ML22230A171

Tran-M780601: Discussion of Resource Allocation (Open to Public Attendance)

ML22230A171
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/01/1978
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M780601
Download: ML22230A171 (1)

Text

,.0 ('C'CRE1 f\\', \\f\\ 1 RtCORUS

~-:,c,"<i:.p..R REGul..q"o RCT\\lRN \\

.)L f

\\ Transcript of Proceedings

\\,,

,l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1'-?

~o

• • • • ~

DISCUSSION OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION (Open to Public Attendance)

Pages 1 -

60 Prepared by:

C.H. Brown Office of the Secretary

DISCL!liMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States*

Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on June 1, 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W.~ Washington, o~ C.

The*

meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been revie1*1ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuractes.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper m~y be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg'..zment contained herein, except as the Comr.iission may authorize.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION (Open t6 Public Atte'i1c!.ance) 1 Commissioners' Confere.nce Room

• Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

Thursday, June 1, 1978 The Commis$ion met pursuant. to adjournment at 11:10 a..,

Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford ALSO PRESENT:

J. Hoyle L. Gcissick J. Kelley K. Pederson E. Case J. Shea R. Cunningham D. Crutchfield

w. Dircks R. Mattson

1

_2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

).

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, the subject-before. the house is Discussion of Resource Allocations.

This comes about growing out of some*reviews by the budget review group doing some work in c6nnection with present resources.and monies for the present Fiscal Year 79 and looking forward to preparation of the '80 budget.

What the group found is that there are some crunches developing in terms of workload and resource conditions,.

particularly in NRR and there is a proposal here from the Executive Director for_

some actions to deal with those crunch situ~tions over the near term, the next half year or so.

Then we will also have to think about-ways of dealtng and working our way out if one makes the crunch situation for the longer term.

Would you like to go ahead?

MR. GOSSICK:

Yes.

I would like to just summarize sort of the background, how we got started on this exercise.

A few weeks ago we were beginning to see some

_pr6blems developing.

Cliff Smith was saying.that he needed some people with regard to the uranium mills business, working with the agreement states, spent fue1*st6rage, licensing

• activities ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

My recollection is now and we will want to come back to this that I asked a question about

1 2,

3

'4

'..5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tgat and I got an answer that there wouldn't be any requ_irements.. But go *ahead.

MR~ GOSS-ICK:

I don'.t recall* the particular question.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:*

We can get out the tapes.

MR. GOSSICK:

At any rate, there were some other ind,ications that the NASA.I' activities were going to lead to some action-on the part of the staff thatwou],d require

-a_d.di tional capability. 'or additional manpower_.

.The nonproliferation bill, whereby we pick up cert~{ri responsibilitjes, I.guess, effectively Jtily the 8th that is *now be1ng carried.on by C'ommerce and DOE. *some man-powe_r impact indiC:a ted there; and Research was also indicating that they' felt the combination of the NASAP activities and advance reactor research work that<they might need some additional help.

But, at any rate, we sort of said okay, everybody come in with whatever their complaints are and we convened the Budget Review group under Bill.Dircks.

I guess I would_*

have. to call it, at least to me, somewhat of a surprise entry.

But NRR came in with some problems that they wanted to.talk about.

I think in summary, really, the other matters

. as addressed by the review group are more or less minor.

I think we can handle those without any great trouble, but the

1 2

3*

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4

NRR prob_lem does create a situation where I think, at least for a short term basis, six months or so that there appears to be sort of a backlog or buildup of activ~ties that we need to address *and see if we can't clear away in order to keep 'them fi0~ developing into a more serio~~ situation.

COMMTSSIONE:B. KENNEDY:

To be sure.that I understood what *you said correctly,_this is a* backlog ot a probl~m or six months or so; ~id you say?

MR. GOSSICK: Well, _I think it is ce~tainly a possibility that by putting the resources that I have rec~mmen~ed on it for about a six-month period and we can work off enough of that backlog that will prevent us from getting into serious trouble if we don't otherwise.

COMMISSlONER KENNEDY:

These are a whole lot of words and I guess we are going to get in to these* in detail, things like serious* troubl~ and backlogs of varying sizes.

• we are going to discuss all of those things in sort of precise terms and defin.e exactly what we mean, are we?

MR. GOSSICK:

Indeed.

COMM!SSIONER KENNEDY: Okay.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Could I just ask you, when you said some of the problems could be handled easily, were those the NMSS problems?

MR. GOSSICK:

I think the NMSS numbers as indicated here -- if it was just that and the IP problem, I think we can

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 I

I I I

12 I

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5

handle it without too much difficulty.

I mean, there is enough flexibility that we could work those out.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well,,it seems to me there are areas where.the expected work didn't m,aterialize.

I think t,hat' is true with saf eguc1rds.

I m~an, we bui 1 t up an enormous safeguards.division basical1y to deal :-1ith industry which is now not about to come in to fruition, at least, for the time. being and is it really dealing with a haridfull of facilities.

I think one has to look at the places where ---

MR *. GOSSICK:

Okay.

Assuming the Commission agrees that we have got a problem that we must address, that's the next step.

We turn the budge review groups loose on where~can we free up resources.

Some of the ideas that you suggested and some of the things that we are doing, can we delay,slip I

or change priority on in order to free resources to the problems that we will discuss here.

But that is quite right, we have got to look at all of *:.+/-hose areas where either the workload has changed; after all our budget and.our ceiling, I think was put together and nailed down almost a year ago.

MR. DIRCKS:

The 79 budget was a year ago and the

'78 budget was almost two years ago.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

So that I understand, you are saying that you have not done that yet?

I 1

2 3

4 5*

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6

MR. GOSSICK:

We have not done that. and the;iwhol~

point* of* the exerc;Lse

• in coming. to you this morning is. to address the problem areas that we see that there is very I

strong feeii'ng on the part of-' NRR, a;d.I _,think :the Budget Review Committ.ee'and myself.'included; are c'onvinced that-,ye~,

f we have got something here that we,.cl.re. going. to have to acidress.

I would like to ask ~ill to* ~ort of just 6utline for you how the bilidget review group addressed this situation and add anything he *would like to what we.have said before we start getting into the problem areas themselves.

MR. DIRCKS:

The budget review group,* just to refresh your memory is made up of myself as chairman~ Steve Hanauer, 'i,~ii**;'Barry and _Norm Haller who* is a new member 'this year, because* -of the reorganization that we have done out there.

We met with the various offices during 'the week of May 1st through about May 7th,~;* We me:ttwi th Nuclear Reactor Regul~tion, NMSS, Research and IP.

The offices came in and we lo_oked at their '78 problems.

We wanted to concentrate on '78.

They did come-in with '79 problems, but we listened

.to them, but we preferred to de.al with '79 problems during the

• .course. of* the fiscal '80 budget that we will b*e taking up within the next few weeks.

So we prefer to keep the problem isolated to '78 and we will do a more intense review on the

'79 problem when the '80 pudget is reviewed..

In '78 the-

1 2

3 4,

5 6

7 8

9 10 11

.12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

,7

• MR. GOSSICK:

That is starting up almost immediately.

MR. DIRCKS:

That's starting in a couple of ~eeks.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

When are we do to submit that; MR. DIRCKS*:****. Oh, I think:' it::.Sep;tember 1st.

MR. GOSSICK:

End of September.,.*I think.

Len?

MR. BARRY:

,One* September.

-* 'MR. DIRCKS:

The of fices, because of their* program rearrangements and readjustments came in and asked-for '78 for about 60 more people and $3.9 million in addition to the

'78 resources.

Some of these people were short term relief people, so they are not really additional slots.

It is relief to get a job done.

Based on the review th~t we did, a~d it was a short review and it concentrated on '78, we came up with a recommen-dation that 30 spaces, somehow or another, should be fourid and

$2.4 million reprogrammed into these critical areas.

COMMISSIONER *GILINSKY:

Are you talking about reprogramming_ from one place to another?

MR. DIRCKS:

One place to another.

strictly from within offices, but sometimes from office to office where we can see.

Part of this exercise we would-like is the Commission to recognize that we do have some readjustment problems and to then direct somebody to go back and take a look at where these pockets may be found from which we could transfer some resources.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8

We made our recommendations to the EDO on May 16th COMMISSIONER'*BRADFORD:

Bil,l, if I have understood you correctly then-you said that in effect somewhere in the agency you,ca,n find 30 people, but you don~t yet.know where or what impact* that.,wilL have?

