwb 43 how the system responds to an anticipated transient, we would
'.2 actually be able to go over and set the machine up and run that transient, and run some multiple failures, and get --
11 ii" I think it would be a training program really for our own
- t. Ii ii 5 !! staff, as well as --
COlvlMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you're not talking about training; you're talking about an analogue computer.
MR. DENTON: Yes. It would result in a better
!f Y i understanding --
10 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's both. There's a problem 11 which I think I have some perception for, because I sense it 12 very strongly personally. And that is, a lack of sort of 13 i good intuition about ho'\1\ the analysis and the design aspects 0
14 translate into Lhe operability of these machines that are 15 resulting -- just not as sure as I'd like to be that we're 16 doing everything we ought to do in order to make sure that 17 operations are really in control of things.
18 MR. LEVINE: I'd like to say a couple of words 19 about this, because I have given it some thought, but it's 20 hard to think your way through this completely.
21 One, the ACRS has already asked, or recommended to 22 you in the letter on our Research program, that we establish codes that have simulator capability.
CHAIRM..AN HENDRIE: Yes.
25 MR. LEVINE: Now that doesn't mean for training
42 jwb 44 people, but it's talking about the kinds of things that 2 Harold is talking about, where peop-le can interact with the codes that predict the system behavior and see -- and get a real feel for it. That's possible to do without a simulator that trains operators.
On the other hand, there are a lot of things to be gained fact the simulators that train operators.
The problem with that is that if we were to get simulators
.., that we owned and operated, that's quite an investment in 10 money and manpower to cover all the variations in plants that 11 exist. And that's what's held me back from recommending that.
i 12 On the.other hand, what's happened more recently I I:-
- - 13 14 15 with EPRI is they 1 re talking about establishing an Operations Institute where they will have a central place for training operators around the country.
16 I think we could probably work out some cooperative 17 thing with them where they will cover the right number of 18 reactors, and we can reserve time for a cost on those machines 19 as we need them.
20 MR. DENTON: A good example --
21 MR. LEVINE: And that I think would be a much 22 more economical investment.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What kind of -- Have you any sense of what a really decent setup would look like? You 25 know, you're going to --
4 3 jwb 45 MR. LEVINE: In terms of cost?
2 CHAIRJV'.LA.N HENDRIE: Yes. It would have to have 3 capability to cover both the Bs, and the Ps, and the variation 4 in the Ps, and the variation just plant to plant within the 5 models.
6 MR. LEVINE:
To buy "a" simulator today costs 7 $6 million. That simulator is inadequate by definition that 8 I! it stops at design-basis accidents. So when you go beyond
'i 9 that, it's going to extend the cost.
10 How much you can do in a single simulator in 11 representing a multiplicity of plants, I don't know. I haven't 12 looked into that yet. But I'm sure you need several, at least, 13 you know; maybe five, I 1 m not sure.
14 MR. DENTON: It would be very handy for a ,big chunk of LER 15 analysis, for example. One of the difficulties we have with 16 LERs is that half a dozen things sometimes go wrong, but 17 nothing-untoward happens. And if you were able to somehow 18 put in this transient in the simulator and have it go on at 19 a different point in time and vary it, you'd get a much better 20 feel for how serious an individual thing was.
21 MR. BERKOW: I should point out that I&E does 22 presently sponsor simulator training, and they make a certain 23 number of slots available to NRR. We send several people every
.: ,e?.i"BI Reporters, ~n~. year. They lease blocks of time from the TVA simulators, 25 primarily.
44 jwb 46 MR. LEVINE: But that's not enough. What we need 2 is access to simulators that we can use as a part of our 3 review, not just to train people.
4 CHAIRJ.v'.tAN HENDRIE: Yes.
5 MR. DENTON: Yes.
6 CHAIPY.tAN HENDRIE: And, you know, if one looks 7 down that track, it looks like owning or leasing the equipment I
s! ourselves is fairly likely to be~ fairly expensive 1j 9 proposition. It would be attractive to lease time on say a 10 good central facility at EPRI.
11 On the other hand, that's likely to turn out to be 12 out West, and people going back and forth across the country 13' isn I t th~ handiest thing in the world--when we review work, I
14 either.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, since we don 1 t do 16 anything of this sort right now, just getting people out to 17 simulators anywhere would be an advance.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Anything probably 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, no, no --
20 II MR. BER...1<0W: We do some.
I 21 COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY: We do that all the time.
22 They 1 ve been going down to TVA for a couple of years.
23 MR. DENTON: Well, the Operator Licensing group is always 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But not in the sense of
45 jwb 47 program.rning
- 2 3
1!,I MR. DENTON:
CHAIRJvlAN HENDRIE:
Not in the sense of
-- not in the sense of 4 programming into the TVA machine, for instance, that thing i
11
..,~ Ii"
- I' that Rand at Zion, you remember, a couple of months ago, ii'I 6 I I
where things went pop, bang, snap, crackle, and it was fine, I
7 you know, everything settled down, but you say, 11 for pity 1 *s II I
I 8 sake, you know, stop that."
II ri 9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: They had their own simulator 10 right outside the door.
l1 CHAIRJv.LAN HENDRIE: And you'd like to be able to 12 sit down and program the initiating events in there,- and 13 1 build~n the failures that occu~red, the misalignments that 14 were built in there, and see, by God, how far off the track 15 an operator had to wander in order to put that plant into 16 difficulty.
17 It gives you a much better sense then of what 18 you're talking about in terms of the seriousness of the event.
19 COJ.'.:I.M:ISSIONER GILINSKY: You'll never get the guys 20 back in their office again, but --
21 CHAIRJv.lA.N HENDRIE: Yes, that's right.
- 22 23 (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: When I was looking for people who could do that kind of software development for 25 simulators
46 jwb 48 CF~.IR.MAN HENDRIE: That's a good reason to have it 2 close to home. If it's in California, we'll never get them 3 back in the office.
4 COV0'.iISSIONER AHEARl\JE: -- to put that stuff in, 5 Ji and you're saying that 6 MR. LEVINE: We're planning to do that, and we'll 7 cover that.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Since you raised --
9 MR. LEVINE: By the way, a practical suggestion:
10 Since this Operations Institute is just being formed, we may 11 be able to influence the location, and it may be separate 12 from EPRI.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: We don't seem to have much 14 luck in influencing the location of a building for the NRC, 15 why should we be able to influence them.
16 (Laughter.)
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Since you raised the human _
18 factors --
19 HR. LEVINE: I mean, it has to cover utilities 20 II who are mostly on the East Coast.
I 21 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: -- the question of control 22 room, do you have somewhere in here in one of these slots --
23 I don't know whether it's under Operating Reactors -- an effort 2
'._:-,ee,-s: Reporters, , n~. focused upon human factors I issues regarding control rooms?
25 MR. DENTON: This whole issue ,is one that I hoped --
4 7 jwb 49 and when I come down with something other than the interim 2 organization that I 1 m in, now -- to find a way to elevate 3 that whole area and to use some of the 100 people that we're getting in 1 80 who are knowledgeable in this area. So I hope to use those 100 people and get a new element of the 6 organization.
! Within the past, operator training had been stuck 7 I over in a corner of the organization, independent of the sI
'! safety reviews that went on, and procedures and so forth.
9 I 10 We need to integrate all of this. And certainly I am aware l l of your concern, and probably the Presidential concern, and 12 the Commission concern, about the control room design, and I 13 would hope to beef up that area.
14 COlV"1MISSIOl~ER AHEARNE: Would you have program '
15 support money that is already in this budget that could be 16 reprogrammed into it? Or is there --
17 MR. DENTON: It would be -- I would hope to get 18 people in 'BO, and out of the 100 people to get some people 19 in this area.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Right. But we're looking 1
21 at the 81 budget now.
22 MR. DENTON: I have not included any special 23 money.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it certainly seems 25 to me there are enough activities of -- I don't know whether
48 jwb 50 11 you'd call it Human Factors Division," or something like 2 that, but these things are certainly going to get elevated.
3 Let me ask you --
4 I MR. DENTON: We 1 re using these kinds of skills II
[i 5 iiii now in our bulletin and orders review, but we 1 re having to 11 6\i obtain the expertise from the laboratories.
i,I 711 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you about the
!l 2 i\ operator licensing area. Are our examiners qualified l!
9 :1 operators?
I I
10 MR. DENTON: Do you mean do they have qualified --
l1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Licenses?
12 MR. DENTON: Some of them have had licenses in the past, but I think in order to be an actual license i4 holder --
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You'd-have to be in a plant.
16 MR. DENTON: -- you've got to own a plant, and 17 that company has to want you, or to recommend that I'm 18 sure they could pass the exams, the written exams, it 1 s just 1
19 that you'd have to be, on an individual plant, qualified.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The way our regs are, to 21 have a license, it has to be on a specific plant.
22 MR. DENTON: Right.
23 MR. BERKOW: Most of them have held li;censes at some point.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but I have the
49 jwb 51 impression that not on the power reactors, necessarily.
2 MR. BERKOW: There are a few that came out of the
'l
__, Navy program, but several --
4 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Others from the research Ii
- , reactor licenses.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that's true.
7 CO1~1ISSIONER GILINSKY: Now what sort of direction 8 are you headed in? I thought you had -- you were drawing
'i 9 some analogy between what we were doing and what the FAA 10 was doing, sort of check pilots or something like that.
11 MR. DENTON: We have another paper that's just 12 been signed out to you that covers this. There were several 13 issues the Commission wanted to discuss.
14 As I recall the paper, it has a number of improve-15 ments -- proposed improvements in the way we do business; 16 a clear delineation between'operators and senior operators; 17 changing the --
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I'm thinking more in 19 terms of our own reviewers. It seems to me that our people 20 ought to be expert operators. In other words, the guys who 21 are deciding on who becomes an operator ought to be more 22 expert than the average operator -- in fact, they ought to 23 be expert operators, like the FAA examiners are, as I under-stand it, expert pilots.
25 Is that right?
50 jwb 52 MR. DENTON: Well, I think our people are expert 2 in testing people to see their skills. Many of the people
,.,'l that we use for licensing examiners are from the academic 41 side of the house, and who teach nuclear engineering and ii11
~ Ii
- , II so forth, but they're not necessarily our best safety 6 analysts.
7 And when we did the bulletins and orders, you 8 recall, we combined those skills. We had people who did I
- ,I I
9 reactor safety reviews, along with the Reactor Licensing 10 Branch, to sit down with the operators to be sure that the 11 entire system was working.
12 I think it's been largely a testing organization
- 13 14 15 in the past.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I know, but testing academic skills is just one part of qualifying operators, 16 just as, you know, asking about the clouds and so on is one 17 part of qualifying a pilot; and the other part is whether 18 he knows how to fly a plane.
19 And I guess I'm not convinced that we really are 20 in good shape on that score.
21 MR. DENTON: Well, I think this paper would be a
- 22 23 good vehicle to take up the issue. I don't think -- I'm not satisfied with our level of effort, either, and that's why we have 6 additional people in '81, to begin to change the o -:cc-e~ci Reporters, ~n~.
25 nature of the kind of review we do.
51 jwb 53 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think Vic is going back 2 to the kind of question that I was trying to push on: Are 3 you going to a fundamental reevaluation of how we go about 4 I the whole question of operator license activity?
Ii I
11
,:c
- ...' ,! MR. DENTON: We're trying to, and this paper lays
!j 6 Ii out our present thoughts. We have not yet identified a I'
11 7ij quantum improvement that we can do. We 1 ve met a lot of times III,
!1 8 i with the Navy, and talked about
- 1 9 i COif.LMISS I ONER GILINSKY: You know, it may be that 10 if we cannot have full-time qualified operators on our staff l1 because of the way the licensing works, it may be that what 12 we want to do is get operators from one part of the country i3 testing operators from another part of the country._ There 14 may be some scheme through which we can 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Some sort of a check pilot 16 system.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's right. Maybe they 18 won I t be NRC .employees. Maybe they 1 11 be deputized in some 19 way.
20 MR. GOSSICK: That option is addressed in the 21 paper to the Commission.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But I think that we ought 23 to have absolutely expert operators qualifying new operators, and that it oughtn't to be just a question of, you know, 25 finding out about neutron fusion. I mean, I realize that's an
52 jwb 54 exaggeration of the character of what's happening --
2 MR. DENTON: A lot of these things were addressed, 3* and I would prefer to have our people in this area here to I
4 [i really go ahead with it.
,I Si!I' CO:MMISSIONER AHEARNE: l:iarold, in the next couple
!I t\! of days could you just send me a short paper on the question i
7 jl of possible program for control room improvements?
l s 11 MR. DENTON: All right.
li 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Because I recognize that 10 with the staff people you can probably, as you say, hopefully 11 if you can get a breather time, you can look at how you would 12 cluster that, but I think that there might be some program 13 support that could be useful.
14 '
MR. DENTON: I guess just one last word on the 15 operators. I think, too, it 1 s important to look beyond --
16 the operators are certainly an important slice, but we've got 17 to look at the entire operations: the procedures that the 18 operators get, the management up and down the line, the 19 auxiliary operators as well as the supervisors of the 20 operators. I think this whole area of operations is going to 21 require a big increase in focus, and a lot of it will be on 22 operators themselves.
23 MR. GOSSICK: There's one other concept that might
- O ::Ca?.,*a! Reporters, ~n~. be worth exploring. In the Air Force -- and in all the 25 Services for that matter -- and Ithink the airlines do this
53 jwb 55 to a certain extent but in a somewhat different form -- in L addition to the check pilots, the people who do the checking 3 of operators, there is a standardization evaluation group I
I 4 I which is literally a checker of the checkers. And they i
s !I really are the, you know, the most highly qualified people.