MR. DIRCKS:

That's true, and that's the bloody business when you go looking for resources.

MR. GOSSICK:

That's why we have got to address and come back to you and show you _what the impact would be if we meet this requirement, where would we propose to take it from then see whether the Commission agrees.

MR. DIRCKS:

You are going to have to measure the impact of where we are getting the resourc'es from.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

So what we would be saying, since it isn't like this, it is essentially one of priorities, is that these matters have such a high priority that somewhere in the agency there must be 30 people who are working on somethi g with lower priorities.

MR. DIRCKS:

That's what our feeling is now.

We ha-ve some feel for where these resources raight be, but we prefer a firmer mandate to go looking for them.

The recommendations of the BRG that we submitted to Lee was dated May 16th, and Lea transferred thes~ down to you in his memo of May 25th.

If it is okay, what I would like to do is work back

1 2

3'

• 4 5

6 7

8 9

10*

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9

in the order of this: increasing difficulty. *. I would like to take the* request of.the Office of International Programs first and review ~hat briefly.then work to NMSS and then end up \\yith

• the NRR

• request *. *I think :there w1ll be more discu*ss'ion on*

• that one than the other two..

International. Programs *ask~_d.for four additionq.1 pe~~le.in fiscal '.78;: The basis.for their reque~t w~~ th~

new responsibilities placed 6n 'them by the Nuclear 'N'onprolifer-

. ation Act of l918.

They asked for two additional professionals and twd*

• additional clerical support people.

COMMI'SSIONER GILINSKY:. So these would go. in to. the,*

export licensing area?

MR._DJ;:RCKS:

Export Licensing, mainly to deal with the new responsibilities we picked up from the Dep.artment of C.ommerce and the consultation requirements under the Act.

What we did -- now complicatin<:! the. problem *and,,.

Lee has discus~ed this with 0MB -- is that I think we have got some sympathetic understanding from 0MB that they might want to take a Took at this problem during the course of the

'79 -- the '80 budget review.

many?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

This is four added to how MR. DIRCKS:

There are now.24 on the *staff.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes, but how many in that

1 2

3 4

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 export area?

MR. DIRCKS:

I count 12 right now in the export area.

MR.,GO,SSICK:

BilL1 mentioned that 0MB discussion I had,. you know;* the question is*:. Well~* ii' *we get this. res:ppri:..

sibili ty and function*, from Commerce, why don't we get the spaces with it?

And the answer is,*well, their argument is since it is half a man-year here and half a man-year there that there are no identifiable spaces.

+tis the same argument we would use if somebody tried 'to clip us, I'm sure.

And they said it isn't anything we would even look at right now as a sep~rate '78 _problem.

• Bring it up when you bring you ;~80.

budget forward and we might think about adjusting between th.'e Commerce or recognizing your requirement and then giving you some help which we would plan to do, of cOurse.

CHAIRMAN:HENDRIE:

Now, the proposal.for an early hire against '79?

• MR. DIRCKS:

We are recommeriding four. *.They c:1.re in for four additional people and I ~~ink that Cong~ess has approved it in * ' 7 9.

We are recommending that they be allowed.

totgojup above their '78 ceiling and go in to their '79 barrow against their '79 ceiling.

Right now it is '78.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Do you have any problem with the -- when is the counting day on numbers of people?

MR. GOSSICK: One October, but normally there is

1 2

3' 4

6.

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

.16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eneug~ r~eway that -- and of.course, if the decision was 111ade

• .* to hire these guys. now, *.that

• would be

• probably a *. couple of months before they. are on board.

So you are getting awful*

close.. "' It is manageable.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

. So *by *early hiring, *which __ :you believe.is accommodatable under the agency October 1. t9tal

• manpower*ceiling you.could relieve the difficulty anq. then ther.e is further discussion to come with 0MB about:

"How come we get work from Commerce, but it turris out that no resource comes with it?"

Well, we all know the answer to that, but it is a discussion which is useful to have.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: *Where do we stand with that work at *commerce.

MR. GOSSICK:

Getting what?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Are we in fact g*etting some-thing from Commerce?

MR. GOSSICK:

We are working with them now, and as I understand it from*:*Jim Shea,. and I think he is here.

But we don't actually pick up.the functional responsibility until July the 8th.

I don't know how that date was arrived at.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, what happens on July the 8th?

MR. GOSSICK:

When that's when the cases then that they have been reviewing will come to us.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, let's take something

1 2

3

.4, 5,

6 7,

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 io

• 21 22 23 24 25 12 like heavy water.

Does th~t come t6 us after July 8th?

MR. GOSSICK:

Yes, right.

Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I thought the Commission had to make some kind of finding~

Is that not~right?

MR~*-GOSSICK:

As to whether or not we would accept the responsibility for reviewing theie?

COMMISSIONER. GILINSKY:

I 'thought so.

MR. SHEA:

May I clarify that Commissioner.

In the Part 110 Export Regulations we specify tnat these are possibilities that come: July 8th that what they would be, there is a listing of those in there of which ones would be reviewed by the Commission.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

So in approving 110, we approved all of those items?

MR. SHEA:

That's right. The transfer of these~

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The 'so-called sensi ti Ve '.:-.:-: and the list of items which are very similar*to ---

MR. SHEA:

The suppliers trigger list.

'CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

MR. GOSS-ICK:

There is one other possible problem here, of course, and that is'the House Appropriations Committee, you know, clipped us 24 people out of PDA and PTS, unspecified.

We are ~ppeAling_that, but depending pn the appeal, whether we get them all back or not, at least some of this might be a problem, but we will handle that when it comes, I_guess.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

• Could we move -- yes?

COI1.tMISSIONER' BRADFORD:'

I just had one* questioh.

ts there.an assumpt;ion on these four people in any way built in* with regard to what. I guess is. a certain amo.unt of pulling and hauling now goin~,'on bt=tween IP and NMSS*as to cei*.tain internationai. safegua,rds responsibi;Lities?,That is,

. iE:c.th:~_t-fo,frr,:,that they are: asking for and the 7 that NMSS are asking for do the same job and then we ought to decide the other qu~stiori,first?

MR. GOSSICK:

They are cbinpletely different.

MR. DIRCKS:

It is a different issue.

The 7 in this packag,e that the* NMSS. is asking *for:':

is on their fuel* ~_ycle side* of _their house, not on the

~afeguards side.

are not COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

How about the 4?

MR. DIRCKS:

Th~.4 here, export licensing and we I don't think they are involved in international safeguards policy, whatever that may mean right now.

But this is r~ally the licensing process work that th:e:cDepartment *of Commerce has been doing and that we are.;., __

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Let me ask Jim that.same question if I could.

Jim, doef?*..,this request contemplate IP having, along with.what it currently does on export l.:i.censing, an expanded or differently defined role on safeguards assessments?

1 2

3 4

5,,

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 MR. SHEA:

No.

What these people will be for will. be for, as Biil said, the new responsibilities from*

. Commerce and.*DOE.

The way we cal cu.lated these was to look atc,the case load. in the Commerce and DOE area that we would be taking over under our regul~ tions :.and how many people we needed to handle that.

It didn't contemplate a:r;iy international safeguards changes." Right now, we have essentially two people

. working most of the time on international safeguards }.,physical s*ecuri ty type issues and those would be the ones that would maintain our work in the future, but perhaps we might need to ~xpand in,79.*.or '80.

But these particular positions arid responsibilities are for licensing.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Could we turn to the NMSS.thing, Bill?

MR. DIRCKS:

Well, NMSS asked for 13 additional positions in.fiscal '78 and about $1.6 million.

These positions were broken down into four additiona positions in their.,.uranium fuel* cycle licensing effort, two of which would be in straight sort of 'licensing work for mills and *fabrication plants and so forth; two to service a requirement that came about as the resu.l t of a policy on doing EIS's in agreement states.

Four in th~ spent fuel area and fiv.e.;rin'.. :waste management.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Two for helping ---

MR. DIRCKS:*

Yes.

1 2

3 4

5 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But I thought we were supplying money.. Are we doing *more than that?

15 MR.. DIRCKS:

Wo, there was technical support of

• staff time~iniolved in that.

Let me tell you how we got to the BRG result and then* you may want to question us some more.

As'far as the two positions involved in the licensing* effort we tdok a look at their forecasted numbers, what they put together as the result of tqeir '78 budget and concluded that we d1dn't see any great increase in workload there.

NMSS claims there was and they may be right, but our numbers just didn't show it.

So we just said COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, there must be a *decrease in reviewing*r~processing plants?

MR. DIRCKS:

Yes, but the~e are nill.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Right, but what I am saying is there may be an increase in one area, but there must be decreaies in other areas.

MR. DIRCKS:

We counted by what they call major licensing actions, and I think. our forecast -- the forecast that~we based the '78 bridget on indicated there would be 17 major licensing actions.

I think we cbunt about 10 right now.

So there is some, we thought, sufficient resources to carry out their work in '78 without the two additional slots they asked for.

So we recommended:'no relief there.

1

2.

3 4

5 6

7

. s 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 As far as the two people to do '"7~.,,the*.. two *additional.

positions to do the EIS's and*agreement states, we haven't seen any gteat inflow of stat~ assistance in this area.* There was

.one request that came. in from Colorado, I think that is pendi~g now.

Our feel,\\;ng is th,at to assure that there is no delay in carrying _out the Commi*~sion policy here thab:they, be given one *additional.slot fo'r. this area,just to assure that the Colorado request is acted on promptly and without any delay.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Would this person actually b~ going out and helping the Colorado people pr~pare*the report or for coordinating efforts or see ---

MR. DIRCKS.:

Moni taring contracts, ass'uring that the EI$ meets certain standards ~nd dealing with:the national

• lab if that's where the contract is to be.let, to monitor it, to assure that the results are up to*.par.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It is.* essential.~y a one-time exercise t_o help lead them through and thus show them the way to.do it.

MR. DIRC:KS:

That's right..

Now they anticipate other states coming.

MR. CUNNINGHAM:

May I answer that.

The staff paper that was approved had a term, and I forget the number of years, I think it was three years in which we would do these ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

No, I meant with one client or

1 2

3 4

5 i

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 1*4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 one mill.

MR. CUNNINGHAM':*

Oh; yes.

With one mill it is a one-time exercise, that is correct.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Or is it with one.state?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:,' If Colorado comes up with.

another*mill than 'the one for which*you are helping --.on*which you are helping, woulq you propose to help on the second mill in Colorado?

MR. CUNNINGHAM:

That is correct.

Bob Ryan is working on some agreement with the.State of Col6r~do in which we would take the mills.they refer to us, those that would come up for license renewals and where these new mills would come up, and we would review.these, one review for ea:ch mill.

But one state may send us more than one mill.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If you go through one mill with one state, I think is the thrust that Commissioner Kennedy's remark, doesn't that sort of provide them what ought to go on and MR. CUNNINGHAM:

That isn't the problem, as we discussed in *th.e paper~:

The states aren't prepared to do this now.

Even if they knew how to do this they don't have the people to do it, they don't have the budget and they just don't have the organization.

We did explore*f.tnis in the paper and that is why we did establish a time period over which we would do this while we would try to get the states to gear up to do it

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 But we are in sort of a chicken-egg sor.t of thing now.

When we got the_ application from Connor_

and I. might point out that the staff paper did note very specifically that we would* need manpower and* dollars;;to do this.

We got the application from Conner.: and :we sent it back over to the

'~greement ~tate.peo~le and we said we don't have the people,

~nd we ar~n't budgeted for this and this is on~ that Billi~

talki~g_:about presently.

The problem is ~n~ the reason we don't have more applications i~ that we are holding off, as is the state~until we see what happens with this one.

But we have talked with the people in Ne_w Mexico about doing the same* sort of thing and there is no point in doing that unless we know we are gging to have enough people.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

One last question.

In the process of doing this, is it also part of the package that our assistance is to help show them the way to cut this umbilical cord?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, sir; yes sir.

That is ou:r plan.

Our definite plan is not to continue on with this for ever..

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

In other words, what we are doing is working ourselves out of a job, that's the name of the game?

MR. CUNNINGHAM:

Yes, sir.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Then I'm for it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Go on Bill with the NMSS.

MR. DIRCKS:

Spent fuel:

NMSS requested four 19 additional staff and. $290*, ooo-<to,._....,_ they say c9ntinue to work.on the GEIS 6n spent fuel.to accelerate, to more* it aiong £aster. because of the v~rious ~lips' and slides in the.

• waste management program....,._ national. waste management program.

It looks like spent fuel storage will be an accelerated program over in DOE and what we are trying to do here is accelerate our own efforts to proceed on the licensing of spent-fuel facilityo and away from reactor spent fuel facility.

Of the four, we calculated about two would be needed for the direct licensing eff6rt on an AFR, two would b~ nee4ed to do the work on the GEIS *;_to look at safety reviews of some DOE facilities unconnected with a dir~ct spent fuel storage facility.

So the four is a mixture of efforts in here.

Two for direct licensing of an AFR, two more to do associated work with the GEIS and othe~.efforts *"in this partic_ular area.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let me ask you.

Has NMSS made some effort to reprogram internally within its office?

MR. DIRCKS:

We have asked them that question, they claim they have taken a hard look at both sides of the house and they said they don't have any room t6 make.the move.

MR.,,GOSSICK:

I might say that they have had another problem over there that is not addressed here, but that._they

J.

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 have taken care*.of; I hqpe, *,:.>QUt of their own resources* and that is in thi~ materiat licen~ihg business *. That has.been in sort of bad shape.and *I believe you*moved some people

• • around.

COMMISSIONER :KENNEDY:*.

Only the three years to* my

,. cer,tain knowledge.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I was about to say still~

MR. GOSSICK: Ye's, still.

Can you give me the number of pE=ople who have been moved around from place to p_lace on.

MR. CUNNINGHAM:

Well, we are going through some reorganization and realignment indhow:'.the jobs are done and we have -the paperflow study starting to produce now, but we have put on materials licensing to help us catch.up a task force of, as I recally six people to help catch up.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

In other words, NMSS is asking for however many persons it is-~-

MR. GOSSICK:

They were asking for 13 and ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well; the BRG it is 7, but

• .the idea Huthese,::.a:te to.,coriieofrornto1;1tside of NMSS.

_MR. GOSSICK: Yes, that Is right.

They are saying they need these addition~lly.

MR. DIRCKS:

That's their idea.

On the second -round of this exercise, if you ask us to we might have other suggestions.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But in recommending seven are

l*

2 3

4.

5 6

7 8

'9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 you saying that you think that seven ought to come from

' OU ts ide NMSS?

MR. DIRCKS:

No.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Not necessarily?

XJ):R. DIRCKS:

We are saying, in this effort we thin)(

they should get some relief.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKJ:*

There are 7 positions that ought to be added, but they may come from outside NMSS and they may come from inside NMSS?

MR. DIRCKS: That'e right.,

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Has.this effort taken into account any estimate of the likely personne~ requirements *.

associated with these proposals or much wider 'NRC licensing involvement in the wastem~nagement'~usiness?

MR. GOSSICK:

No.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Has anybody made such an estimate?

MR. DIRCKS:

There have been estimates made, we did it ---

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Several.

MR. DIRCKS:

Yes, in connection with the Deutch Task Force ---

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We are going to get one of them*

this afternoon in connection with the waste,paper.

MR. GOSSICK:

I think that one is 62 people or something like that.

We think*that ~s an '80 number, at least

1 2

.. 3 A

5.

6 7

8 9,

10 11

12.

13 14 15 16 17

.18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22, an '80 problem rather than a '78.

• MR. DIRCKS:

And there were estimates in connection with the Q and A' s. that were submitted to the Hart commit tee*_.

• COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It depends on the language

• of the bill whether it i~ an 1 80 proble~~

MR. GOSSICK:

That's exactly right.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There should be no mistaking that,view!.and that problem when it is put before the Hill.

MR. GOSSICK:

Right, I agree~

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

But at any-rate this discussion does not relate to those waste management ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I just wanted to be sure there was a very clear differentiation.

MR. GOSSICK:

I guess at the earliest that would be a '79 problem, Commissioner Kennedy, not '78.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Okay.

MR. DIRCKS:

The only slight connection would be in the spent fuel business, but there, I think we are just trying to get ready to receive a spent fuel application, an AFR if it does come along and I am pretty sure it will be coming.

The radioisotopes licensing, the catch-up business there, that's why the Commission did vote to give them a substantial increase in '79, I think going from 37 people up to 47 people.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8*

9 io

11.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We also have a proposal before us to look at naturally occurring~

What's the effect of that?