6 And it's very small in number. Perhaps in our case it would 7 only require one or two people, if you could find the right 8 kind of people, who would literally then go examine our 9 examiners.
10 And whether you can examine them all on a regular 1l basis, or the fact that they know that they're liable to 12 be examined has quite an effect on performance. It's a very
- 13. useful concept that we might want to.try to follow or 14 explore.
15 (Slide.)
16 MR. DENTON: The next slide, number 11, shows the 17 SEP program. This is an area in which we do have an issue 18 on the setaside in the out year. The EDO budget in the '82 19 and '83 does not fund --
20 MR. BERKOW: They fund it at a reduced level.
21 MR. DENTON: That 1 s right. And we would recommend 22 that, probably if anything, the SEP program's Phase III would 23 go forward at the levels we had proposed.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE~ I thought the argument for 25 the reduction, or setaside, was that Phase III hadn't been
54 jwb 56 laid out in a specific plan.
MR. HALLER: Also, there was an assumption in the policy and planning guidance which indicated that the program would be assumed to continue at a slower pace in that Phase II 5 II III. And I think it was in recognition of this planning H
ii 6 IiI assumption that we set it aside, simply to identify that it 7 was a possible policy issue, and the fact that Phase III is 8 I undefined and is being defined now by Harold and his people I
1, 9 II that's an indication that *we would get the proper planning I 10 on the thing during the future and the Commission could know 11 which way to go.
12 MR. DENTON: I guess that's an example of the 13 wedge that we did attempt to foresee --
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Y.es.
15 MR. DENTON: -- thinking that we surely wouldn't 16 go down in the SEP program.
17 Darrell, would you like to elaborate on the 18 Phase III part of the program?
19 MR. EISENHUT: As far as --
20 MR. DENTON: It represents about 15 people, or 21 manyears, and a half a million dollars.
- 22 23 24 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. I think where we 1 re coming down is it looks like Phase III we'll probably be recommending go forthwith.
'*:-:,ere! Reporters, Inc, 25 I think one of the things coming out of the Lessons
55 jwb 57 Learned program also is that we may want to actually expand 2 what we're looking at in the SEP.
3 That is, you recall that as RCCC items came out, 4 [ that decided there'd be backfit on all operating plants.
I s II That is, even where there is a backfitting decision. Many of i
,"': ! those were not being backfitted on operating plants; they 7 were being held in abeyance waiting on a plant to come up in 8 the SEP.
9 The SEP initially picked up 11 operating plants, 10 6 of which still had provisional licenses. So the SEP is 11 also the hearing record that's needed to go to hearing to 12 convert those POLs*to FTLs.
- 13, 14 15 A..Dd we initially said we were going to use sort of what's coming out of the SEP Phase II to decide whether or not, and to what extent to go on to the other plants.
16 Over the last year or so, that record's changed a 17 little bit where we began using SEP for a few other things.
18 For example, it's sort of the bellweather on the environmental 19 qualification reviews. Those are the first plants we're 20 reviewing.
21 And when you go to develop criteria for environ-
- 22 23 24 mental qualification reviews 1 in the SEP program, and those criteria are going to be used throughout, what it does is it detracts from the effort. So there's been a little bit of
,:,:,,;.ernl Reporters, Inc.
25 slippage in the schedule on SEP program on Phase II, but what
56 jwb 58 we're statting to see is that we probably will want to expand
- 2 3
that effort on into Phase III.
We propose keeping the resources constant -- this
- 4 5 \I from an organizational management standpoint -- and then, as many plants as possible would be fit into the next phase.
6 Different things come to mind. You remember we 7 had a discussion on Maine Yankee seismic where we said that 8 we were going to do something on Maine Yankee when it comes 9 back up under the seismic review, and we were going to start 10 that.
ll Those seismic rereviews of the old plants are 12 under the SEP. So there are a number of issues that you can
- 13 14 15 go down that will probably be swept into the next phase, and I think we're putting that together right now. So there will be I think a pretty good package that will dictate where we're 16 going.
17 Both the RCCC ba~kfit items and the new set of 18 items that are coming out of long-term Lessons Learned, where 19 they'll be saying that we probably might want to reconsider 20 the scope of what goes into the SEP. They're going towards 21 amplifying the program.
- 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I wanted to clarify, in the BRG there was listed an unresolved issue under SEP mainly
~ '=."cal Reporters, with reference to where RCCC work was included.
Inc.
25 MR. HALLER: There was also a requirement or
57 jwb 59 at least a planning assumption in the policy and planning 2 guidance, that RCCC items would be incorporated into the 3 SEP program.
4 And there was to be a program plan provided which would show how that is to be done. And that was one of the things that had not been done, at least to the BRG's knowledge, at the time this was put together.
So we culled that out as a potential unresolved issue.
10 Also there was another one of the amount of impact 11 that TMI would have on this particular program. So I 12 believe the plan that NRR is putting ~ogether now really 13 addresses all the~e sorts of things and will try to come .r--*
up*
14 with a total picture for where this thing is going.
15 And I think the proper amount of resources should 16 be put on it to do what needs to be done.
17 MR. DENTON: Since it's an out-year issue, we 18 could address it in the out-years. It's just a question of 19 do you *want to get ahead, or do you want to wait for further 20 developments before deciding on '82 and 1 83
- 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is 11 Phase IIIn?
22 (Slide.)
23 MR. DENTON: Let's go to slide number 12. We'll try to go into that.
25 I would like to walk through this slide, the Phase
58 jwb 60 II parts and how that differs from Phase III.
2 MR. EISENHUT: Okay, Phase I was just a program 3 plan laying out what was to be done. And what that *was 4 was that we were going to review 11 of the oldest plants in 5 the U.S., 6 of which had provisional operating licenses, and 6 the list of aroW1d 1000 technical subjects had been worked down 7 to about 150 or 140, I believe.
8 And those 140 were going to be reviewed on those 9 11 plants. And that program is termed "Phase II."
10 The bottom of this slide just shows that about l1 140 of the topics is aroW1d 1500. It's basically 140 per 12 plant for 11 plants.
- ~---. 13 14 15 The safet¥ analyses have been issued. The reason it says "draft," is, remember one of the principlesr:of this program is: We issue that safety analysis on that particular 16 item, but it doesn 1 t become finalized until we look at them 17 all in the end.
18 We wouldn't, for example, want to tell a plant, 19 11 go fix up your plant, and put in hardware and fix one 20 i tern," and then come back six months later and say, 11 woops_,
21 wrong, you 1 ve got to fix it a little different for a couple 22 more items," and we would rather -- unless there 1 s a really 23 compelling safety need, we're trying to put it together in a
-".::-:'.era! Reporters, ~n~. package at the end.
25 We 1 re going through the topics. There's a number
59 jwb 61 of them that are under review. You can see that the ones 2 that are reviewed or under review is over 1000 now.
3 Some of these are very major, and some others 4 are quite trivial. As I mentioned earlier, probably the 5 biggest, from a volume standpoint, is the seismic reviews 6 on the 11 plants. The first one is just about done on 7 Dresden 2. It's a report that's about an inch thick.
8 It uses experts from around the country, and in 9 fact is a seismic review team for the SEP plants headed, I 10 guess basically, by Nate Newmark.
11 The reviews we're going through on Phase II, I 12 think"the thought was th~t Phase III would be a continuation .
,e 13 We would lcok at Phase II and decide, out of these 14 0 top_ics, 14 which ones really needed to be loo*ked at on the later.'...vintage*
15 plants, thinking that it would 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Based on the 140 topics?
17 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. We would start with that 140 18 topics -- and I'll get to that in just a second. We would 19 take that 140, because those have basically already been 20 culled down, justifying that the other items may not be 21 looked at, even for the older plants.
- 22 23 24 We would take that 140 and try to cull it down to some smaller list based on the vintage of the plant. And we would look at the next set of plants.
~.c;,.ral Reporters, Inc.
end #3 25
62
- 4 arl DR. DENTON: As I recall the kind of thinking that 2 went on, was that if some of these issues were not a problem 3 in the oldest plant, then you could reasonably presume that 4 you wouldn't have to devote a lot of attention to them in a 5 newer plant; whereas if some of them turn out to really be 6 problems, then they would be obviously Phase 3 to do on a 7 much larger slice of the population.
8 MR. EISENHUT: That's what I meant.
9 MR. GOSSICK: How big a group of plants are you 10 thinking about for Phase 3?
ll MR. EISENHUT: It would depend on how many topics 12 there are. What we would do, there is three basic variables:
13 the number of topics, the amount of manpower, and the amount of 14 plants.
15 We are going to hold the number of manpower constant 16 and get as many plants as we can, depending on the number of 17 topics.
18 It's very simple, once it's going, it's a nice 19 program, which I think we've taken steps to make it a much 20 more effective program, and it is getting more effective.
21 I think it would be appropriate to keep it at that same level 22 and pick up as many events as possible.
23 The thing I mentioned earlier, though, is you Ace.ral Reporters, ~~- recall historically the RCCC has said about 20 specific items 25 should be backfitted.
63 ar2 They've said another about 100 items or so should 2 be considered for backfit on a case-by-case review, which
- basically means we do nothing in the way of backfitting.
3 4 They should be the 20 we swept into the SEP.
5 The Lessons Learned Task Force is looking at those, 6 and there may well be a recommendation come out that says 7 we should expand the 140 topics even for this present SEP 8 phase, and for subsequent phases, and we should maybe not have 9 three categories that need RCCC; maybe we should only have two.
10 Either backfitted or not backfitted.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Darrell, if I understood 12 you, the 100 that are to be considered on a case-by-case
- 13 14 15 basis' are ~ot bejng considered case by case MR. EISENHUT: They are not. Only those where there is a clear decision that says backfit, are they being 16 backfitted.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, if they're not 18 considered in the context of the SEP, when would they be?
19 MR. EISENHUT: In the conte~t of the Category 2 20 RCCC, they really don't come up on operating plants. We just 21 really never have sat down on a program to approach that 22 question one way or the other.
23 The only ones that were addressed were about 20, 24 I believe, where there was a backfit decision. So it is ll.ce--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 obviously a major policy decision, and that's why we are
64 ar3 addressing it in connection with the Lessons Learned.
2 CO.MMISSIONER AHEARNE: What happened -- you said, 3 though, that Phase 3 was really only addressed in 140.
4 MR. EISENHUT: Or something less.
5 CO~~1/2ISSIONER AHEARNE: You've gone through -- or 6 something less. You've gone through about one half of the 1500, 7 740 out of 1500, so why don't you expect to have another block, 8 or would those be a Phase 4?
9 MR. EISENHUT: Another block of --
10 COM.t"1ISSIONER AHEAR...'!\J'E: -- of topics that would have 11 to be addressed.
12 MR. EISENHUT: There may well be. What we are
- - 13 15 trying to do on new plants, on all new.issues, we are trying to decide it either needs to be backfitted or not, so we are trying not to create a bigger pile of items that have to 16 be backfitted.
17 It should be a fixed set. It should be a fixed 18 set. It started with about 1000, we worked down to 140, and 19 said these 140 need to be backfit on all operating plants.
20 MR. DENTON: I think the answer is we may well decid 21 to put some of the 700 or 900 that are under review into that 22 category.
23 COM..MISSIONER AHEAfilJE: That was my category.
=>.ce--ral Reporters, ~~- MR. EISENHUT: No, I'm sorry, there was two 140s 25 here. There is a total of 140 topics on each plant being
65 ar4 considered at all. It just coincidentally comes out the same 2 140 at the top.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEAR~E: There is 140 topics per 4 plant, is the entire scope of the SEP from the beginning, and 5 11 times 140 is roughly 1500.
6 MR. EISENHUT: I'm sorry, it is coincidental.
7 [Slide.]
8 MR. DENTON: Let's go to slide B-12. We have made 9 some changes in our organization to enhance this program.
10 We designed and made the interim organization so it reports to 11 an assistant, who normally has one other branch that reports 12 to him. We have dedicated the reviewers in the SEP program, 13 whereas before the SEP Program had to sort of sc~ounge its 14 effort in competition with all the other things that were 15 going on, so the reviewers now are dedicated to this task.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Who's running it, Harold?
17 MR. DENTON: I think Denny Crutchfiled has been 18 selected to be the branch chief, and I think Vollmer is the
'0 I ,
you remember Don Davis was the branch chief.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I know.
21 MR. DENTON: Some of these-28 people are in other 22 branches other than the SEP branch, but they are dedicated to 23 work on the SEP.
CHAIRl\1AN HENDRIE: Well, Vollmer isn't -- certainly 25 isn't full time on the proposition. He's got some little thing
66 ar5 he keeps going off to Pennsylvania to attend to.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, he said he had only 3 one other thing; that was the other thing.
4 [Laughter.]
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And I wondered how it is survivin~
6 the attention -- focus of attention, elsewhere, people leaving, 7 going into task groups, rearranging and so on.
8 MR. DENTON: It's been, in that sense, it's had its 9 troubles in not being a stable group. I think partially it 10 was our fa~lure to make it a special group and staff it up 11 and give them priority and so forth, that led to this 12 dissembled leadership, so to speak. And when we reorganized, I 13 guess I didn't realize Bob would b~ so tied up in ongoing '
14 TMI activities.
15 Maybe we should consider, if it goes on much 16 longer, another change.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How many of the 28 people 18 were actually assigned, rather than just dedicated?