23 MR. GOSSICK: I have forgotten the number, but there.was a number in *:the paper which I just don't recall.

MR. DIRCKS: As I recal,l it was a fairly sma';i.1

• number.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

On*the order of four or something like that sticks in* my mind.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But*that four is a relatively small number compared to:;2500, however, I* c;:l.o not consider it, let there be no mistake, in a relatively small number.

.MR. DIRCKS:

I think when we are saying small we are -

.COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It is $150,000 at least.

MR. GOSSICK: Right.

MR. DIRCKS:

I think we were small in comparison COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That is in personnel salary alone.

So it is like $350,000 or $400,000 that we are talking aboutoand those numbers are big enough to be interesting to me.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Should we turn to MR... DIRCKS:

We have one more *thing on waste management.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

So we have 62 and 4 and 66 people that we are talking about that we are looking at just over this little humic that we are dealing with right now, right?

So let's not forget that.

1 2

3 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24.

MR,. DIRCKS:

A final thing in.. the NMSS request was 5 additional staff and :about $1.1 million in the high level and transuranic waste program.

Two of these would be connected directly with the s~tting up the standards and criteri~, the regulatory base by which to license a high level wa~te rep~sitory.

In bur review we thought this was highly essential,<the c:program has run in to some delays and we think.two additional people there would allow the program to catch up to where we think it should be in relation to the DOE efforts al<;:mg these lines.

Of the 3 remaining positions in the request, two were for professionals to do licensing actions on the WIPF' facility~

We felt as though because the WIPP facility is still. in the area of somewhat of an indefinite state, it is there but we are not quite sure when applications will be forthcoming.

We thought that should-~

we recommended t.hat

• those two additional people not be given to NMSS now and take a look at it in the '80 budget review.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Those people in effect become part.or although probably a more certain part of that larger pool of potentially needed manpower in the waste management area when things on the legislative front clear a little bit.

MR. DIRCKS:

That's right.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So you end up with two there.

MR. DIRCKS:

The remaining position is a secretarial

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12

. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 position and we just tied to the licensing of WIPP and that went deferred too.

That's the seven positions of NMSS.

Now, the NRR.

CHAIRMAN HE~DRIE:

So far as you outlined *at the beginq~ng ~hat we*have talked abb~t are,.ijlthough re~l needs, relatively sma~l numbers of people.

It seems to me th.at reasonably a good hard look *is likely to reveal capacity to do these jobs, I *would think, likely within NMSS as a matter of fact with some looking, '.around for assistance from other*

office~, perhaps ~ome in spent fuel, but I think there are some things that can be done in the environmental -- site and environmental division in _NRR that would help relieve.

the manr>ower i_n there, but they are just not so large* that it seems to me, sort of major decisions.of the Commission on manpower allotmen~ that we need today.

I should tell the Commissioners that I have talked to Cliff about the NMSS situation briefly, spent more time talking to people in NRR to get a closer view for myself of the things that you are now aborit to have laid out for you~

-It is my viey.r that this is a rather different and significantly more serious situation and it is only handleable on the basis of rather larger temporary shifts of the staff resources.

So please go ahead, Bill.

MR. DIRCKS:

In NRR we~ I belietre we explained, we didn't expect to meet with them but they heard we were meeting

1 2

3

.4 5

6

1.

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 so them came in to talk to us.

They listed about six major areas in which they

• needed --

• o:r: 8 major areas in *which they *needed. support.

Six of these areas included per~onnel areas.

The biggest area that they came in on for additional support was in the area of case work.

And in*.. case

• work they. are talk.ing about operating licenses, principally, and in the area also of licensing amendments to operating plants.

I will jus~ go down and briefly summarize their request and then we can go back to the specific areas if that is all right with you.

They asked for 15 additional people in this area and what they are looking for ~s ~ short term support; a spurt of effort to get them over a severe backlog problem ind then discuss further some permanent_ resource help in_ fiscal '*79.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could I ask, when was it realized that NRR was in a fix?

MR~ DIRCKS:

We asked that qu~stion too.

From what I gather they appeared before the Budget process in the past couple of years, They have always been reduced somewhat from their request.

I think in : the *fiscal '*79 review. they came in and asked for 712 people'in their '79 review.

BRG reduced that to 643.

The EDO opted a couple of positions and the

• Commission reduced it to 625.

But the principal area in which they are asking for relief now, I believe, is in the operating

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 reactor side of the house.

They weren't touched too badly._in this area.

I think they were *reduced a *total of 11 positions from their request.

So between that time and now, and I guess COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: *But that's not case work.

MR. DIRCKS:

It is cise* work when you look at lice~sing amendments and operating licenses, I believe.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:'

I am looking at the summary in this paper that was pro~ided to us, ~aragraph ~-~

MR. CASE: *May.. tqe main course. approach the bench?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right.

_COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I just want to make sure I'm following ~hat you are saying.

I am looking at paragraph 8, page 2, and I see ~O~erating React6rs" down there with no number but some dollars.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Why don't we let Ed explain this.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I. just want to be sure I understand what he is saying.

MR. DIRCKS:

In the area of operating reactors, I think what I was dealing with was the old '79 budget request and L think we were using different terminology.

In operating plants, if I can get it right, that includes the Division of Operating Reactors and it slops over into case work.

Is that right Ed?

MR. CASE:

Well, the case work part of the problem is

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 in doing the safety reviews and environmental reviews for operating licertses..

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

OL's?

MR. CASE:

At the OL's.

COMMISSIONER_ l<~NNEDY:. That Is not operating reactors..

MR. CASE:

There *are probl.ems th'":l-t.develop in operating reactors that get transferred beca_use they have to be resolved, in*the operating license.reviews and conver~ely, there are problems that develop in the operating license_

review that have to be addressed in oper_ating reactors.

There is a considerable interaction between the two, but the way we budget they are separable items..

MR. DIRCKS: Yes, it is sort of s~bstantive technical work, I guess, is in the operating reactors and the case work is to get the amendments and things through.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well; are you.including.the amendments and so on in the case work?

MR. CASE: No, no.

COMMISSIONER-GILINSKY:

You are talking about construction peimits and operating licenses?

MR. CASE:

Right, as well as safety reviews for standard plants, environmental and safety reviews ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Right.

Pre-operational.

MR. CASE:

Pre-operational problems, and manpower need in that area.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 l!?

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

How is that case work increasin?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The base question here is sort of when did you would.youi;lay,cout for the Commission when it became*as clear as it now seems to you that in fact the available r~source.. -'.for dealing with..:..:.: well, the. casework load and to :some extent T lump the generic arid more important ahd crucial generic task ~ction plans in with those, because if they don't go you have a problems on the case work*.

MR. CASE:

Let me try to answer a number of questions that I though might occur to you in the process of the discussions.

I would like to start out by saying, because I believe this in all sincerity, over the last year, I and the division directors in NRR have become much b.etter managers of the processes that we use in developing oun products and the allocation and manpower needs to produce those products.

By those products, I mean producti acros~-the-board.

That is keeping the operating reactors safe by amending them as necessary to impose new conditions,'_.t.o take into account new information, by the safety and environmental reviews of construction permits, operating licenses* and standard plants; and by delivering solutions to generic* problems that are codified and addressed in our generic activities.

We didn't become these better managers, necessarily, because we *became born-again christians, we had better tools

1

• 2 3

4,.*

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 to do the job *. And those tools,included*a better definition of the products, better understanding of the allocation of

. manpower, that we use., to.develop these, projects,* particlila:ily because we have developed a better ~ccobntabilit~' system, in the manpower MPS, the Man Power System which reports back

• the manpow,er that we' use for *these projects.

1AncJexampJ.:e:2of the better de.finition, I b,elieve, is the generic technical activities.

In, the past ?udget years this has sort of been.an amorphous wqrk load and a manpower sink not well.defined... Over the last year.and a half :we have defined the tasks~ we have developed task action *plans,,

manpower needed to complete these tasks and :the schedules necessary to do it.. All across the board we had defined our ~roducts and our*reiources rieeded.

Over 90 percent of the NRR products are specifically outlined ~easurable items of work coming in and work going out.

• Ih this process we have developed a* much better picture of what we are doing and what w~ are not, doing with the resources that we have.

A little bit on the history of the budget process used in NRR and how we got.t9 where we are today.

I inherited a process that was used in the fJ7~and* ~78 budget and basically I used the same process in putting together the. '79 btidget.

The products were fairly well defined, however, the resources needed to develop these products and produce them

1 2

3 4

5

6.

7, 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31

\\

was _.not as well defined and that was principally* because we didn't have this manpower accounting system.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

When *did this become available?

MR. CASE:

Well, it has become* availabie in a much bet,te:i: _f9rm within the last ye,ar, al though i:t has been developing over the years,' *it 'has reached' the form where it is very useable.now and we think develops hard facts on what is needed and what can be done to_develop these problems.

In particular, what was used in: the '77~ '78 and '79

.budget which is causing us the most difficulty is the manpower loadings, th~t is, the manpower per unit needed to do the safety reviews of construction permits* an~ operating licenses and the same area, standardized plan-i:.s*.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What are those numbers?

MR. CASE:

The numbers that were used and I have Roger Mattson's numbers on the top of my mind.

In the budget p~ocess -- just for his.divisio~ although there was other work done in other divisions.

The number used for operating licenses was 2.2 per man years.

The MPS COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Per?

MR. CASE: Per OL.

The MPS data COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

2.2 man years per OL?

MR. CASE: For just that division.

5

'6 '

7' 8

9 10 11 12'

• 13 14 15 16

17.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well what is *the total per O,L?

MR~ *CASE:.. *Well, I w:ill have to give,y:ou HarC:,ld's contribution.

It was about 6. 2 man years total.. Six,and,:,.a

• . 'half.

COMMISSIONE~ GILINSKY: For the, s.afety part?

MR. CRUTCHFI~LD:

Safety and environmental.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And environmental?

MR.. CRUTCHFIELD: Yes.

MR. 'CASE:

Can I use my numbers, Commissioner,. because

• I have those in my mind.

.. I th.ink the. illustrate the problem.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Okay.

MR. CASE:

Roger's number:;is 2. 2.

The MPS CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That was the assumption used in the budget?

MR. CASE:

Right.

Over the iast severa:]: years, not just in the last year, but~the year before that and the year before that.

Those numbers were developed in the '74 era.

They were developed.at the time the standard review plans were being promulgated.. They were basically an e.stimate of what would be needed following the standard review plans for* these reviews.

Unfortunately, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Those my number, by the way?

MR. CASE:

Those are your number$, sir.

1 4

6 7

8 9

10

11.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And he wants to change them.

CHAlRMAN.HENDRIE:* It.raises *a fair amount of

.qu~stiohs, doesn't. it.

MR. CASE:

The MPS data, over the l~st three years COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Aren't you disqualified from this CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Only by a_geheral lack of confidence by any legal conflict.

MR. CASE:

In contrast to th~ 2.2 m~n years, the MPS number averaged over the last several years show 8.5 many years in the Division of Safety and Standards per OL review.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Wait a minute, say that*

again?

C_OMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

As contrasted to 2 ~ 2?

MR. CASE:

As contrasted to 2.2.

A factor of 4.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Wait, wait, wait.

2.2 has been the assumption for the past several years?

MR. CASE:

Yes, sir.

Per OL.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Now, what can you say about_

what*was actually expended over those years?

MR. CASE:

On the average 8.5.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Going back?

MR. CASE:

Several years.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And.~how*.do you know that?

1 2,.

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34

• MR.. CASE:

_r76, '77 and '78 data as I understand it.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

How do you know that?

MR. CASE:

We hav:e,extracted that from our Man Power Reporting system.

. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You did not know that before?

MR. CASE:

We knew that it was c6Ining up, but* I didn't have all of these numbers ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: On a factor of 4?

MR. CASE:

Yes.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Do you mean to say in 1975 we were. saying 2.2 when it was really 8 something?

CHAIRMAN_HENDRIE:

Not

+/-.hat long. ago.

MR. CASE:

I have the average for those *3Jyears.

Now, I.don't have it per year, I'm sure we have it available, but I have the average for those 3 years.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

So we have been: off by a factor of 4 for the last 4 years?

MR. CASE:

B-ut it has been climbing per year. :rt heavily weighted by the latter years.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Wait a minute.

If you have got the average for those years you must have the data?

What's the numbers?-

MR. CRUTCHFIELD:

We summed the data over the 3 or 4 year period, we looked at all of the data accumulated during

l

. 2

3.

4 5

6 8

9

10.

11 12 13 14 15 lp 17 1,8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that time frame(;;.'.,

Not. specific year-by:-year *

' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

So 'Y,OU dort It have numbers',

for '75* 'and '76 and '77.

• Xou just lumped it all together?

MR.. CRUTCHFIELD,:'

Yes.

COMMISSillONER GILINSKY: So it*may be* that it is

' CQncentra,ted --- : '

COMMISSIONER KENNE.DY: So,it, may. be all in 19 7 5?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or in 1978.

- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Now, wait a minute.* Denny, what

-years did you include in fact, in deri:v.ing the average?

MR. CASE:

We have more data that would indicate CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Wait;:,,wait-~--

• MR~ CRUTCHFIELD:

The 8 and a half number that Ro_ger used, we took,the MPS data from December of '75 up through like October of *j7_

We looked at the milestones that had been started. and completed during that time ;Era:rhe;. and from those milestones* we went to.the 8. and a half.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, well.:_ __

MR. CASE:

This is not to say that*.'We think or Roger doesn't think he.needs 8 and a half man years per OL.

He thinks with 5 and.a half man years he can do the job.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's only a factor of 2.

MR. CASE:

Only a factor of 2.

But that has a significafit a~fect on what we do these days, because most of our work load is in case work, is

1

• 2

'3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10, 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 operating lic~nse reviews.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let 'me ask you:

These are your numbers that may have been checked by some o'ther party or ()rganization?

MR. CASE:

• They are being checked *.. *

• I don** t. know how f;ar they have gotten,. bilt:.. our books are open.

MB,. CRUTCHFIELD:

We have worked with MIPC on.these numbers as well as some of the controller folks*.

So they have access to them, they are looking at them and they are discussing the numbers with the di visions and theL,branches and 'the divisions.

MR. CASE:

And this is part,of the on-going '80 budget process.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Now, can somebody -- let's make the assumption all:~these numbers are just right, okay?

MR. CASE:

Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Cah somebody explain to me how that could be?

What is the difference?

Not just assumptions.

It couldn't possibly be off by a factor of 4.

MR. CASE:

Oh, yes, the assumption ~ould.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Oh, come on.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sure.

MR. CASE:

With all due deference to the Chairman, yes.

The standard review plants had just been developed.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Since I in fact have some backgroun

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 in the matter, let me point this out.

. The *mart power cost per unit work, unit produc,t in NRR derived, for the most part, from work I did iri preparation f.or~ I guess it. would. have been the '74 budget~* That would haye been carried' but in late '.72 and in '73 and.through that~

t+/-I!le,*.peti~d and,,those techniques* were. necessary and r evoiv~d *

• the:tn:at that. time because the technical side of the reguiatory sia~f was going through a very substantial increase in man power.

There was a very substantial increase in the scope.of technical review going on that' was on a very steep curve*and it was quite difficult.to establish any sort of rational system

• .for. looking o'n out a couple of. years with regard to. man power.

We had then a systerri called, it seems:_:;to me it was called the RMS in which people attempted to put'down what they had worked on in a*given -- we divided the work iri the reviews up into discrete chunks.

Then you put down for a given case how much time you had put on a certain chunk and so on.

The cards were a great pain in the neck to fill out and I was always a.little worried about how good the data were, but we.

used the '72 and up to the.time that I produced the numbers, calendar '73 data frorri RMS to derive what seemed to be*the experience in terms of the man power that went in to each of these sub-task in producing the review.* Then we gatheredi.~up the branch chiefs and got everybody tightly by.the throat and established the man power goals for each of those tasks

1

. 2

.3 7

8 9

10*

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 which w~re based. obviously on the e_xperience record, but. also

.reflected some squee~ing of th*e throats.

I th1.nk by a~d large in view of t}:re uncertainty in

. the data and th_e evolving nature. of _the review process that they° weren't bad, *I{s~y, with a certain amount of pr:ilde.

At I

any_ rate they were reaso,nabl:i;rs.uccessful : in the. reviews for

'74.

Ml{. CASE: Now, Roger has gone through that same thing*

again, just recently and I bandhave him go through that.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The nature of.that review process has evolved through '73, '74 and in to '75.

We wrote the standard r.eview plans which, a1though they purported to

• reflect in fair p~rt what. the staff was* doing at the following feature:

They did fairly l'.!'e:fflect what the staff.was doing but they reflected ~hat the, staff was doing 6n all the c~ses.

. So if you were revie~ing a certain area, like the operator's

• glasses, what you found was that on any given case why they review the;left wing or they would review the right wing in considerable detail and not l6ok so hard at the other parts.