19 MR. DENTON: Let me ask Darrell or Herb, if you 20 know how many it is.
21 MR. EISENHUT: I think there's about 13 or 14 in
- 22 23 24 the branch full time, and the other remainder is actually detailed from the other organizations. They are actually detailed full time. That's what I mean by dedicated in this Ace.ral Reporters, Inc.
25 case.
67 ar6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: They are actually detailed?
2 MR. EISENHUT: They are actually formally detailed.
3 MR. DENTON: We were considering actually moving 4 them over eventually, but they might be with just one person 5 out of a branch, and you really want him to return to that brano 6 when his effort is over.
7 CO.tvLMISSIONER KENNEDY: What about the dedicated 8 project managers? Are they assigned?
9 MR. EISENHUT: They are all assigned. Their 10 permanent position is doing that job.
11 MR. DENTON: That completes that. You can go back 12 to slide 13, we will move to safeguards.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: One last question. In the 14 EDOs marked, you reduced both the 1 81 and the out years 15 substantially. That's primarily because of this remaining 16 question of how much additional work is going to have to be 17 done as a result of the other reviews?
18 MR. GOSSICK: I don't believe the out years, I believe only '81.
20 MR. BERKOW: '81 was not reduced.
21 MR. GOSSICK: That's right.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, this request was 23 for $13.4 million, and EDO recommendation is $6.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There was 950 on my sheet.
ti.ce--al Reporters, ~n~.
25 COM..l\1ISSIONER AHEARNE: Operating reactors, I'm
68 ar7 talking about. That's primarily and they focus solely on 2 that wedge; is that correct?
3 MR. GOSSICK: Yes.
4 MR. DENTON: The next item is 5 CHAIR.:."1AN HENDRIE: You lost me totally there, John.
6 I thought you were talking about the SEP.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: No, no, operating reactors.
8 I just wanted to make sure in my mind, because it's a huge 9 chunk of money that had been marked out on operating reactors, 10 and I wanted to be sure I understood what it really is, is 11 there reduction for this planning wedge.
12 MR. BERKOW: There were actually three reasons:
13 One was the effi~iency pf the contractor action.
14 We had assumed that the efficiency of the *contractors would 15 improve in '82. And the BRG changed the assumption to make 16 that true in fiscal year '81. So that saves a certain amount 17 of dollars. The largest part was cutting out everything that 18 was not short term TMI.
19 And the third one was working off the excess back-20 log by the end of fi~cal year '84 instead of fiscal year '83, 21 so those three things together equal the decrease on program 22 support.
23 [Slide.)
MR. DENTON: The next decision unit was safeguards.
25 This is an area in which we were transferring additional work
ar8 to NMSS. Remember, this was looked at about a year ago, and 2 Lee decided that we should give NMSS as much work as they 3 could assume in all three of these areas the EDO mark assumes 4 that this work will be transferred, and the NRR*work load 5 will decline in the out years.
6 We agree with the mark here, with the understanding 7 that the work to be done will be picked up.
8 CO~~~ISSIONER GILINSKY: Now what are these 9 contingencies?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You will buy off on the 11 versus 11 13 in '81, et cetera, then?
12 MR. DENTON: Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where are these contingency 14 plans? Are they plant-specific?
15 MR. DENTON: Yes, they are plant-specific, and we've 16 worked out arrangements with NMSS as to what part of the 17 contingency planning is something they can handle, and which 18 part gets back into the reactor behavior and monitoring and so 19 forth.
20 As I recall, we are keeping about 30 percent of 21 each unit's contingency plan for us to review, and they are 22 taking the other.
23 Likewise, with the IAEA treaty implementation A 24 there are certain parts of that that go to more design ce--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 details and so forth, and others go to protection and
70 ar9 accountability.
2 So, as I recall, we are getting about two-thirds 3 of the work load in each of these three areas to NMSS.
4 Anyone want to collaborate? I don't know if we 5 have our safeguards people down here today.
6 COl11LTv1ISSIONER KENNEDY: What is the 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, this is all on the 8 physical securities side in NMSS safeguards division, I take it 9
and BRG --
10 MR. DENTON: So we're bringing it down to a single 11 branch.
12 CHAIRMA.i.~ HENDRIE: But the safeguards is coming
- 13 14 15 down by another eight people in between '80 and_ '81, and far as you know, is this the NRR SiJ work going there compatible with these levels?
16
[Mr. Barry nodded affirmatively.]
17 MR. GOSSICK: Applied to the NMSS, do you mean?
18 MR. DENTON: I think we have an understanding. We 19 worked out how much they would have to do in each one of 20 those areas, and they have agreed to that. Our budget then 21 is based on their agreeing to do those parts.
- 22 23 MR. GOSSICK: And we have looked at the progress on the work that's been moved over there, and I believe in a memo
- 24 we sent down here, Bill Dirks indicated he was ahead of the Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 schedule of 10 months. We weren't able to really verify how
arlO 71
-~------
much, but certainly they are not behind.
2 MR. DENTON: I think tr~ining is just kicking off, 3 all those reports just came in, and IAEA we really haven't.
4 started yet. That depends on the treaty and the contingency 5 plan of the area, which we are cooperating in.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What about reviews that 7 you might call external physical security fences?
8 MR. DENTON: That's the kind of area that they 9 would be the best in.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are you shifting that over 11 to them?
12 MR. DENTON: Well, let me ask'"""- see, the 7355
- 13 14 15 essentially is done, as I understand it, -for the existing plants.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: My understanding is that 16 all that stuff has already been shifted.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: For reactors?
18 MR. DENTON: Yes, I think 7355 is essentially 19 complete now for existing plants.
20 Now these are the three areas that in '81 are new 21 areas, and the only thing new then is the 7355 has to be 22 done on the new plants as they come out, but we walked through 23 that, have swept 7355 through all plants.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But didn't NMSS people contribute 25 some people to the James Miller road show?
JWBeach 72 fols arl0 MR. EISENHUT: Right. The traveling road show, 2 et cetera.
3 The only piece that's not done is the vital area 4 analysis. The vital area analysis of all the plants has not 5 been done.
1 6 MR. DENTON: And that was the $300,000 that got 7 approved recently.
8 MR. EISENHUT: And that's 3-1/2.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's the part that has 10 the greatest safety interface.
li MR. DENTON: Yes.
12 MR. EISENHUT: That's right. Another major piece
- - 13 14 15 of course ii the non-power reactor piece.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There were several hundred thousand dollars for program support in 'Bl.
16 MR. DENTON: Let me see if I can find the backup.
17 MR. BERKOW: No, we don't have a backup on that.
18 We don't have a backup on that.
19 MR. DENTON: I guess, in implementing these three 20 things, it will be done by teams, one from us, one from the 21 lab, . and from NMSS.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That same program of 23 implementation and examination.
MR. DENTON: Y.es, sir.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, this is really paying
61 jwb 73 for some personnel up there.
2 MR. GOSSICK: M:!:'. Chairman, I might just mention.
3 As you know, we've had a study of the possibility of 4 consolidating all of the safeguards activities that currently 5 now exist in the two shops.
6 Bill Dircks, and Harold and I discussed this thing 7 at length. I guess my own conclusion is that if we were all 8 in the s~ue building, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment in suggesting that it all be in one place, and perhaps under 10 NMSS.
11 I think that the coordination, however, back and 12 forth between Silver Spring and Bethesda on these matters 13 involving safety interface just is -- I agree with Harold:
i4 I don I t understand it completely, I'm sure., but I'm concerned 15 about having to try to do that, you know, over that distance, 16 and making sure that the things that we do in safeguards 17 don't have, you know, an impact on safety.
18 I just think that the thing to do is to keep 19 moving whatever we can -- I believe Harold has agreed to this -
20 those things that are separable that we feel can be done 21 without presenting that problem will move over there, and 22 perhaps there will be other things that we will find we can 23 do over a time period. That*~ where we are at the moment.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, Lee, both you and the 25 ERG raised as an unresolved issue that there should be more
62 jwb 74 transferred power.
2 Are you saying that, although you've raised it as 3 an issue, your conclusion is that there shouldn't be?
4 .MR. GOSSICK: I'm saying that the things that we 5 have already identified that we've discussed here, things 6 like the guard training that is now coming up that will be 7 done over there for the most part, is about as far as I see 8 that we can go at the moment.
9 There may be other tasks that crop up, depending 10 on what developments occur in the safeguards areas affecting n reactors COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: Then as far as you're 1311 conc~rned it is not an unresolved issue.
i l t. IiII MR. GOSSICK: This was the BRG comments. I didn't 15 change it in sending the thing on down here; that's right.
16 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: It's also your comment.
~ I I; MR. GOSSICK: Okay, that's right.
11 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It's unresolved 1~
I MR. GOSSICK: It was unresolved as far as the
\1 20 Commission was concerned, because we never really addressed Ii 21 this topic. And I don't know whether this is the place to 22 resolve it. I just wanted to tell you where at least I stand I
~~
L.j I
I at the moment.
ii 24 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: So your view that none of
- ~,**a'
-. *- ' *. *** *l Reporters, Inc.
25 these additional resources should be transferred -- or
63 jwb 75 functions.
2 MR. GOSSICK: Not at the present. That I s my 3 feeling on it.
4 MR. DENTON: I guess, I've seen the issue -- if 5 we can transfer all the external kinds of things over there, 6 there will be this residi urn that does interact with s'afety 7 and shooting toward a very low level of effort in that area, 8 unless there are some new issues on the horizon that we have 9 to go back and backfit.
10 But once we get through with these three big areas, i1 I think we can do the 73.55 in plant reviews for a very small
-IL,, group.
CH~IRl'-W...N HENDRIE: The 7, the out-years, you buy 14 \ off then on the EDO mark for the* out-years as well.
15 MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
16 CHAIR.rv.LAN HENDRIE: So it tapers down.
17 Well, it's around 18 now, and I guess in NRR, and 18 either is now or has been substantially larger than that in f ~' terms of manyears of assistance from NMSS, and substantial 20 contractor effort. But you're going over a hump, the nominal 1
2i 80 number even with 100 people cranked in there is going to
- 22 come down to 16.
- 23
",-:-e-, ,-demi Reporters, Inc.
25 You were proposing to drop to 13 in down to 11, and then to 7 for the out-years.
1
- 81. It's now So I think the final -- the remaining safeguards in reactors area that
64 jwb 76 stays in NRR is no longer I think such a husky component that 2 one wonders about so much about regrouping.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEAR"f\JE ~ Let me ask you one last 4\ question on that. Is there any reason *why you couldn I t I
- o 11'I, drop to 7 in '81?
I 6 MR. EISENHUT: .It's got the non-power reactor in 7 addition.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We've still got to figure out 9 what to do with those research reactors.
MR. DENTON: This is another area, too, I guess that we are planning to have a planning wedge of sorts in, the IAEA implementation. We're assuming that that will carry,
,..5 qnd we're budgeting for it.
1.:i I At the moment, a treaty has not actually been
,s I signed, but I guess there's every indication that it will be.
16 I The next decision unit is casework .
.: ~,- Ii!
lj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Tell you what. Gri behalf of Commissioner Ahearne and myself, I'm going to declare a i8 11 ii
- ';-" I I i! two-minute stretch break.
Ii 20 I (Laughter.)
2i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Speak for yourself, Joe.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, you were here. John and I
') ~ I
-~ \[ started early, so that we've practically put in a full day
- 24 already. We have to go to lunch now.
- \:-,"-r-1.-derai Reporters, Inc.
25 (Recess.)
e-4
. 65 jwb 77 CHAIRMlAN HENDRIE: All right.
I 2 MR. DENTON: Let's start with B-15, if you're I
3 hiding behind the screen.
4 (Slide.)
5 No, B-15.
6 (Slide.)
7 CHAIR.MA..~ HENDRIE: Why don't you leave it up there 8 for a second or two and we can contemplate it silently for 9 a minute.
10 (Pause.)
11 CHAIRFlAN HENDRIE: I thought there was an 12 assumption of an incoming CP out in '82-'83, or '83.
13 MR. DENTON: That ts what we had said earlier.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. It doesn't seem entirely 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The notes are 2 in '82 and 16 2 in '83.
17 MR. BERKOW: The budget was based on it, but 18 ,for purposes of this chart, we updated the assumption.
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. GOSSICK: A floating assumption.
21 MR. BERKOW: The manpower figures for '82 and '83
- 22 23 24 do assume two new ones corning in in '82.
MR. DENTON: This is a backup slide that didn't get scrutinized, but I thought it would give you an overview
.: ~ * . a l Rep::irters, Inc.
25 of what the casework is.
66 jwb 78
.1 CHAIRl\ffiN HENDRIE: Let's see. Let me ask: For 2 purposes of getting this display fully compatible with the 3 budget requests that we're hearing, I should put 2 and 2?
MR. BERKOW: In '82 and '83.
I s II CHAifilvT..AN HENDRIE: For CPS.
6 Very good, with that understanding then.
7 Let 1 s see. Do we have the Secretary around?
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The caseload projection is that 2 and 2?
MR. BERKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But it also assumes 2 in
.tvlR. BERKOW: That's-right. We show 2 in '80, also.
14 COMM:ISSIONER AHEARNE: For new applications.
15 (Commissioner Kennedy arrives at 10:53 a.m.)
16 MR. BERKOW: For new CPs, yes. That's the 7")
Carroll County and AEP. We assume they're still out there.
i8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wait a minute. Carroll County
- , S 1! is who?
I, II 20 MR. BERKOW: Carroll County is Commonwealth 21 Edison.
22 MR. DENTON: It's in for a site review.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, yes.
a
,,_, I
~4 Well, it's sort of a moot point at this stage.
~ *:-c--rtedera! Reporters, Inc, 25 How much difference does it make in the resource request?
6 7 jwb 79 MR. BERKOW: Are you referring to the 2 in fiscal 2 year '80?
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
4 MR. BARRY: I think we calculated about 3 manyears.
5 (Commissioner Bradford arrives at 10:54 a.m.)
6 MR. BERKOW: Three manyears?
7 MR. BARRY: Spread out through '80, '81.
8I CHAIRJV.tA.N HENDRIE: But what would it make on the I
9!! '81, for instance?
I 10 i MR. BERKOW: It would be a couple of manyears.
I i
MR. BARRY: Probably a couple of manyears.
~.,..:.. , ii CHAIRJ\'1AN HENDRIE: Okay, so that, you know, if we i
1 13 want to say it's unlikely they'll show up, we have an idea.
14 MR. BERKOW: If you assume that a CP takes about 15 10 manyears total spread out over perhaps a 2-1/2 to 3 year 16 period, it's about 3 manyears per year.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Bob, could I see you a minute.
i8 Please go ahead.
MR. DENTON: Let me go back to slide 14, then, 20 which shows the decision unit of the casework.
21 ( s1 i de . ) , ,
22 It shows how the manpower is assigned to the 2i various items that require review.
'">A L-.
CO~.MISSIONER AHEARNE: What assumption do you have
~.':'.°- . e,ai Reporters, Inc.
- 25 built in here as to whether or not states will enact emergency
68 jwb 80 plans, and there'll be any hesitation on granting operating 2 licenses because of the possibility that we or the Congress will state that they can't get licenses unless there are emergency plans and the states don 1 t get emergency plans?
MR. DENTON: I think our assumption is that we would go ahead and do the review and be in a position so that our review was completed. So we haven't attempted to accommodate that in our planning assumptions.
We did recommend increasing our coverage of the utilities' planning, and that was in the Commission paper where we are going to apply Reg Guide 1.01 and extend it out to 10 miles, and those kinds of things are reflected in our manpower requirements.
But if the license could not issue for some other 15 reason, I think we would still want to be in a posture to 16 complete our review of the rest of the plan.
1 i' e I The early site reviews are not materializing the way we had hoped at one time. You can see we were assigning 18 I
- ,s, I in '81 a very low level of effort on the site reviews. I I:
think there's only one actually active in '81.
20 II 21 MR. BERKOW: This is the remainder of those that 22 will have come in in '79 and '80. We do have a few in-house now, and I believe -- is it Middle South Utilities that just IJ 24
'* --x--;:.eoera: Reporters, Inc.
announced that they have plans to, ,submit one?
25 MR. DENTON: We're continuing to work on the standard
69 jwb 81 plant designs in '81, and it appears we'll continue to advise 2 the Naval reactor for some small level of effort.
3 COM.MISSIONER
. AHEARNE: Haro(ld, how would you 4 answer someone who asked: You had roughly 221 in '79, you 5 have 222 in '81, 228 in '82, 225 in '83, it looks as though 6 it's essentially staying roughly constant.
7 Why isn't there any visible perturbation based 8 upon Three Mile Island?
.MR. DENTON: Well, there is. On page 15, I'll try to -- slide 15 -- lay it out.
The perturbation we estimate to be about one professional manyear per case. That is the extra effort
- we'ie going to put in on every case in order td get the 14 review done.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess the perturbation I'm-16 I think what I was trying to probe for: Is there an
,, 1!
underlying assumption that any of the large-scale motions 1
18 which are tentatively under way in various bodies at the
- 9 moment 1/4"ill, by the time FY '81 rolls around, have been Ii settled down and resolutions will have been reached on issues.
20 II There's no assumption here -- I don't want to use a phrase 22 which I know Commissioner Kennedy doesn't like to be used, 23 so I'm staying away from it -- but the assumption seems to 24 be that any perturbation that might occur in the way things t._~_* era: Reporters, Inc.
25 were happening is going to settle down, and then '81, '82, and
70 jwb 82
'83 are continuations of what '79 was.
2 MR. DENTON: I think there's the perturbation of 3 the four areas that I mentioned that we've already identified:
4 Lessons learned, bulletins, operator training, and emergency s! i planning, is a perturbation that we've accounted for with the 6 one manyear.
7 It's somewhat easier to account for these in the 8 design stage, or when you get in three years before construc-tion, you can work it in more easily through the normal review than you can a plant that's already built.
So the process is somewhat more easily adaptable than your requirements in the early review stages. I guess it really 'doesn 1 t have a wedge that says we're going ,to make 14 a fundamental big difference in the way we do a review. It's 15 more like the 10 percent level of change in the review at 16 this stage.
And if there is a fundamental shift, we'll have i8 to account for it at that time.
It does require 32 additional positions in '81 20 because of the TMI impacts.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You're saying, in effect, 22 that the general character.and procedure of review you will 23 anticipate to remain essentially the same. What changes, in
.:.:-,c-,;,ai Reporters, ~n~. your view, specific review questions and issues that will be 25 incorporated into that broad procedure, and then will proceed
71 jwb 83 in essentially the same way as reviews have been done in the
') past, just taking account of new facts?
,., MR. DENTON: Well, one example -- and a concrete
.)
4 example is we I re recormnending that the things like
~
- )
systems like the RHR system be shielded in the future for 6 any lines that come out.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Having once decided that, 8 I and having incorporated that as a requirement of the review Iii c; t! process.
ii iO 11 11 ll MR. DENTON: And if we can get it in early in the
,,!I,,
review process, it can be designed for seismic and all the i)
... t'~.
other equipment qualifications that go with it, it fits into
!q1
- 1 1,
., . the normal review. Whereas, when you review an already built
' .:, j; I'
ii
,.., I',, plant,
~ ~ a~l those things are somewhat behind you, and it takes 11 i5 more effort to get a review in an operating plant than it I!
16 does a plant under construction.
MR. LEVINE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could 18 comment. Harold and I haven't talked about this, but -- I may be hitting Harold cold -- we're planning in our Research i
20 11 program that will investigate a whole new area which I will Ii ii 2i talk to you about called "severely damaged core accidents."
22 We're going to be generating accident sequence
-,~ . descriptions and so forth. This has a potential -- I din I t
~~ ii A 24 know how it's going o come out, but it has the potential to
,~ cc*=~a! Reporters, Inc.
25 cause the review process to change somewhat. And I wonder if
72 jwb 84 Harold has thought of that?
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let's see, you haven't 3 discussed it with Harold, but you wonder if he's thought of 4 it?
5 (Laughter.)
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You haven't discussed it
' .c 7 with Harold, but you wondered l.L he'd thought of it?
8 MR. LEVINE: Yes. It went through the Research program, and we haven't had time to talk to Harold, mostly because he's been on vacation.
MR. DENTON: Well, some of these things are going to come --
CO,MMISSimrnR AHEARNE: Well, he was busy earlier in 14 the year.
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. DENTON: Some of these are going to be the long-term Lessons Learned group. If you've looked at the 18 Lessons Learned report, it does have some longer term areas
'~* I like adequacy of our single-failure criteria.
I, ii If we change it -- if we depart from the single-20 II I,
2[ failure criteria, that has unexplored ramifications, and I 22 think Saul is thinking about looking into that area and how 1~ it would affect the review process, and_ I really couldn't
~~ !I tell if we'd adopt a new requirement.
t
- -2-,
24
,"::/em: Reporters, Inc, 25 But the one professional manyear a year does assume
73 jwb 85 that it's easier to implement the lessons on these plants 2 than it does on operating plants. We're. spending I think 3 over 2 manyears for operating plants, for example, to 4 implement the TMI lessons.
5 I still owe you a report on how we're doing in 6 getting assistance Trom other agencies, and I hope to have a 7 briefing with you before the 13th of August.
s (Commissioner Gilinsky arrives at 11:03 a.m.)
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Did you make the request?
.iO II MR. DENTON: Either you did, or I said I would II
!i 1? Ii1; come back and re. port.
'I
- 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE
- No, no. Did we formally 13 request the other agenci~s?
14 MR. DENTON: Oh, yes. Well, I said "yes," but 15 remember 0MB requested 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, I recognize that.
I note here on the follow-up to 0MB --
i8 MR. DENTON: So far we have not had to write to
.I II
- -; any of them, although we may end up having to write to the 20 Navy, and we're trying to get that straight as to what the 21 right level of interims would be.
22 But DOE, for example, is working smoothly without 23 the need for Commission request.
~~-
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is there anything built into
' ' . " ' ' Repoc,.,,, I 25 the 1 80 numbers, or the 1 81 numbers, which assumes any support
74 jwb 86 from those other agencies?
- 2 MR. DENTON: *we assume that we will get the 3 support through '80, and that the schedules -- and that we 4 will not have slipped all of these plants in '80 over into 5 I 81. So to that extent, it is built into it.
I 6 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Rather than a specific 7 11 amount of people assumption, it 1 s more built in -- the l,
'i L
8 11,; assumption that the plants won't slip.
I ii 9 ii MR. DENTON: Yes, sir.
ii I/
. ~ !!
Iv 11 CHAIRMAJ.'J HENDRIE: The assumption is that the '80 ii
- ,Ii
-
- I!
'. \i budget and an '80 supplemental will provide the wherewithall li
..... ,i ii to pay the contractor support through '80, and that by the
- 1 11 I!
l ~ li end of '80, with the 100 people.on-line, you will have filled ii Ii 14 1
i that void in coming up to the higher standard.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Does the '80 supplemental 16 have funds to transfer to other agencies?
17 MR. DENTON: No. I think this has come up before,
- 1
-: r",
10 and my answer was that Lee.*:ood a special pocket to pay for
'. ~- i the $5 million --
1:
ii 20 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Oh, really?
21 MR. DENTON: -- whether we go the other agencies.
- 22
~
L..:
~
(Laughter.)
MR. GOSSICK: Do I have a special pocket? We
- ~ * " ' ' Repoc,m, :,:. \1 said we'd take care of the --
2s \i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But seriously, if we are
75 jwb 87 assuming some large block of people from other agencies to 2 provide the support in 1 80, and it would be in the '80 3 supplemental that we would have to be going, I would think, I;,
4 i! and I 1 rn asking is that in there?
III 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I 1 m not sure it's in there.
6 MR. DENTON: It's not in our part.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In particular, it has been,-*-
8 since this material was prepared and came down, that we have 9 come to know what we 1 re likely to have in '80 as a base 10 appropriation, and we have yet to get a bill in fact signed
~! f' there.
12 You remember that we 1 ve got a lit~le back, so
~
r._1 , that it isn 1 t --
1-14 l COJl'.lMISS I ONER ABE.ARNE: I remember.
I 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We aren't as badly pressed as 16 we look, but there will have to be an '80 supplemental which will have to take into account these contractor forces ..
18 [i COJl'.ll'-HSSIONER A.HE.ARNE: And the 1 80 supplement is 191 part of what we're addressing here.
Ii 20 i CH.AIR1'10..N HENDRIE: Yes, and I don't think ii
.£. I COMMISSIONER A.HE.ARNE: I'm just asking if it's 22 there.
CH.AIRMAN HENDRIE: I 1 m just saying the number that
')I
~ ... shows on the sheet --
'* *:*t* erci Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BARRY: I do not have any update or any of that
76 jwb 88 in there.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could we possibly get it?
3 MR. BARRY: We started that now, and we're going to 4 have some unobligated balance carryover out of '79 and 'BO.
5 Most of that is going to have to be devoted to TMI by 6 Congressional edict. We don't know how much it's going to*be, 7 yet. But what we have to do, we have not measured what the 8 impact of the DOE help and other help is, yet. We just 9 haven't done that.
iO CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: When do we have to have an 'BO 11 supplement in hand?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, Olfill asked, I thought, for it.to be submitted at the same time as the FY '80 budget.
14 MR. BARRY: We plan to submit it 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I would think that would 16 be what we would aim for. That means we need an updated
"!7 :, version of the '80 supplement numbers for NRR in time .for H
18 Commission final groaning over them next week, so that to the
- r S": best extent we can at this point, we make a -- we send along 20 an '80 supplement which reflects what we think we're going to 21 need.
- 22 If we have to amend it later, why, okay, but we'll have to get it up.
MR. BARRY:
So I think we need to work with Len.
Yes. The last time I thought about 25 this was at one staff meeting when you indicated that all we
77 jwb 89 were able to get out of some of the agencies were about 2 30 people, 30 manyears, 30 people, and it didn't seem like 3 that much. But it's evidently more than that.
4 i MR. DENTON: We're now hoping -- it's pretty clear
,1 5 I':! we can get perhaps 50 or 60 committed to the project.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: USGS, Corps, all pitching in?
7 MR. DENTON: Yes.
8 COMM.ISSIONER KENNEDY: Is this reimbursable?
MR. DENTON: Yes.
MR. GOSSICK: If it's 50 or 60 people, it's what?
$2-1/2, $3 million?
MR. BJ>._RRY: Yes.
i,.) i MR. DENTOl';J: We can get those estimates out._
i 14 I CO~tl~ISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. Good.
15 (Slide.)