The standard review plan covers all of the parts of the operator's glasses and that meant that after that time on each review, by following the* standard

• review plan you covered all of the *parts.in each case.

Furthermore, there was a certain amount of leaning forward by the staff in writing the plans.

So I'm not surprised

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 that these unit loadings have gone up over time.

MR. CASE:

.And we do it branch~by-br~n6h to add up to these figures.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

The factor of 4 is pretty high.*

MR. CASE:

Can Roger give you some data that show~

this CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:

Let me get Peter's comment.

MR. BRADFORD: I need to understand one other piece of that.

The standard review plan still provides for an audit type review, doesn't it?

MR. CASE:

Yes.

In the sense that~~ don't go over all of the appli~ant~~ calculations and check everything.

COMMISSIONEg KENNEDY: It is therefore selective.

MR. CASE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And it is therefore not quite going over the entire range of things..

MR. CASE:

Well, it is a lot less than not quite, I would say.

COMMI'.SSIONER KENNEDY: It is a lot less than not quite.

MR. CASE:

Yes.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It takes some hundreds of engineers some hears to produce the full range of the plant and we clearly aren't at that level yet.

1 2

3 4

5

6.

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 MR.* CASE:

I would characterize it not unlike the compliance number, 1 percent.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:* *It there a quantifiable difference between the general competitive t~ings looked at

. when you were in the ~i.ng* of the glasses rr{a;de in the *review *

• compared to what you do not; under the standard review plans.

That is, if you*were doing.an au,dit if one slipped to 2 percent, for all possible items, are you now doing 1 that looks at 8 percent?

MR.*CASE:

I suppose.

It is probably roughly lineared with the increase.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think the inevitable nature of the standard review plan -- well,.in the days when we.were

• • doing custom reviews_ on the basis we were doing them in '7 3 and

'74, here would come a*series of Westinghouse plants, 1oi instance, and there were a number coming -- the house was full of these things, and so the first one that came along you seized the right wing of the glasses, looked hard at that and said, well, the rest of this looks okay, I won't look so much at that and that went down the line and right behind it for the reviewer, literally a week later or two weeks later or something like that, why pere came another one and now he grabs the bridge.

He has already got a good idea about the right wing, now he grabs the bridge and son on.

You get the standard review plan and the staff now has to face coming up to a hearing and being asked, have you

1 2

3 4

.5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 conformed to the standard review plan on this particular application since the review pla~* enumerates the whole set of glasses, they have to be able to answer yas, we followed the stand~rd review plan. Otherwise, you get'a certain amount*

of trouble in not following your.;9wn instructions.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:.Precisely what doe9 he -do now/ taking that pai~ of glasses, for example?

MR. CASE:

Conforms to the standard review plan.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, I under.stand that.

MR. MATTSON:

Conforms to the standard review plan, and the degree to which he spendp time in conforming with the standard review plan depends upon several things.

One, how many of those plants of th~t type.has he reviewed before or has the branch reviewed before.

Two, how contested is the hearing, that is, how many of the issues in the standard review plan hava been raised out~ide of the staff that he knows that he is going to have to provide a specific answer to.

What~s the recent operating experienc~,

what has he *:heard about that he thinks he had better check in this plant.

And of course, that' s_*subject to a lot of influences too, up and down tte management chain, various people _

will say, L,have an interest in this on this plant and tell the reviewer to check it on this plant and not tb miss it.

This process is described at the beginning of the standard review plan and it is not precise.

It is flexible.

I think

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 the result you have seen over the last several y~ars with the hightened public inierest in the process we are performing and the hightened contention in hearings and a rather negative experience with operating plans has caused it to _go up.,

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Is there really an increase in the number of contested hearings over the past few years?

MR. MATTSON: I have a chart that shows some trend_

information, I think that goes to your questio_n.

Ed, could you hand that around, pl~ase.

(Mr. Case distributed the reference chart.)

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let me ask you another question:

Isn't there some~inciease in efficiencies of having

~,standard revi~w plan?

MR. CASE:

It shows up in not so great a change in the CP reviews.

My problem is with the operating license reviews which were not reviewed COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It is only a factor of 4, that' the efficiency.

MR. CASE:

in accordance with the standard review plan at the construction permit stage, but must be reviewed against it because that is the only way people now.

review at the OL stage.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think there :'-:--;I think a considerable part of the difficulties at hand at the moment in

1

,4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 25 43 terms of time spent on these*OL reviews derives from the fact that y6u a~e reviewing them on the 'ba~is.of a faiily rigorbu~ review standard, namely, the review plaris.

These are pJants for.which the construction permit review was done

• • • a.t. an earlier time, a time proceeding. standard review plans: -

That is~ *we haven't gone fa~. enough' &long the,* ~im~ so that the OL applications are for plants where the construction permit review was done on the basis of the standard review,

.plant..

• M:R. MATTSON:

Or even some cases where the*oL*review started before the standard review plan:'land is still on-going.

.CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So you have got a set of operating licenses.where the review is of* necessity. being done to this more recently evolved higher standard and*it gets--* they_ are having to go back and to look at things which weren't dealt with in.the same way at the construction permit review time' and_

doing al awful lot of retreading,_I find.* This is a temporary stage, but has a lot to do, I think, with the vary high numbers in unit man-power_costs in each review.

MR. MATTSON:

If you could :Look at this chart for just a second and let me explain it. in words.

It is man days plotted on the left, hundreds of man days and the stage of review completed.-

So it is like a bar chart.

You see the docketing, their fir~t round of questions, sepond round of questions, SER, Safety Evaluation

1 2

3.

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44

\\

Repbrt, the SER ~upplement, and final~y, issuance of the_

operating license~

.Wf= took the 22 operating license case's *-which.have be~ri docketed since July of 1972 and as~igried 1.pbfnt per case.

That.point is the total number of man 9-~ys_e;xpendedby my-division 1:,hrqugl1 whatever step ih*the licensing, process that 9ase had r~acbed as of ~a~ch 1 ~f-t6i~ year, a~d,plotted it i:;>n this chart.

_, The_;n when we rlotted the poi,nt we put a date which correspondssto the date' of docketing.

If you* look at the far righthand side** of, _the chart you will see the early docket dates.

They start up 8/72, 2/73, 10/72, 3/73 and they cluster at the dotted line.~1mhat's the 503.man days which deJ:'.ives from the previous mari power loading factors.

Which is 2.2 man years.,per DSS.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That is either exactly or very

• close to the unit cost charts that go back to_ ---

• MR. MATTSON: That is your chart.

That _dotted line is the.previou~ estimate used in the '77, '78 and **79 budget process.

Now, generally, as the docket date come*s.forward in time the data points move upward.

You can see there are some exceptions to-that general statement.

The ones I want to concentrate on are the ones near the top of this.chart, the one highest at the.top, ANO_ 2, Arkansas. Nuclear_ One, Unit 2; North Anna Uni ts 1 and 2, Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2; Patch Unit 2, Cook is an estimate because it started so long ago-that rart of its review preceeds

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

45.

the MPS data.

Those are th.e. plants which dominate. the i;nan power data for the last year and a* half. If you look at those plants.you can speak to novel features of. the design 9r novel featu:t~s of the *review which cause them to be out.of proportion to other on-going* reviews.

ANO' 2, approximately 1500 man days* of that review are owing to the computer used in the' protection* sys tern for that reactor.

Firs b£ a kind, no on~

ever used it before, it was added between the CP and the OL.

North Anna, I don't think I need to recount the difficulties in that review.

Diablo Canyon, similarly.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Does that mean there are fees below that'factor report?

MR..

• CASE:

Yes, indeed, because to my* knowledge that is the. first time I have publicly expressed* my concern

• OVer this.

We talked about the fee schedule and I indicated that our current estimates were at least a factor of 2 higher than the fee schedule, which is based on these previous numbers.

MR. MATTSON:

I want to explain the dark line, just briefly.

That is the line that we will be coming forward with.

Mr. Case hasn't reviewed it or the BRG hasn't review it yet, but it is the line I'm proposing for the new man*power loading factors for DSS for the fiscal '80 budget.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That's the 5 and a half line?

~I

1

,2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 MR. MATTSON:

That's the 5 and a half line.

The numbers in the man years' sorn,ehow dqn I t look right, but that's the 'right line.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: To what extent, in your judgment' have~ __ these,,nurnbers g.rown because they should have.