16 MR. DENTON: Slide 16 shows the priority listing 1
7!,,, for the OLs that are in-house now and under review. I have i8 only listed the completion date for the first -- where it's l9j more than one unit at a time. And this is our principal 20 workload. If you look at the CPs that are in-house today, n
I '
most of the CPs, if not all, are in hearing. Therefore, our 22 effort going to the CPs is just in connection with those kinds 23 of efforts. We're putting very little into CP applications, So this is our big push.
25 The first third or so of these we' re going to have
78 jwb 90 to do in-house totally because they're too far along to get 2 any assistance from anyone.
i 3 Another group we hope to get assistance from the I
.:., laboratories, and then maybe the third group of these, by 5 this time we should have begun to staff up internally with 1
6 the 80 people and we' 11 undertake the review of those.
7 So it's that kind of middle group that we're going 8 \1 to have to rely on outside assistance to maintain schedules 11 d
COMMISSIONER AHEAR..'f\JE: Now just to make sure I understand, there is an underlying assumption -- check me if
,i Jl
'.~/l I'm wrong -- but I think there's an underlying assumption
- i
~3\l that*as these plants becom~ ready for receiving operating I'
,I tl 1; !!
. ., I' licenses, that in association with this help_ to be provided 15 from the outside agencies, that we'll be meeting that schedule?
16 MR. DENTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And then we will know at that time the results of the Lessons Learned review, and the Rogovin review, or any other review, and we'll be able to incorporate that information in time to meet all of that?
MR. DENTON: Yes.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So it's a well-coordinated
-;'< approach that we assume is going to.take place to meet these
.I
- 24 dates . Is that correct?
.,,_:cclt,,:ai Rep:irters, Inc.
25 MR. DENTON: Yes, it is. I think the situation as
79 jwb 9(1 it stands today, the staff thinks that with our efforts in 2 these four areas, that would provide a sufficient basis for 3 reconstituted reviews and moving -- I don't have a clear 4 indication yet as to what the ACRS thinks about our I
5 I! approach. I hope to get it from them at least on the PWRs 6 I this month. But that's only with regard to the short-term 7 kind of lessons.
8 And then depending on what the Commission's 9 group, or the Rogovin group comes up with, we have to rethink 10 whether we would have to do something a lot different or not.
I have not attempted to account for those kinds of manpower ~omebacks.
13 (Slide.)
14 The next group is Technical Projects. Decision 15 Unit, Item 17, this area has one of the setasides that needs 16 to be discussed. This is the non-NRR support issue, and it has one big group of people in it.
18 They are the generic issues let me, if there are no questions about the top three, let me talk about the 20 non-NRR support.
2i That's an area mainly in the siting areas of 22 hydrology, and foundation engineering, where we've been 23 providing support to NMSS.
(Slide.)
25 Slide number 20 breaks it out a bit, that we
80 jwb 92 provide about 22 manyears, or we would propose to provide 2 about 22 manyears of support in '81 to NMSS based on their 3 anticipated needs. It's about 12 in connection with waste 4 management. 8 in uranium mines and mills. And 1 in the last I
5 I two groups.
6 The EDO mark provides zeio in this area. We think, 7 even i£ NMSS needed no support, we'd need about 4 positions 8 to support international programs, state programs, our review 11 i
9 ii of other agencies, environmental statements, and so forth.
,,ll ii
°IO I' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Harold, are you familiar with
!II*
'. :ii :1 the EDO's memo to us of July 23rd that accompanied his mark I
,~ I
~ ...:.. to us? In particular, the description that he gave of the
- :3 14 15 II support?
MR. DENTON: I think I read it at the time.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And the gist of it was 16 at least as was explained yesterday -- is that there is 17 difficulty in being able to get that. The resources planned i8 have not been fully utilized.
i ;, And in asking that question yesterday of what that 20 meant, it was that they weren't available on a dependable 2i basis.
22 MR. DENTON: I think that's an issue somewhat like 23 the safeguards issue.
- It dependsr ,on who you' re talking to.
COl-1l'-1.ISSIONER AHEARNE: It wasnrt NMSS who said this, 25 it was Lee and Dan Donoghue.
81 jwb 93 MR. DENTON:
- I assurne they said it on the basis 2 of -- Shelly and I worked hard to try to set up a system whereby if they wanted something, I would dedicate the effort to them.
In talking to our group, we never had very long delays. In other words, if they wanted a hydrologist out today, we might have them all in hearings, but we could get one out in a week or a month.
So I think that was the general gist, that while we couldn 1 t provide immediate support always, we never had very long delays. But I recognize their concern, because they'd like to have -- you know, I think we could set up a system where the resources would be on the aame priority as any other casework.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, would the BRG, or, 16 Lee, would you care to comment? Because the issue we at
~7 [ least have to struggle with is that we now have -- certainly
,1 I'
what we've seen, NMSS is counting on these resources in their presentation. They are counting on NRR providing resources.
NRR has got them in there providing them, but yet BRG and the EDO has set them aside with the comment that 22 the resources haven't -- the program effort has not been 23 I used in the past. The explanation was, they can't be counted I
on.
25 MR. DENTON: Well, one other comment. We never
82 jwb 94 did provide as much as we had budgeted for in the past, but 2 I think that was more because the workload in NMSS never quite 3 materialized the way it was projected, either.
4 In other words, many of those things were slipping.
11
- J i! So we may have allocated 14 based on the best planning, but 6 only provided 8 and probably they would have preferred 9.
7 You know, so it 1 s a blurred picture, because the NMSS workload 8 at least last year didn't materialize at all.
9 I We anticipated AFRs, or WIPPs being used, and ii 11 10 l1 we put together budgets on that basis. But I'll let BRG speak 11 11 11 !! for themselves.
'i
[!
I
'~, MR. GOSSICK: Well, I think one of the things that 13 I wonder about is that, you know, if*we can set aside the
'.4 II NMSS requirefuent and NRR only needs 4 of the 26, then maybe ll 15 the 22 is in the wrong place.
16 The question that I think the BRG approached here
- 7 !i is whether or not, you know, the resources that were required, 18 whatever the number, whether or not they should be in NRR 19 servicing NMSS, or maybe if it 1 s that kind of workload 20 distribution, maybe it's more appropriate to have NMSS 2i resources supporting NRR's requirement.
22 I think it might be helpful, Harold, if you would 22 just give us all a refresher on the kind of people, the I
- .,i.;.
"' i branches that are involved in this 26 package. Primarily L.:-E*. em! Reporters, Inc.
25 the 11 ologies, 11 as I would call it.
83 jwb 95 MR. DENTON: The 22 is based on the NMSS antici-2 pated workload. And they tend to be -- in the past, they 3 were heavy on foundation engineering, and tailings pond 4 stability, for example.
And since we had foundation engineers in this 6 area, we typically have reviewed tailings pond issues. We have also reviewed hydrology for flooding of uranium mills and mines. We didn't apply the same criteria that we did 9 for reactors, but we applied whatever NMSS thought was the i
10 I proper criteria.
,d
. . ll
- t ii Then when we got into the waste management area,
!I 11 l~/1 they wanted more help in groundwater hydrology, radionuclide i1
- 3*11 transport, and these things. So that these are the kinds of 14 ! skills, mainly out of the DSE organization, *and we were 15 generally able to make them available because of the 16 declining CP workload in that group, and the skills were
- !1 pretty closely aligned.
- 1
.,., I lo But I guess they'd cover geology, foundation engineering, radiological assessment -- have I missed any, 11 20 II Dan?
I!
II
,., . I
.:-1 MR. MULLER: Seismology .
22 MR. DENTON: Seismology.
23 M.~. MULLER: Some meteorology.
- ~*.c'c-. _,je,a: Reporters, Inc.
25 they had ~one of those technical skills. They have acquired
84 jwb 96 some, and sort of depended on us to do their casework 2 review.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where does the QA financial review come in?
MR. BERKOW: Audit Division of Project Management.
lj 6 That expertise is in that division.
7 MR. DENTON: I guess what 8 COl'fllv'iISSIONER GILINSKY: What in NMSS?
Ii C
,* !iii MR. DENTON: For a*facility like Barnwell, for II 11 10 Ii example, we would do some of the QA and financial review I
where they wouldn't have the people.
'~ ii COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do we do this for mills?
!l
,i;:) *11 MR. DENTON: I don't think for mills. I think
!\
it's only Part 50.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What -- I guess I must 16 have missed it -- how many persons are allocabed to financial
-- I
- 1,
., review in NRR for reactors?
',.. ! MR. DENTON: Three.
,o I 1S* Ii MR. BERKOW: It 1 s a group of three.
i;
,I 20 II MR. DENTON: And there is a Commission paper up
'1 2i on it.
22 MR. BARRY: Harold, on these hydrologists, I
23 i seismologists, how many do you actually have in place now
.,I
- 24 to do this kind of work?
c, ~-, ,dernl Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. DENTON: I think the Hydrology-Meteorology
85 jwb 97 B~~nch, which is one branch in two sections, probably has 2 15 people.
3 MR. BARRY: Today?
4 MR. DENTON: Today.
Ii 5 Ii MR. BARRY: Versus the 26.
ii MR. DENTON: Well, no, that's just one branch.
6 I 7 Then there's the Seismology and Foundation Engineering Branch 8 1 that has another 15. Then the Radiological Assessment, 10.
Ii
,1 o i' So it's pulled out of a large --
i I
10 III COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There is administrative p
1 "i ;\ support in this number 22, also.
I,
'i? !I f'1R. DENTON: Yes.
ii 13 \; MR. BARRY: What I'm trying to get to, as a iL q
14 [I baseline, what do we have in place right now in lieu of the ti 15 26 that we're talking about?
16 MR. MULLER: These 26 people are divided among 17 something like 8 branches.
18 MR. BARRY: They're manyears.
MR. MULLER: They're manyears.
20 MR. DENTON: That's what I tried to say. It's about 21 30 or so.
22 MR. BARRY: About 30. And in '80 you would 22 retain them at about 30?
MR. DENTON: Well, today they're being used in those 25 CP and those hearings cases that are still active. But since
86 jwb 98 there aren't any CPs, or their problems would diminish, they 2 would either be excess people, in a sense, if they didn't 3 take on the NMSS work.
4 MR. BARRY: And so without the 26 manyears put
- into your budget, you would be dissipating it then by 26?
6 Is that right?
7 MR. DENTON: Well, I think there are only 22 that 8 really go to NMSS, but start with that and -- let me ask Dan
~* to say how many we would need by 'Bl. You're counting the 10 CP and OL needs .somewhere else in the budget, right?
11* MR. MULLER: That's right, yes.
- ,,.} At the present time, NMSS is using our people on
- 14 13 15 the basis of about 8 manyears per year.
for 22 reflects exactly-what they asked for.
MR. BARRY:
How.ever, this request Does that include the 1.4 overhead?
16 MR. MULLER: Yes. They've actually asked for --
17 MR. BERKOW: 14.
18 MR. MULLER: Something like 14. That equates the
'; 22 with 1.4.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: BRG, did you have any Ll comment on that?
- 22
~"
,L.,;
2 MR. ENGLEH.~'CID.I': The only point that I think is important as far as NMSS is concerned is assurance; assurance of the services that they need on a timely basis.
l:*.~*:a( Reporters, Inc, 25 And I think they're concerned that unless there is assurance
87 jwb 99 that these specialists are available to them on a timely 2 basis -- not when and if NRR can make them available -- that
.:, this is at least v-1hat they feel they need; that they' re on 4 a fast-paced program themselves, and they think that this is II 5 essential that they have assurances of assistance when it's 6 needed.
7 MR. MULLER: Let me make one comment 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: "Fast-paced" is a relative
-, ' term. I don't know that with waste repositories there is i
1, ii iO l! a call at 5:00 p.m., and you want to put somebody on the
- \
- i
;i plane at 7 : 0 0 .
!l II I
- 2 ' (Laughter.)
lI I
i 1~ " 'COMMISSION~R AHEARNE: How about mill ponds?
,Ii!i 14 II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What?
i 15 COM..MISSIONER AHEARNE: How about mill ponds?
I 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or mill ponds, if that's the I
-~I II* case, and for low-level burial sites that's certainly the
~
\I 18 case. But you know some of their repository urgency is l 'i in timely moving of draft guidance regs and so on.
20 MR. DENTON: Part of the thing --
21 MR. MULLER: Harold, can I make one comment --
22 MR. DENTON: Sure.
23 MR. MULLER: on the basis of what Torn said .
., 24 I'm the contact between NMSS and DSE. And in the
~-.'"'i--
- en;\ Reporters, Inc.
25 last two years that we've been doing this, I have yet to
88 jwb 100 receive a telephone call from one of the division directors 2 in NMSS saying we're not supplying manpower at appropriate 3 times.
4 So I'm not sure I see exactly where the problem I
5i is. Recently there was a tailings pond, a tailings darn I
6 failure, and we sent a person out there. So I fail to see 7 really what their concern is, that we are not geared up and will not necessarily supply the people.
MR. DENTON: It's a valid concern, and Myers and I did attempt to formalize memos and wrote to our staff saying how it would be treated, and I was under the
- I
..,~~. ii":1 impression that that cured the problem .
"I\
MR. HALLER: I had one other comm~nt I'd like to make on this, too, in addition to the others that have been 15 made. One thing that concerned me during the review of the 16 out-year program -- and I'm speaking of the '82 to '83 program -- in the NRR budget submission was, that when we looked at the NMSS request for these types of people, we found a growing request in the out-years, not a diminishing request; in other words, using the same loading factors, it would probably go up from the 22 by some maybe 20 percent 22 or something.
.~ ~
Nevertheless, when I looked at the NRR budget L-5 .I I . . *.,. 24 ll submission for the out-years of '82 and '83, I found that
. '.:':** ___,_, el Reporters, Inc.
25 the request went down by about close to 40 or 50 percent.
89 jwb.
101 In other words, it went from 26 to like 15. So 2 I was looking at, on the one hand, NMSS saying we need even more in the out-years, a.."rJ.d NRR saying we' re only going 4 to plant for this much in the out-years. That was another 5 concern in addition to the ones that have already been raised 6 that I thought should be brought to your attention.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is there any comment from 8 NRR as to why that is?
~- MR. DENTON: . Well, I guess our '81 was based on 10 input from NMSS. I don't know about our out-years. Do you I
I 11 ;l know where the out-year estimates came from?
'I
": ,., ii MR. MULLER: No, I'm really at a loss on that one.
,:,j ~
I don't know -- -
14 MR. BERKOW: The out-years were just that. They 15 were estimates. There was nothing firm as there was in 16 fiscal year '81.
- . I MR. DENTON
- I guess we would budget on whatever 18 NMSS anticipated their needs to be, unless it got completely t';'
beyond our capability.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is there a sense, though, that have you made an internal decision to stabilize the 22 size of the branch, ~nd that if CPs and OLs were thought to be coming back up, that the amount available to supply NMSS A 24 would be
- )!l!lllt,ei Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. DENTON: I don't think we got that elaborate.
90 jwb 102 I think we just never realized until this moment that they 2 would -- that there was more in the out-years.
")
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I see .
4 That then is something that can be incorporated.
5 MR. DENTON: But it is an area that you should 6 realize has not exceeded something like the 6 or 8 manyears 7 in the past, and so it 1 s never been a big burden to supply 8 that level of effort. If this really zooms out, we ought 9 to rethink how to provide it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Onward.
COY-1.MISSIONER AHEARNE: If I could just pick up that last comment, though, Harold, you say it's never been 1r'.,/
a burden because it's been 6 or 8 manyea~s. And if it 14 really zooms up you ought to rethink how to provide it, but 15 they are proposing really zooming up.
16 So you're saying then that you will be rethinking 11
",,- il,! on that?
18 MR. DENTON: I would think -- you don 1 t need a 19 decision today, but if really in '82-'83 you're going to have 20 Ii 11 75 people in these areas, then I would say that would take
!I 21 I too large a fraction.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In other words, if their demand really turns out to be real --
- 24 MR. DENTON: Yes.
'.* "",'--F-cderai Rep-::,rters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: -- that perhaps we ought to
91 jwb 103 be real, that perhaps we ought to think about establishing 2 a separate MR. DENTON: Yes.
COl.'fJ..L"iISSIONER KENNEDY: Could I just follow up on 5 that? If I understood your numbers a little earlier as to 6 present assignments in those activities in NRR, this number 7 is roughly 50 percent of the total.
8 M.R. DENTON: That's about right, for '81.
('*
CO:MI.v1ISSIONER KENNEDY: And it seems to me that ti i1 10 i! that gets to the point where, if a reevaluation is needed,
.,1l 11 :\ probably there you ought to think about it, and maybe this d
i:
1 r-; H L (- ii is the time you ought to think about it.
q I,
I:
I,
. C01*1MISSIONER AHEARNE: I thought that was really part of what was imbedded in Lee's memo, where he was saying 15 that we ought to rethink the question about the center of excellence concept.
17 ,I MR. GOSSICK: I think we need to think hard about H
i8 this.
cmr_l1'1.ISSIONER KENNEDY: If' to meet this require-20 ment, you're simply going to have to go out and make new hires 1 and new sources to meet these needs, you really have 22 to go out and make new hires to build the organization up, then the question is: Is that the place to go with that?
24 MR. GOSSICK: Right.
- . E:,al Reporters, Inc.
"-~-
25 MR. DENTON: Right.
92 jwb 104 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Do-you get some economies 2 of scale by doing so. I don't know the answer, but 3 MR. DENTON: So far, we've not had to go out and 4 hire; it's more a trip down from the levels -- we staffed up DSE to pretty high levels in the boom years, and as it's 6 slacking off we're just attriting in *these areas.
7 The uranium mills and mines -- minings, are done 8 largely by Corps of Engineers anyway, and we've always executed those contracts and have the contacts, and that one 10 has gone rather smoothly.
The hydrology one, those people I think usually feel strongly that they all like to work together, and have 13 largely advocated not breaking the group up.
i4 I would recommend looking at it agaih next year 15 to see if these demands really are going to be that large, 16 and maybe reconsider it then. I don't tliink in '80 it's 17 particularly a problem.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Of course the 1 81 number begins to get there.
20 MR. DENTON: Let's go back to --
2l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Incidentally, on that 22 chart, this chart shows $170,000 of program support, whereas 23 the one I have here shows zero.
- A 24 MR. DENTON: We did not appeal that $170,000. It 0 ,1'.ernl Reporters, Inc.
25 went I think with.some of the support that we are providing --
93 jwb 105 it wasn't taken up on appeal.
2 MR. BERKOW: That's correct. That's correct.
3 We originally requested $170,000. The EDO mark zeroed it out.
MR. DENTON: Let's go back to slide 18 on generic issues.
(Slide.)
7 This is an area in which we have also dedicated 8 people and set up a special organization to limit the 9 schedules. There were 19 unresolved safety issues we 10 identified to Congress. Our workload assumptions are that there are maybe 10 new issues identified each year; 2 of them I'
i 12'i might result as unreso;Lved safety issues.
13 The TMI impact might be 5 aqditional issues to go j4 on the list. So we have programmed generic issues at essen-15 tially a constant rate.
16 (Slide.)
17 Slide number 19 shows that we would be putting 18 101 manyears into this area through the out-years, bringing l ';' down the number of generic issues that are outstanding, I
I 20 I completing the unresolved safety issues, and getting the 21 work done on the other backlog.
- 22 23 COlf.lMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could you -- Do you have another line that I would write down here, as you had pointed
.Jlt,, Reponm, ~"~* j out in the previous table, that there is a distinction 25 between what we have ended up calling "unresolved safety
9 4 jwb 10 6 issues," and 11 generic issues"? Do you have something that 2 I could put down on "end-of-year backlog of unresolved 3 safety issues 11 ?
4 MR. DENTON: Let me ask Steve to come up and 5 maybe address it, and we'll find the backup slide.
6 MR. BERKOW: B-22.
7 MR. HANAUER: We do have such a breakdown.
8 (Slide.)
I i
s I That isn't it. That isn't it although that I
10 tells you *what happens to the 19 -- what is expected to
- ~ t happen to the 19 that have already been identified.
12 What you don't have there is some prediction
- 14 15 about the, new ones. The predictions we're using for budget purposes is the two new ones that come along each year.
that we work off these 19 in the course of the next four So 16 years, and new ones come along.
,"7 So that -- I'm shuffling paper here as I do it
- 8 so that by 1981, there are 5 left, and that in the future
' there is an inventory of half-a-dozen or a little more 20 unresolved safety issues.
?'
_[ Of course this is very soft, because the various 22 Three Mile Island investigations will dig up an unknown number of these things and change this picture in a way we I
L4 cannot now predict.
.~ c:--c-* _J,:a: Reporters, Inc.
25 We have looked at the output o.f the short-term
95 jwb 107 Lessons Learned Report and see a couple of candidates for 2 unresolved safety issues, depending on how it is decided to 3 proceed with some of the issues raised in the short-term 4 I report.
s Ii However, we see the big -- the big amount of the i
6 I Three Mile Island coming from the longer ranged Lessons I
71
, I Learned Report, and from these other investigations.
I 8 ! MR. DENTON: I think what we would do is we would I
9! continue to pour the bulk of our manpower into whatever we i
I 10 Ii call "unresolved safety issues," and then there would be some
- ,:\,
- - ii of the Bs and Cs maybe that we would feel we also had to do for one reason or another~
CHAIRI".lAN HENDRIE:
Steve, if you get two a year for planning purposes, what do you figure is the mean time 15 to disappear 16 MR. HANAUER: We figure that, on the average, you
, ~ ,I
- ' ii would take those two years to resolve them. This does not I
"i8 include implementation. Each time we resolve one, Darrell 19 gets another 50 or 100 actions he has to work off.
20 II CHAIR.IviAN HENDRIE: Yes. Well, I'm looking for
!I I[
2"1 him to put everybody's technical specs on the NIH computer 22 and program those changes in.
23 MR. DENTON: We were thinking of assigning it to
- 2:.; the resident inspectors .
.t: *~-~i!:Jerel Reporters, Inc.
25 (Laughter.)
96 jwb 108 CHAIR!11A..1'J HENDRIE: That's a good thought. Get it 2 out of office, anyway.
I 3 (Laughter.)
I e 4 MR. DENTON: I haven 1 t discussed that with Vic.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is this scheduled 6 completion that is asterisked, is it simply the transfer 7 that's completed? Or the issue?
8 MR. DENTON: No, we asterisked it because, you 9 remember, in the --
10 COlftl~ISSIONER BRADFORD: It 1 s already been 1 -; trans fer red .
~ ,::., (Commissioner Gilinsky leaves at 11:36 a.m.)
,1.:,~.
MR. DENTON: It's been transferred. Remember, 14 there was an interim transfer of people for this casework 15 crunch, and these were the ones that Research agreed to take 16 on and free up our own people coming back.
17 So they anticipate meeting the same schedule we i8 were on before the transfer.
19 Are there any other comments on generic issues?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I may have missed this, I
I
?.
_[ but can you reconcile for me the numbers on the table labeled 22 "generic issues" with the scheduled completions there?
MR. HANAUER: There are many generic issues of
- 24 lower priority that don 1 t show on this table.
'.* r-;_** * *c>.'Jec~! Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Okay.
97 jwb 109 MR. HANAUER: Because of the high priority of 2 these 3 COMJIHSSIONER BRADFORD: These are just the A?
4 MR. HANAUER: These are just the unresolved I
,:.," Ii!, .c sa.1..ety .
issues.
ii 61! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It's what we end up calling I
7 "unresolved safety issues."
s MR. HANAUER: In the next year or two, we don't p
9 expect to make much headway on the lower priority issues, 10 although it will be more than zero because contractors are ii ij lt
,, working, and some of those lower priority issues are being
- [
- I I'
"' 1l worked on by Research, also.
'i 13 IiI' In the*out-years, we expect to make substantial 1!
1411 headway in the more important of those lower priority issues
.~ I I~ I, which we still think need to be resolved.
16 11 COM.M:ISSIONER BRADFORD: Somehow this seems to be a
~7 !i fairly low return on what I read to be 404 manyears to do ii rn
!l those four fiscal years, plus I gather contractor services.
II
'i S' Ii MR. DENTON: It's partially because these ii 2D 11 unresolved safety issues are like ATWS, which are massive,
~.
i i' time-consuming, and cut across a lot of specialities, and 22 involve a half a dozen people or more. So the easier ones 23 have already been taken care of somehow in the process.
ii 11 I - 2t; ATWS -- would you care to estimate, Steve, how
~ ~-'*\'.:ien:I Reporters, Inc.
25 many manpower efforts you are putting into that area?
98 jwb 110 MR. HANAUER: No, sir, my memory is dimmed by the 2 passage of 10 years in which this issue has not yet been 3 resolved.
...,I (Laughter.)
5 MR. HANAUER: But it's presently scheduled for 6 several manyears this year, and that will not be the end of 7 it.
I What you get for your 404 manyears, according to 8 I C this layout, is the resolution of -- I 1 m adding some numbers 10 quickly -- about 25 unresolved safety issues, and about 40 generic issues of lesser urgency.
n l~
~
ii 1,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I*t' s more like 80, isn I t it, I
I i Steve? If,I just add the complete~- would it be fair to 13 I II 1.-i, just add the completed issues line across that?
II 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That would include the I
16 unresolved safety issues.
'.7 !i MR. HANAUER: That includes the -- I'm sorry, I
,1 I
.. .., don't have -- I'm working from another piece of paper from
!o which that one was developed.
MR. DENTON: Well, it would be 80 issues altogether, including these roughly 20 here.
22 MR. HANAUER: So maybe it's a few more of the lesser priority ones.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Are these people actually 25 solving the issue? Or are they reviewing those solutions?
99 jwb 111 MR. HANAUER: Some of each. In some cases, for 2 example -- an obvious example is the pressure suppression 3 containment MARK I, MARK II, lf.lA.RK III, research programs 4 costing dozens of millions are underway, financed and directed by industry, and we are following the development of new 6
experimental and theoretical results, and we are reviewing 7 the input of those and writing reports -- now in the advanced 8 stage -- giving criteria to be followed, which are the culmination of these very large research reports.
In other cases, we are strongly dependent on 11 !i research results from our own program. An example of this l!
I'"
1211 is the safety relief valve experiments which are shortly to q
II 13jj get _underway, eithe~ under our direct funding or under our
]l cognizance.
15 In other cases, the work is being done under 16 technical assistance, where new research is not required to develop new methods, and our own technical assistance budget ii
, s II of several million dollars is being used to perform t 'i '! calculations, sensitivity studies, and the like, to develop i
20 I for ourselves the detailed information we need to develop the I
- t 1
I
'1 1; criteria which are the basic resolution of one of these 22 issues.