.grown, and to what extent is it. because. things.:were. not as firmly in control as they shoulq have been?

MR. 'MATTSON:

I want to talk about some other data

• that I don't have a sheet in front of yo~*to answei~that question.

For the CPs and for the Standard Plants the change is not large, and in fact, for *the standard plants the total man years per plant review is considerably down from the previous estimates, not up~ down.

And those are part.6f our budget presentation for fiscal '80 and they will stand the test and eventually reach you.

I don't happen to have the chart.

I drew the chart because it is more germane to today's conversation of what's dominating my resource needs in DSS today.

The standard review plan worked for construction perrni ts, they went up slightly above the previous* estimate..

It worked lik~-gang-busters for the standard plants as they are down.

The assumption in '74 was that a standard design oL,balance.of plant and NSSS::.

If you took the two of them the total man days put in to it would be like four times a custom review.

In fact, it is corning out a little over two

1 2

3, 5*

6 7

8' 9

10 11 12

. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

,,20 21 22 23 24 25

• . 47' times.

So we have al~ost got. a factor of two"out of the standard review plin.ov~r the previo~s estimates derived in I j.

much 'the same way y;rith very.sketchy MPS data in the *early

• '70.

No pperating license experience with 1,000 megawatt machines, *these are the first ones~. And no experience w+/-th trying to ~ake ~* finding for each oi. these plants.in the latei years* as.. to how they stack up against a sta:r;idard review plan*

when they were never designed against a standard review plan and :~ever previciusly revi~wed. against a standard *review plan.

That Is what is' dominating my resourc~* needs today and this chart shows it.

CHAIRMAN aENDRIE:

I guess you would regard the CP and standard plant experience as in.dicating that i.f they were* not reasonabl_e management control of the review process then those portic;:rns of the would have.~had substantially increased.unit man power costs as well as the OL work?

MR. MATTSON:

That is implicit in what '.!Lsaid,*

although here is another big effect and that is the large number of outstanding generic _issues, the 44-As, l00Bs and Cs, whatever those numbers are.

At the construction permit stage, when you are using a standard review plan where there isn't a final resolution of those generic issues, usually what is done is to obtain a commitment from the applicant to resolve --

to take whatever the resolution is of that generic issue and

1 2

3 4

5*

6 8

9 10 11

• 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 meet it at the.OL.

We obtain that commitment, we close the bo6k on th~t issu~ and is~ue the constructi6n p~rmit~

• MR. CASK:

And.that doesn't take much review.eff5ort

• to do. just that~*,

MR. -MATT~ON:

At-the operating license.stage it. is

-:a little.bit diff~rent.

You have got an open generi6 issue. It would~'t be so,mething of

• interest.. to you if you didn't have safety impli-cations.

So you have to reabh some basis at the operatin~

li_cense for issuing the license, allowing the plant to go in to operation while you hold the book open on the longer term generic issue.

• that is, you find some. interim approach on each of these outstandiii.g safety issues.

It -is mµch like the job that Vic'.~Stello has day in and day out with operating plants, that is, deriving an interim basis f6r coniinu~d operation pen9ing' compietion of the generic issue.

That is another factor which is a large cause of these protracted

, operating license reviews.

MR. CASE:

.Now, let me answer your question another way, Commissioner Gilinsky.

If you look at the individual branches +/-n:Roger's shop and Harold's shop that make up these totals, you will not find that the increase is uniform among the branches.

Some, in fact if I remember the number from Harold's *shop, only 2 out of the 6 in the safety review have increased over the '73

1 2

3 4

5 6

7.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

,21 22 23 24 25 49 numbersJ Is that right, Harold?

MR. DENTON:

Yes.

MR. CASE~

So. it is branch-de~endent and it is

• ar*ea-dependent and therefore, I think, technicalogically.:i_ -

.dependent as to, why they have.gone up so much.

Another measure. of this, I believe, that *h.ave some valid~ty is this GAO report on the nuclear power plant licensing need for additicinal improvements.

As.a part of that study G:A,O s.urveyed,.the individual staff members by questionnaires an they were done anonymously in a professional way and the answer that they received, which is germane to this question concerned whether the time s.chedules affect the reviews in the very branches* in Roger's shop.

• Fif,ty two percent of those asked said that they moderately limit the scope and depth without excluding the important safety aspects.

Ten percent substantially limits the scope and depth to the extent that important;safety aspects cannot be reviewed, and 4 percent said they limited their' ability to deal with post-construction permit problems.

po some two-thirds felt that there was a.limitation put on the scope and extent of their review by the standard review plan, by the schedules, so that if you look at other questions that theyxwere asked they conclude that notwith-standing this limitation they think the plants are safe because of the overall conservatism inherent in nuclear power plant designs.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

. 50..

I would read this -- this is my personal opinion as a pretty good report.card on how well'we as managers are doing wli.en th.e pressui~*is on but.not*enough to push the*

cart before. the horse.or

-~.'.".'. I think it is about right.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

In view of the time, what :t. would like to do is.to have Bill summarize the* rest of the proposition h.ere very, briefly and.* then ---

MR. CASE:

Could I just say a few words --

we have

,g9t a bit in to the operating reactor:side and thE::! amendment question.

We do have a problem there.

Our backlog of operating license amendments.is increasing and we have man power data to show that people are workin'g in the operating reactor area in the proportion that wasEset forth in the budg~t.

And all this means to me is there is more work there than we budgeted for with the backlog of amendments increasing.

If. one*would use the -- I'll call it conventional approach in taking care of these amendments the manpower requirements that would come out of that for fiscal year '80 and fo~ the future would be quite, quite high~

I think a better approach to that problem which I would like some resources to address now,>is to get out of,,as much as we can, to reduce the backlog and the future backlog by changing our way of doing business so that we don't have that many amendments that we have to act on.

And that, I believe, ought

1 2

5 6

8 9

10 11 12

13.

. 14

. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 to be done in that area now to avoid problems for '7.9 and

'80.and beyorid +/-~ we dontiriue ~ith our present ~pptoa6h in this area.

Bill, go ahead.

<:;:HAIR.MAN HENDRit:'

A quick summary *. if you* would,. pleas MR. 'DIRCKS:

• Well,f' a quick su~a:ty is that out of*

the 43 positions that NRR requested, and* again you have to keep in mind this was a short-term, ~ix-month insert of*personne

• COMMISSIONER K:ENNEDY: Wher~ would*. you get a short term s~arch from 43 personnel?

MR. DIRCKS: *I think that is the important point, Commiss.ioner.

• These are not jus~ siots that are*being requested.

These are not just vacancies..

These are specific skills th~t they need to process specific cases~

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I understand that.

MR. DIRCKS:

I think what we have to do is go and screen the restc,of:~the agency and take a :1ook at oth~r off ices., not only within NMSS, but throughout the Commission to see if we ca*n identify skills arid try to pry these people loose after looking at the impact of what transfers might occur under this program and get them in to these jobs.

• MR. GOSSICK:

Let me give you an examp*le.of this kind of thing" thati-JL,_thi:iak we7have*'.:got to take a hard look at.

Suppose that the systematic review plan, maybe if we

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13

.14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 just slide that six mo.nths, not the provisional license, we probably ought to go.ahead with those, but by slipping

. the rest of it six months we could free. up a fairly sizeable number of probably th~ right kind of p~ople.

It is something we need to look at to.see whether that makes sense and bring it back to you and see if:the priorities *would seem rea~onable and I don't know that will wash or not, but it is the kind c;>f thing we have got to lbok at across the board.

Find the right kind of. people to put on 'this thing.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And there are people who have these skills to a greater and lesser degree:in.other offices.

MR. DIRCKS:

Some of these people are servicing require~ents in other offices that Ed might have laid on them a year or two years ago.

I think we need your help to identify what services you :may not need at least for the next year or so and that may free up resources too.

MR. CASE:

Right.

MR. DIRCKS:

To get down to.the 23, we did not give any relief in the decommissioning risk assess,ment and advance reactor portion of the request.

I think we discussed that with you, Ed, and I think you can live with that with pain.

MR. CASE:

Well, I must say very frankly what it means is that I won't do them if that is the connotation to live with it, I think.:these other prior needs are of much greater priority.

l 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 MR. DIRCKS:

I think we have gotten some help a11*ready in the decommissioning.area that could enable that p~ogram to go on rtght now.