?1 COV.tMISSIONER BRADFORD: So once the criteria are
-~ I
,..,,..111 developed, then the issue is considered "resolved"? Or does
.**.-:,,.* .. c:dern: Re~rters, Inc.
25 it take implementation in some or all of the affected plants?
100 jwb 112 MR. HANAUER: I write it off my books when the 2 criteria are issued and approved, for example, by the RRRC.
3 And Darrell and the casework people for reactors operating 4 and yet to be licensed then have to implement it on those 5 i plants to which it applies.
6 MR. DENTON: Take something like pipe toughness, 7 which you 1 re about to write off on, or pressure vessel 8 supports, is that a good example?
0,* MR. HANAUER: Yes, but that;one is a little complicated. It has all these ingredients. The problem is that some reactor vessels have been built of materials now
-~ II
'"' !I known to have unusually high sensitivity to radiation, and Ii
- 3
- \ therefore a low energy adsorption capabil~ty late in life.
,
- Ii ii. I i4 I This has involved very extensive efforts, from 15 both our own and industry research programs, to delineate the behavior of these materials. A research and technical assistance program that's been going on for several years to develop new and more elegant and realistic ways of prediction of the effects of flaws, what you can measure in 20 the way of flaws, and the a harder look in these vessels 2i at their strength, and also a harder look at what they might 22 be subjected to, this is all a mixture of research, which is I. 23
";Ji
, .~ ~,-, ..:.iernl Reporters, Inc.
25 I
in turn a mixture of industry and NRC work, and technical assistance in which we use the result to calculate for specific combination of circumstances what the results might
101 jwb 113 be.
2 Again, the culmination of this will be a series 3 of criteria for such vessels: 1'ifhat has to be assumed? What 4 has to be measured? Operating restrictions on pressure and 5 temperature.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Steve, does the resolution 7 include a timetable for implementation of the criteria for 8 I! a particular plant?
!I Ji
, iiIi c; MR. HANAUER: I don't have such a timetable, but 11 ii 10 1: the overall agency plan does.
I!
ii Now in many cases, these timetables are not well i
developed because of the flux we're in on resolving issues I
.~ i
- _;, ii in operating.'plants, but Darrell has, for the u
i,:
MR. DENTON: RRRC is attempting to do that all 15 the new ones.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I see. So that after you
- -I: fl resolve an issue, that resolution goes in part to RRRC 18 before it goes to Darrell for i MR. HANAUER: Yes.
IIi:
20 I MR. DENTON: Yes.
I 2i MR. HANAUER: But on the nearer term, Darrell 22 already has a schedule, and in fact Darrell beats me about the head and ears from time to time on some of his shorter
.:_,~_ . .;.*"'end Reporters, Inc.
25 range ones where he insists on getting started .
MR. EISENHUT: May I comment?
102 jwb 114 MR. HANAUER: Yes. Please.
2 (Laughter.)
3 MR. EISENHUT: Pick --
4 MR. HANAUER: I didn't know you were back.
5 MR. EISENHUT: I was just sitting in the back for 6 awhile.
7 Pick, for example, A-42, which is BWR pipe cracks.
8 Of course, you know, we've been discussing this subject for a number of years, and operating reactors went out with the 10 requirement already to licensees. We geared this program
! , up, remember, when we set up the Task Force earlier this year, and we're coming out with some new requirements. The
.e 13 target we laid out, even before we developed this Unresolved Safety Issue Task Force was August 15th.
15 We're still on that target to issue our new 16 requirements on August 15th. And when we laid out the
'i i'
' ri program initially, we also laid out the objective to have
- 1 i8 those requirements and implemented on plants by the end of 19 this calendar year.
So I think the two are sort of developed together.
And this is the case with -- at least half of these were very 22 closely tied to operating plants when they were conceived as 23 Jl unresolved safety issues. The task managers have been working on operating plants in the Division of Operating Reactors for the last couple of years on it.
10 3 jwb 115 So I think some of them, even though -- *.the one
,., mentioned, pressure suppression containments -- even though
,L.
3 it's being worked as a generic issue, implementation is sort 4 of beginning even before the end product.
5 You don't want to wait three years for a program 6 and then decide -- implement it on 70 plants, lay a new 7 requirement out, and sit back, you know, f.or 70 n~w actions 8 and wait a couple of more years. Because if they're really 9 clearly the higher priority pieces of work, you want to go 10 ahead and be implementing them as they go, and that's actually n what's been happening.
MR. DENTON: A good one to talk about are the short-term lessons learned, for exai--nple, the Mattson Task 14 Force. Our plan is to get all of those implemented by 15 January of '81.
16 That means that Darrell would have to implement all of those on the operating plants and on all the plants i8 under construction. It assumes also that we get cooperation
- S* I! from the utilities in implementing them, and that we don't
[i 20 II get ourselves in too much of an administive bind in doing it 2i I or it takes longer.
22 But I think earlier this morning we talked about 23 this problem of implementing a solution. We need to find a
.....,I
~ new mechanism to do ' .....
lt__ so that we don't tie up so much of
,-;-*~~al Reporters, Inc.
25 our resources in just running one issue through 70 plants.
104 jwb 116 There's got to be a better way than for me to have 2 a person spend a lot of time on one plant on that issue, and 3 then I&E to check it out. You know, as the number of plants 4 increase, this is becoming increasingly a laborious way of implementing a decision.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. My concern I guess 7 is only partially related to the budget, and the other part 8 is I think we get ourselves into a little trouble sometimes
)i s *\ calling this particular item in the chart a "completion" iiII
- .1 v" i! of the issue as far as the public is concerned. Maybe it H
,1 ii
,, should be when we place it in the plant, and not when we If
,._ ,f move it from one place to another.
- ~ 11 MR. DENTON
- Can I_go to the nex~ slide?
i!
i ,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Are there other questions 15 here?
16 (No response.)
- ?1! (Slide.)
ii
""10 MR. DENTON; Slide 21 shows that our effort in
,, I\ Advanced Reactors decision unit is a very small level of 20 1 1 effort projected in '81. You will notice there is no manpower I
2i in this for LMFBR.
22 I assume if we continue to monitor Fort St. Vrain as we're now doing, and put some effort into the FFTF, we show a little bit in this unit for the FNP because the other 25 groups who have been working with the core meltdown aspects
105 jwb 117 of the barge, a very small effort in advanced reactors are 2 down quite a bit from previous years.
3 COMMISSIONER A.HEARNE: Do you have any knowledge 4 of whether the Department of Energy is rethinking their i;; II position on the gas reactor?
1 6 MR. DENTON: I had some kno~ledge of this awhile 7 back.
8 MR. GOSSICK: I think Harold might have missed 9 last week's development where Dr. Duetch was talking about 10 using it as the source for gasification, or the synfuel business. There's something in the Energy Daily where such a proposal wasknocked;-around.
MR. LEVINE: I've heard th~y're talking about trying to get a demo plant by '83.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Processing?
16 MR. LEVINE: Oh, no, just the plant.
CHAIID'.tAN HENDRIE: I've got shades of, what was it? -
18 EUTREX?
MR. LEVINE: Yes.
MR. DENTON: l'm not aware, from talking to +/-he licensees, that there's any likelihood that they're coming 22 forth with an application, unless DOE provided a large chunk of money, like $400 million or so, to get into it.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. That might be worth 25 at least just checking into, so that if they're putting it
10 6 jwb 118 into their budget, we ought to at least address the question 2 of whether or not we ought to be.
3 MR. DENTON: We were in close touch with them a 4 few months ago. It was largely negative, as I recall.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. I think this is a 6 more recent development as a result of the rethinking on 7 synthetic fuels.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. Four positions are 9 worth -- what did we figure positions are worth?
10 l1 MR. BARRY: $35,000.
II l'
11 !!ii COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: How much?
i
, ,., l
- " I MR. BARRY: Per person.
- 13 14 15 I
i1 I
I I
I above that.
COtll~ISSIONER AHEARNE:
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But there must be a slice It must be more than that.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Agency benefits, et cetera?
~7 MR. BARRY: $35,000 per person.
i8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: These are for four?
i9 MR. BARRY: Four p~ofessionals? Or four people?
20 I! MR. BERKOW: We're talking about four people.
I!
Ii
?"
_1 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, you're $35,000 is --
I 22 MR. BARRY: Average per-person in the agency.
23 MR. DENTON: So this includes the
.~,::-"
24
.~era! Repor:ers, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's the average agency person .
Oh, I see. I see.
107 jwb 119 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So -- now wait. Tell me again?
- 2 ii
[I I
This is just professional manyears?
MR. BERKOW: No. This would be the total. The 4 fl total.
I'.I:1 5 Iii,, CO:MMISSIONER AHEARNE: $140,000.
I!I, 6 II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It includes any branch ii Ii 7 clerical -- it doesn't include Harold.
II 8 MR. BARRY: That's included in another unit.
II!!
- 1 II MR. BERKOW: Yes. It doesn't include Harold.
!I i1 11 IV Ii;I It includes to the division level.
'; ; :i
- ' H CHAIRMAN HENDRIE
- Okay, four positions then is l!
Ii*I
$140,000, and 400 is like $540K, and you travel a little 1',I 11
- ...)
[i bit, $600K.
ii Ii i A i COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: Four people travel a lot.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Boy, I'll say.
16 (Laughter.)
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, let's see. If I add in
. - !i that -- How much of the NA.SAP chunk, or alternative cycles, io II
,, li is gas related?
Ii 20 I MR. BERKOW: Of the people, about a half a person.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So between that and -- GCRA is 22 "<;as Cooled"?
23 MR. BERKOW: "Reactor Associates." Gas Cooled li 2.:: Reactor Associates.
~.S!: end Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, yes. Okay. Between a half
10 8 jwb 120 person in the NASAP and a half person in GCRA. I get another 2 one. So that's 5. Oh, boy. Now I've got 175, plu,s a little 3 travel money. It's still around 6.
I was just thinking --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Plus another 150.
CHAIRl'-'"J.A.N HENDRIE: I'm thinking -- Oh, yes. Good 7 thinking. Good thinking. 6, 750, going on toward 8. Good.
8 The level of effort here is not incoITLrnensurate with certain
,I
\'
ii Congressional thrusts, which you know were mandated on the C ll II 10 draft authorization bill side -- they may have been mandated II11 1i in the House Appropriations, but I hope *eventually the bill q
- I
!i
, - :I
- I the President signs will have some guidance language either
- I
!I
'~ 11 sj !I in, the bill, 6r in the Conference Report, to proviae us Ii 14 Ii reasonable flexibility to*sei reasonable leve1s, and'expecting Ii 15 that there will be guidance of that kind, why at least on the 16 NRR side, this is not -- it's not a generous bow in that
.~ I II direction, but it certainly is the general right sized.
18 Okay, and no fast reactor, except a little FFTF Ii
,\
' C'
'I support.
I 20 I MR. DENTON: Right.
I ii 2i ii COM..fl1ISSIONER KENNEDY: 'What was the program
- 22 L-3
?4 i
if I
I I
I I
I support for NRR as p~oposed for this?
MR. DENTON:
MR. BERKOW:
The $300,000?
Yes. I guess it involved some models,
,c,,;'"* ,;~al Reporters, Inc.
25 and analytical techniques. Don Sallo, are you familiar with
10 9 jwb 121 any of the details of the $300,000 we had proposed program 2 support for the LJv'"JFBR conceptual design?
3 I think it was basically model development, 4 analytical development, source terms.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What's the level this year?
61 . MR. BERKOW: The level of people is 10, for all 7 advanced reactors. Program support, it's 10-30, isn 1 t it?
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, in our 9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, no.
11 10 ,,ii 11 II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: On. fast reactors.
Ii 11 'I MR. BERKOW: Oh, on LJV"JFBR, nothing in 1 80.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In 1 79.
13 MR. BERKOW: In '7~? I don't believe there's i4 I anything in '79 either on the --
I 15 MR. DENTON: You mean, when we were going in the 16 I
.I review, it was considerable in the CRBR review stage.
-~ I
- ' I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
i8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Research has some.
'I I CHP_IRMAN HENDRIE: But the '79 level in NRR, you I'
20 simply -- you've shuffled the people around.
21 I[ MR. DENTON: Yes.
22 MR. BERKOW: We have nothing.
I.
~
",/ii
- ,,-, --~ra: Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRJ'.1.AN HENDRIE:
.,_ ...
- or gone to other jobs?
MR. DENTON:
Have the people disappeared, They 1 ve taken on new tasks.
110 jwb 122 MR. BARRY: On advanced reactors, in total you 2 have a little over a million dollars and 10 people.
3 CHAIRM..i;.N HENDRIE: What's your -- What do you 4 want to do about the EDO mark versus the NRR mark?
JvlR. DENTON: We decided not to appeal the differences. They were -- where they left us the money are 7 in the areas where it's obvious that we need to do something, s !I and the other areas are more nebulous payoffs.
11 Q, i i CHJl.IRM..ZI..N HENDRIE: All right.
l1 10 I! (Slide.)
l!:\
1 i ',,!!.' MR. DENTON: So the next slide then summarizes
!i jl 12 i our decision units and budget presentation . That it's --
- ,, I based on that 1980 budget, with the~people allocated, that 1
4 I we are *implementing the short-term lessons that we've learned 15 so far. And once again we use the word "supplemental," but 16 you have requested that we look at a planning wedge or a
, r .
1 budget amendment for the ongoing investigations.
18 !I What this budget will do, it will improve the safety of operating plants by implementing those lessons 20 I we've identified to date. It will also, by eliminating the 21 OR backlog, go far toward improving the safety of those 22 plants and resolve a large number of the generic issues.
23 In addition, we can meet the OL :schedules as the l,~*:*c*al Reporters, ~n~. plants are constructed.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. Harold, there are
111 jwb 123 three residual decision units. You provide overall assistance 2 to Standards. There is a training andcorrespondence component 3 and these you and the EDO have agreed on your final marks?
4 I MR. DENTON: Yes. There is a disagreement on i!
~ Ii
- > !. the Director I s Office number of people i
6 MR. BERKOW: Yes. Two people.
7 MR. DENTON: Is there?
8 MR. BERKOW: Yes.
9 CHAIRlvT~~N HENDRIE: You ended up requesting 25 in 10 '81? We're keeping that number in the out-years? The EDO said how about 23, and then in the out-years --
MR. DENTON: I decided not to appeal that. I 13 am bringing more functions into this office, but I am moving 14 people out of it as fast as 1:l Im bringing them in. So the 15 2 wasn't a big problem for me.
16 I might mention that we're losing Joan Gianelli to the Senate staff starting Monday, who works in my office.
13 She helped put the budget together.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The training side, is that 20 essentially an allocation of a certain nuwber of people that
?"
_t you have at any given time during the year for training?
22 MR. BERKOW: Yes. It's total manyears spent in 23 training.
1
- 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Very good. I 1 like to see l'.~-Ft:Jera! Reporters, Inc, 25 that.
V 112 jwb 12 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, let's see .
- 2 3
MR. DENTON: I think probably the biggest issues are this one of a need for advisability of the planning 4 wedge.
s 11 CHAIRIV1ll..N HENDRIE: Well, yes, and that's more an ii 6 '81 issue. There's also the other one of getting out what 7 this '80 supplement ought to be, because we are going to 8 have to have closed on that by the middle of -- well, the 9 middle of next week.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
1 ;
I' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Because it's going to have to go up with the overall budget package. You're going to have
- 13 i.,;
15 to.decide o~ something, and we may have to recognize we don't *know all the things we would like to know before the supplemental goes in, but we'll just have to take our that 16 best cut at it now, guess how many people you're going to 17 get in assistance program, and account for them on some basis.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I'm not sure, Joe, that the planning wedge is strictly an '81 issue, because the items 20 that_-- what they had essentially come in with was trying to 21 estimate what were the results of the Rogovin review, and the 22 longer ranged lessons learned, and the Presid*ential Commission.
Now all of those may very well impact, at least 24 for the second half of 'BO. So if we don't address it, I
.!!,s-=- . e;*al Reporters, Inc.
25 think we're making the implicit assumption that any of those
113 jwb 125 impacts will have to be eaten by reprogramming and reshuffling.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, maybe we want to think 3 about some kind of a leaning forward onto those things.
4 Maybe you do want to back them up to the '80 supplemental 5 and get a little jump on some of them at any rate.
6 Now let's see. Overall for the office, then, 7 I take it that it would be the office's feeling that the 8 non-NRR support of 26 ought in fact to be added to the office 9 total. So the office total request then comes up to 810, I
10 II I believe.
II 11 !iII MR. BERKOW: That's correct.
i 12 MR. DENTON: The 810 includes our --
13 CRAIRJ-1'.:AN HENDRIE: It includes the 26.
14 MR. BERKOW: Correct.
15 MR. DENTON: It includes the 26.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And the dollar numbers I 17 believe track the EDO's22-773.
i8 MR. DENTON: Yes.
i9 I MR. BERKOW: Yes.
I 20 11 CHAIRlV.IAN HENDRIE: And, let's see. For some 1!
_1
?* reason my sheet makes an estimate that with the 100 people
- 22 23 i
1 recently provided, the office strength in 1 80 before the supplement will be 731, and yours comes out to 730, and I don't remember where we l>~*eral Reporters, ,~!.
25 MR. BARRY: That's a space that was transferred from
114 jwb 126 NRR. It's already been transferred and it ought to be 730.
2 CHAIRM.A"-~ HENDRIE; 730, says the Controller.
3 Good. In that case, the people delta from the pre-supplement 4 '80 position, which includes the 100 additional slots to 5 '81, is 80 slots?
6 MR. DENTON: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And the program support dollar 8 increment is like, what, a million six?
- \
S !j MR. BERKOW: That's based on the ' 8 0 without
- 1 10 I supplemental request.
11 I CHAIRL\ffi..1'! HENDRIE: That's based on a pre-supplement 12 '80 number, now, Len?
- 14 MR. BARRY:
CHAIID1AN HENDRIE:
Yes, sir.
I don~t think that's right, 15 because the program support _level at 2_1-151 listed on your 16 sheet under the column "current estimate 1 without supplement" 17 in FY '80 is precisely the same number as the President's 18 budget, and we didn't get the President's budget by ten million bucks, some of which I assume these people will be 20 entitled to assume responsibility for.
21 MR. BARRY: Yes, I've got a base on the field that 22 you carried up, and I expect that NRR will probably end up 23 somewhere around $20 million in '80, rather than a 24 CHAIR.¥.tAN HENDRIE: Rather than --
.l>cae.ersi Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BA.RRY: Rather than the $21 million.
115 jwb 12 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: This is pre-supplement '80?
2 MR. BARRY: Pre-supplement.
3 CHAIR.IvT_Z\N HENDRIE: That would make the delta 4 something like $2.7 or $2.8 million.
5 On the other hand, if you take the $20 million 6 program support that appears to be there, the Appropriations 7 bills as they stand now add to it some reasonable increment 8 from an '80 supplement, the EDO's mark would take you up 9 then to a total for the year of about $24.5 million.
10 To that has to be added -- because it's not in
,' I' there 1 is my understanding has to be added dollars to pay 12 for the contractor support, the short-term TMI support. Is
- 14 15 that right?
MR. GOSSICK: Let me a-sk, on that $4 million that we've got on the supplement now on operating reactors, what 16 is that to include? It does not include to pay these people i7 that we're talking about?
18 MR. BARRY: No, it does not. That is simply the 19 Lessons Learned.
20 MR. GOSSICK: Okay: We have not --
2i MR. BARRY: We have not priced out what it's going 22 to cost us to either reimburse -- reimburse other agencies 23 for contract support. Frankly, we really didn't know what the numbers were.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it looks like it might be
116 jwb 128 another couple of million bucks that were between $2 and $4.
- 2 That means that program support total in '80 for NRR is 3 very likely to run in the range of, oh, I don't know, up 4 around $28 million, $27- $28 million.
5 Are you going to be able to if in fact that 6 turns out, and as the closing *months of fiscal year '80, 711 you're working at a rate corresponding to an annual expendi-8 II ture of $28 1 million, are you going to be able to stand a 9 II whomp back down to $22. 7?
10 COMMISSIONER ABEARNE: Remember, a good chunk of 11 that, though, is transfer payments to people.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's the short term.
- 13 14 15 COMM.ISSI ONER A..HEARNE: And those people, if .they*
have to extend into '81 will probably at some point be asking for additional funds to pay them. And if we don't need 16 them, their disappearance will be a reduction in dollars.
17 MR. DENTON: And they're paying to get the 18 II amendment backlog down by '83, so it's paying other contractors 19 II and so forth to work on amendments in general, including 20 II these TMI amendments.
21 MR. BARRY: Of course a lot of that will be in
- 22 23
'80 obligation, because it will be carried away in '81.
MR. DENTON: That's a concern.
~~-
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: John, even without the short-
.l'.sce.eral Reporters, 25 II term thing, the thing that isn't costed in the EDO stuff, the
117 jwb 129 EDO supplement, most of the supplement is up there in 2 operating reactors for $1.4 million, that plus the current 3 estimate at $20, it would put you at $24 without any -- you 4 know, without getting into funding the short-term licensing 5 help effort.
6 And the question is,-you know, you're going to 7 get yourself into one of these situations where, in the 8 closing months of fiscal year '80, you will be working at 9 a higher level, and you 1 ll have yourself all convinced that 10 if you cut that any, why things are going to come unglued, 11 and here we are going ahead with an 1 81 budget, and this is 12 the lower level.
- 13 14 15 I have no objection whatsoe~er to lowey numbers as you go on out, you understand, but I don't want us to kid ourselves about what we can do and what we can't do and what 16 we ought to ask for.
17 MR. DENTON: I guess part of this is the dollar 18 expenditures from casework in '80 are not going to be what 19 we thought they were going to be.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
21 MR. DENTON: On some of the things. And so we 22 have to do an internal reprogram effort.
23 CF.AIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. These numbers are an 24 algebraic sum, which is permissible in this case.
.t\ce. .ral Reporters, Inc.
25 (Laughter. )
118 jwb 130 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Of both positive and negative 2 numbers -- you know, larger and smaller increments.
3 Well, okay.
MR. DENTON: I sort of thought --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think, pending some kind of a cut on what you might like as a -- I like the term "planning wedge," because we don 1 t seem to be using it all over the place, yet. Give us another day. By mid-afternoon, ii why we 1 ll be asking "what's your planning wedge."
9 i' 10 I On the other hand, my impression is that in use I
I:
research it won't be that there's less of a problem in getting
,,ii
-,. i them to come in with planning wedges.
!I
- L l -5 I
I (Laughter.)
I 14 1 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If that 1 s the right way to I
15 put it.
16 MR. BARRY*: I had never heard the term before.
CHAIRMJ\..N HENDRIE: It 1 s one of those military i8 !I budget things.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's true.
COM...MISSIONER BRADFORD: If you think in terms of 20 II l'
21 I a "sand wedge," you won't be far off.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There is one word that
~~ I covers all of them, and that's "obfuscation. 11
- 2c; (Laughter.)
~*~-, Me~c:: Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. DENTON: I don 1 t think we could get by with
119 jwb 131 much fewer dollars in '81. I guess we got cut in some dollars 2 here and there and decided that we could live with the cuts, 3 but we're not being extravagant in those dollars, since it 4 is sort of close for our '80 budget.
5 lj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, so you will be supplying I,
6 I us the -- what'll I call it -- the short-term licensing 7 assistance estimate?
8 MR. DENTON: Estimate on program support for 9 control reviews on the design, layout, and --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And --
11 MR. DENTON: -- planning wedge.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: By tomorrow, I'll be asking
- 13 14 people about their "PWs."
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The planning wedge, and 16 certain things. Jl..nd that, you and Len can work that out, pretty fast, because when we begin to crunch 1 over, you know, 18 chops at the whole budget, why I think we would like to have an idea of what those things are apt to add, if they 1 re included, because the overall size of the budget gives you some feeling for whether you 1 had a fly on the logic, or
- 22 22 2,: i1 something that's going to have to be run around in a wheel-barrow.
- ~-rai Reporters, In:. Other NRR budgetary comments?
25 (No response.)
120 jwb 132 CHAIRlvlAN HENDRIE: Okay, why don't we -- we' re 2 now due well, first of all, let me say thank you very 3 much to the NRR --
4 COJ\1MISSIONER KENNEDY: Thank you, very much.
I 5 I! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- group, and the EDO, and the I
6 Budget Reviev: Group representatives.
7 Let me suggest to the Commission, with regard to 8 our next meeting, the TMI 1 order, I 1 ve looked down the
- ! memorandum and read through the memorandum we got last night ii 11 10 !! from the General Counsel.
,I I think it is a very helpful one,
'I 1:
~1 i *; but, by goodness, there are a lot of issues to be worked
,_ liI! through there, as well as some rev~ew and retreading on ones I!
i*
,,, i I _, i earlier visited, and I have about concluded that 'for this I
I 14 Ii IIIr between-the-meetings meeting that-we have sandwiched in 15 here, that first of all we ought to get out that interim 16 thing that says August 10th, and then see what time we have
- '} ,i q
to discuss some of the things in the memo, and not try to ir i8 plunge into that with a view that we're going to try to come
- s
i,,
!I jt final on an order on TMI 1.
I!
20 i I just don 1 t think it's practical, and I think ii I
2i against the substantial budget presentation effort that will
- 22 24 have to be gone into this afternoon, it will be an unwise thing to try.
What it does mean is that I will be looking for
'~.c- ,c-0erel Reporters, Inc.
25 places again to try to crank back in meetings on TMI 1,
121 jwb 133 because we clearly have to complete our final draft on the 2 issues so it's ready to issue before we come to the end of 3 next week when there will be some travel plans which will 4 leave us without a complete Cowmission for an extended 5 II period of time.
6 But I just don't think it's practical to close 7 everything, you know, in an hour and a half to two hours' B of discussion.
9 So if that is agreeable to you, I would propose iO in that context then that we take until 1:00 o'clock for lunch, and that we will then start TMI at 1:00 o'clock.
COY.!MI5SIONER AHEARNE: 1:,00 o'clock?
- 14 i5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 1:00 o'clock. I would hope to complete it in time to give us a few minutes' break in time to start the Research budget presentation as scheduled 16 at 2:30.
MR. GOSSICK: 2:30?
18 CHAIRM..Z\..N HENDRIE: Yes. That's what it's on the
- S' sheet for. It was scheduled for 2
- 3 0 ,and to run for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
20 As I say, that ~ill give us an hour-and-a-half interval for 2i the TMI 1 discussion, and I really would like to give you 22 15 minutes' break at the end of that before you have to come
- W
- 2 -'.'.ll (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the meeting . was
- ' ""*-r'l'-:i<?rel Reporters, Inc, 25 adjourned.)
- * *