A~ far as tech projects go, we felt.of the 6 positions requested, 6 should be gianted-.b~c~use of the buil4 up of tech projects and also sen~ric issue~~

MR. CASE:

These are for specific category A

'technical activities that.are not now progressing because of

'the man power is not available, the speciilized man power.. :

MR. DIRCKS:

And in our memo I think we.. !ident'ified some, the due dates and the possible slippa~e of some of these.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I hate to r:ecall this,.

it was possible for '79, but we had a cl.ear and unquesti,oned commitment there, it must have been for '79, that the resources being provided, the result of that extra service was going to

!?rovide a.certain specific delineated number of dedicated people, 'dedicated to the generic issue question.

MR., CASE:

Yes, sir, and if I look at my oh, '78 at least -- the number of man years that I programmed for generic technical activities and those that have. be~n actually spent, those numbers are within a wash.

I am meeting those commitments, some of them, but I don't have the bodies to work on them.

So I am puttip.g the man power-in, but some of the critical ones I can't move because of the need to use these people in operating license reviews and that is a

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 pigher priority need, in our judgment~

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:*" This pape:i::-. says that NRR rgques~ed 6 professionals for spedific disciplines for a six month period to maintain current schedules on.Category A past action plans.

Little or no effort is ~eing extended *upon these issues because man power has been diver,ted to higher priority tasks such as this one.

MR. CASE:

On*those particular ones.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Oh, only the specific ones?

I had gotten the distinct impression we were talking about Category A and past action plans.

of BRG.

MR. DIRCKS:

Not all on these specific cases here.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Only these 6?

MR. DIRCKS:

That 1* is the feeling that we got out CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, according to one sheet yo:u provided me here,*/your belief is that at the moment you have got something.in the whole shop the equivalent of 200 people working on technical projects.

MR.CCASE:

Right.

And the MPS data shows COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Do we have a copy of such data?

MR. CASE:

No.

MR. MATTSON:

That's not all generic Category A.

You

1

• 2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 have to be careful when you draw th~ dis~inction CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, the whole rang~ of technical projects, but it does reflect*it for that category of work, type of work in the organization of what was projected to go in. to it and what seems to go in'to it.

MR. DIRCKS*:

The Deriton Task Force Report, as you recall, laid out not only a process to increase the efficiency of licensing and based on :that was certain:'. needed., tasks~:

For example, the upgrading of. the standard review plan.

we*

believe that the addition of 6 people to this effort would be worth while, not only to get some action done on the Denton Task Force Report, but also to lat. the g~oundwoFk for improved processes in *the licensing effort down the track.

We think the improvement of this thing is essential.

In the case work area, we looked at the 15 that were requested.

We did an analysis which is contained in the_

paper and the chart attached to our memo to Lee,.where we think that some of these slips that were identified by and could be tolerated because of some slippa~e in fuel loading dates and so.. o'n.

But we think out of the 15, 11 additional people would be required to meet the essential dtieJ.dates that we have outlined in that chart.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If I can go on and try to clean up so that the Commissioners can at least get a chance at lunch before we gather on what may be fully as difficult a

1 2

3 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 subject in another area this*after noon.

Lee, you. reviewed* th.e Budget Revi£=w Groups calling out and recomme*~qed that in the categories where the Budget Review ~roup had believed that indeed some additional resource* was needed, that you would recommend th,e people-.

.r~quested by the office rather than r_educed amount, so it is 30*instead of 23.

MR. GOSSICK:

I would like to just say.where I would think that there might be some basis for *that.

• I guesJ ~irst of all, I am a little nervous about this six month commitment.

I don't want to be too tight nor too generous either~ for that matter,.but.I *want to make damn sure that that six _month co:mmi tment is made, when w.e put these people we can look forward arid track it and we are going to have to track progress a!lildrriake sure that we get the job done that we say we.are going to do with this application of resources.

I think that ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Is it really realistic to talk about six ~onths?

I mean, you get somebody in for six months and there is a certain sta~t up time..

MR. GOSSICK: ~:'Well, this depends again in getting people that are sort of already running, that is* people that are perhaps doing other things.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But six months is not a precise

1 2,

3:,

4 5

6 7'

8 9

.10 11 12 13 I

14 J..5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57,;

definition of the time~

It is a characteristic tim~ +/-n the sehse -that it is* six months rather than two years.or permanent.'

But whether it turns:out to be six months or eight or something like that*, '.( think we *have to understand that,that is' slack.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

, The importance is what affect it is, going to have I 79 '*'

on MR. GOSSICK: Yes, that is exactly' right.

COMMISSIONER KENNE,DY.:

I guess I didn't see that yet.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:, Let ine make a recommendation to the Commis'sion here in °hopes that we can* summarize the meeting.

I hive been considerably concerned about and looking at the licensing schedule meetings.

What I discE=r:q is 'that there has been steady qlippage down the line in those affffirs.

Each month as I review those things, why there seems to be*

darn near a month slippage of cases.

So' there has been evidence quite apart from the current exercise, to me, that some sort of regathering and application of resource was going to be need~d tci piovide some momentum to the *system and get it moving effectively forward; the current exercise focuses in some more detail. ori, both* the causes and the,2need.

It seems to me well within the agency's capabilities in principl~ 1 at least, to recognize the need for a strong effort of a limited duration of less than a year to provide necessary impetus, get some things done, provide some momentum in an area which is the central and an essential part

1 2

3 7

8

,9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 58 of the agency business.

Now,*. it means that _the. offices that would be asked '

eventually t'? surrender specific people-have a certain amount of pai~s and it. means an impact on the

• things tha_t.they are

• doing and tha_t 0

.fs very clear.

Nevertheless, it seems _tome*

th~t out of the *SpEead with th'.:Ls, staff, we ought to be able to marshal*up some resourceswhich in number constitute something like a fradtion over one percent of the iof~l, staff and gather them in.

What' I recommend to the Commission is the following:

This has been a useful discussiort of the problem, an int~o-duction to the problem.. Whatever recc:immendation, the BRG document,reco:mmendation from the EDO and there has hot been a look on the staff side at where the resources inight gather.

.. from and what the impacts might be; I woul_d reco'mmend that

-we ask.the_BRG and the EDO to go forward and make some surveys and see whe:t'e the resources might lie and at the same time they can also look again at ---

COMMISSIONER-KENNEDY:

With an impact analysis.

MR. ~OSSICK: Oh, yes~

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, it is essential~.that we know what to give up in order to do this and so on.

And they can also look again at the proposed numbers here, because I am not convinced that all of these have been precisely the right numbers of people here.

In fact, my

1 2

3 4

5 6,

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 impression would be if we are going to try to gather a force to~ether 'arid make an assault cin these problems and.make a useful dent in it thcit I w6uld prefer to error a little bit on the high man power side than the low, and have.the effort just not quite make it.

I would much'rather have it o:ver run its objective a little bit.t~an under run it.

So I recommend that we not take. any thought of d~finitive action here,'but with your agreement would ask EDO and the ]?RG and the other offices concerned to go forward on that basis and come back as soon as they reasonably can.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

With a plan.

We are not sending out the press gangs just yet.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

No, that's right.

The Shanghai operations won'.t start until a whistle is blown and I.

believe we possess the whistle.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I agree with that as far as it goes.

I do have som~.. other questions and I would make it easier by putting them down and shipping them out to Lee qnd Ed.for their answers.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, or you may want to ask them to come in and discuss them with you if that would be easier.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: They are in the direction of getting, at least to me, a better understanding of how the Commission, like this ops.thing here, might want to keep a tighter handle on the year in and year out estimates.

1 2

3,,

4 5

6 7'*

8 9

10 11 12 I

13 14' 15 16

17.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 CHAIRMAN HENDRI.E:

• That's ri~ht.

, There are I

implications here for the,,future operation of the agency in these.. i~pacted areas wh.ich we haven't. really addresse.d.

That is we,c:).re *talking. now about a temporary ta*sk force effort to g~t ove-r.an immediate problem, but.the problem won't go away,'

it wi11*ieoccur and it {s*the ~atter of dealing and cutting:

off that reocctirrahce is a longer range aipect than

.we are.

going to have to deal with it. It is very importanL COMMISSIONER c;:ii.-:n~'skY:*-.. I' wond'er if we. could have:

-~._ -.. **.-*-

a tentativ~ lo~k at these numbers by Norm Haller MR. CASE: He is,-he's doing it now.

MR. GOSSICK:

Yes., he and Steve H'.anauer, and L.eri, Barry and others.are going to do it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:* Okay, thank you very much.

(Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 12:40 noon.)

J